"No Fences: Pharisees, Philosophers, Legalists, and Jesus" Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Do What?

We have discussed how the Council of Jerusalem made the ruling that Gentile believers were to refrain from eating blood (or perhaps murdering people), from eating things strangled, from idolatry, and from sexual immorality. Paul said, without directly challenging them on that, that whatever was sold at the meat market was fine and not to ask too many questions. Unless they were buying from a kosher butcher, in that society the meat was quite possibly strangled (therefore killed with the blood still in it rather than draining it per Old Testament regulations) in a ritual to an idol. Paul made no mention of blood eating. Is this because he, as a former Pharisee, would have considered that obvious given Gentile God-fearer familiarity with the Septuagint? (The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Jesus preferred its rendition of Psalm 8:2 in Matthew 21:16. It was a translation authoritative enough for the author of Hebrews to quote from repeatedly. Pastors in the early Church quoted from it just like your pastor reads Bible verses now in a language you understand.) Or, did he see the rending of the veil in the Temple at the Crucifixion as a definite end of the Old Testament sacrificial system, with Leviticus 17:11 being set aside per Hebrews 8:13? Did his understanding of the truths recorded in Mark 7, Acts 10, and Romans 14 allow the consumption of blood in addition to meats formerly considered unclean? Some believers won't eat rare steak. I distinguish between myoglobin and blood. The patriarchs probably couldn't achieve a perfect "well-done" with the uneven heating technologies they had access to, so I take the instructions about draining blood at face value; they didn't drain myoglobin. Other believers avoid reading the Old Testament altogether, they read the "blood" in Acts 15 as murder, they focus hard on Jesus' words in Mark 7, and they eat blood sausages. What do I have to say about that? Let me check Romans 14:4. No comment. Wait, Paul called for the excommunication of believers who were engaged in sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 5, so why not pursue the sin of blood-eating as vehemently? Because in the case of sausages, it is debatable whether it’s biblically “blood” anymore. “The life is in the blood” per (Leviticus 17:11); if I allowed someone to transfuse the contents of a sausage into my bloodstream, I would have a stroke and die. It seems that we are at least a step away from consuming blood (which would have been done in a pagan ritual to absorb the power and virility of a bull, etc.,) by Paul’s yardstick. The Catholic Church lifted their blood-eating prohibition in the fifteenth century at the Council of Florence by somehow invoking a local lack of Jewish people to convert and quoting Titus 1:15: “to the clean, all things are clean”. Some use that same formula for sexuality to the horror of the aforementioned Catholics, and we’ll examine what Jesus (John 8) and Paul (1 Corinthians 5) said about things like that later in this book. For today’s applications of the Acts 15:20 rule about eating blood: Would I serve medium-rare steak to a believer who objects? No, and if I know their objections beforehand, I'd order well-done for myself when eating with them if friction could be avoided. I know I'm being repetitive, but it's to reinforce the pattern. Check all the Scripture and its nuances and context, listen to the Spirit, and have concern for a weaker brother. In the truth of Christ, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, love. 

There are Christians on either side of most any question. I grew up in a legalistic tradition, so let’s address a number of contemporary issues among Christians that have solutions that could have been mostly forbidden to me had I not read a Bible:

Some believers don't drink. Yes, drunkenness is warned against in the New Testament. However, let's apply more Scripture than a few words out of context and see where we end up. Who warned against "drunkenness"? Paul, who had a four-drink minimum every Passover since he was twelve. People had wine at every meal back then because of bad water supplies. Whom did Paul warn against "drunkenness"? Former pagans who used to go to the Temple of Dionysus, the god of wine, and drink until they blacked out so that the "god" would fill and control them. Doesn't being filled and controlled by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18) sound much better? We live in a world with cars now. Drunk driving is a Romans 13 "obey the government" issue. Don't endanger other people. However, being unsafe to operate a 3,000 pound weapon is not the "drunkenness" the original audience would have understood. Drunkenness isn’t on the Noahide list, you say? A willingness not to know whether you made vows in God’s Name is a willingness to swear falsely. Don't get so drunk that you father your own grandchildren like Lot did in Genesis 19, and being willing to drink to a blackout is a willingness to risk doing that. Don't nap in a gutter due to alcoholism like Frank Gallagher on “Shameless” if you have any say in the matter; you’re an ambassador for Christ (Colossians 3:17). Psalm 104:15 has been traditionally interpreted by Jews and Catholics that it's not a party without alcohol. Proverbs 31:6-7 endorses alcohol for the hard times, too. Some of my best witnessing has been over a few pints; it might be your best chance to get past your unbelieving friends’ pseudo-intellectual walls. I’ve been sober now (apart from rare social gatherings) for quite some time, but that was a personal choice based on the physiological effects of alcohol that got worse after age 40 and not a religious obligation. Jesus' first miracle was providing at least 120 gallons of wine to people that were already what modern people would call drunk (John 2). Sinless Jesus went to many dinners with many sinners, to the extent of being called a glutton and a drunkard (Matthew 11:19); if He did nothing wrong, who are we to criticize what his tablemates did? The condemnations of drunkenness in the Old Testament were for 1) priests on duty, so they didn't get zapped for making mistakes with holiness and 2) leaders, who should have been leading instead of partying, and who shouldn't have been taxing their people heavily enough to stay as hammered as described in Isaiah all the time. Isaiah 1:22 speaks disapprovingly of watered-down wine, so modern condemnations of "strong drink" distilled to concentrations not available in biblical times are probably less important than the level of inebriation reached. Know your limits and drink responsibly, if you choose to. Now it's time to consider when not to: Am I going to drink in front of recovering alcoholics? The grape juice Communion elements that are derided as illegitimate among some traditional denominations began out of concern for weaker brothers such as this. Am I going to scandalize traditional-minded believing acquaintances with my behavior anywhere near them? Or generate stories that will do likewise? No. Additionally, plants are declared good at the front of the Bible and medicinal at the end of the Bible. I think lighting them on fire and breathing them is weird, but I have no grounds to judge those that think otherwise (apart from Romans 13’s required obedience to the government, the high expenses to families for cancer treatments for tobacco smokers, lost potential wealth that could have been invested or donated, unloving exposure of others to secondhand smoke against their will, etc.). Drug-assisted hallucinogenic idolatry would have been the behavior the apostles prohibited as “sorcery” in that historical and cultural context. 

On the subject of profanity, on one hand we are supposed to only say things that are helpful (Ephesians 4:29). On the other hand, Paul says what American readers would recognize as the "s-word" in Philippians 3:8. Everything is worth a big, steaming pile of it next to knowing Christ. In the ancient world, sinning with speech was less about a list of dirty words, and more about blasphemies, false oaths in the Name of the true God, any oaths in the names of false gods, and calling down actual curses on people. For example, remember when Jacob said to let whoever stole Laban's idols die in Genesis 31:32? And then Rachel did? That's what Proverbs 26:2 is getting toward about an undeserved curse not landing. Even saying true but hurtful things was frowned upon; it is the intent to harm that matters. For such a lashon hara Miriam was temporarily a leper (Numbers 12). Calling curses upon God and the rulers was illegal (Exodus 22:28). Telling humorous parables about the rulers seemed to be okay (Judges 9:1-21). Being gross or emphatic like Paul may be part of being genuine in some circles. Don't scandalize traditional-minded believers by going into your grandmother's house saying words they don't want to hear. Do the loving thing.  

Politics, sex, religion, and money all used to be inappropriate topics of conversation (as those things can be pretty divisive), and all of those arguments are fundamentally religious arguments. For example, tikkun olam is “repairing the world” from Mishnah, and it is a Reform Judaism notion of amending even the Law to keep society “well-functioning”. It’s similar to a thought in the Amidah Prayer (similar to the “Lord’s Prayer”); asking for His Kingdom to come and for His will to be done somehow became God looking for partners to establish the Millennial Kingdom through generally left-leaning politics, in their view. This also rhymes with the Kabbalist notion of returning Divine Sparks to their Source as a form of world repair. The more politically conservative element within Judaism says that free markets and private tzedakah (charity) provide the greatest good to the public and the greatest reward from God. Christians are free to have political opinions or to wait for Jesus Christ to return and conquer/replace the world; we love each other and preach about Him in the interim. See Psalm 102:25-26. 

There are Christians who think contact sports are unsuitable for us. After all, coveting a title and being willing to harm each other physically couldn't be loving, right? On the other hand, Paul says we can emulate him as an example of Christian behavior (1 Corinthians 11:1). Why would Paul use boxing as a sermon example (1 Corinthians 9:26, 2 Timothy 4:7) if it were off-limits to us? Ancient Greek boxing was more like a striking-heavy MMA match from today. Eye gouges were prohibited, but no one wore padding, and ground-and-pound was the norm. Nowadays, people think that consent and man-made rules can circumvent God's rules about sexuality. However, in sports and other pastimes not otherwise forbidden in Scripture, consent and rules mean a world of difference between what is essentially entertainment that can distract people from their troubles and a brutal mugging in the parking lot outside the arena after the match is over. Biblical love is less a warm, fuzzy emotional state than it is loyal actions (in Hebrew, hesed); it's doing right by others even if they are not a friend to us. We are to look out for each other as bearers of God's Image, but dangerous activities like lumberjacking are still approved of in the Bible (Deuteronomy 19:5). You can love your neighbor as much as yourself while doing your best in a fair physical contest in which either of you could be victorious, bearing no ill will afterward regardless of the outcome, still being willing to consider donating to your opponent's crowdfunding campaign should they experience a mishap in life, etc.   

Let's consider an oft-maligned form of athletic performance art: professional wrestling. Is it even lying anymore if we're all in on the outcomes being predetermined? Wrestling at least admits that the performers may not be behaving according to their true personalities; everyone is just trying to make as much money as possible by capitalizing on the audience’s emotions and recent trends in the zeitgeist. There’s a whole world of entertainment, politics, news, etc., occupying so much headspace in our “real” world doing the same thing, but desperately trying to make you believe that the talking heads are being genuine. Let’s look back: in the days of the New Testament, convicted criminals fought each other to the death in stomach-turning spectacles. Now, acrobats looking out for each other's well-being distract us from our troubles with artistic performances and set records for visiting Make-A-Wish kids in their off time. When Brodie Lee died of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, Big E and Cody Rhodes spent Christmas sitting with Brodie's young son. At the time of this writing, the company his father worked for lets the child be the on-screen manager of his father's friends. This is wolf-lying-down-with-lamb stuff (Isaiah 11:6-9). In Genesis 32, Jacob wrestled with God. Some say it was an angel, others say it was the pre-Incarnate Christ. If it were a fight, God would have been able to destroy Jacob immediately, but this was a wrestling match with rules and Jacob (a known liar and cheater) wouldn't let God win. Since he made his debut pulling on his brother's heel, being a "heel" (bad guy) wrestler is no surprise. As a result of this encounter, Jacob was renamed Israel or "Wrestles With God". Names often mean destinies in the Bible, and the way Israel got its identity is a big deal. The funny thing about "heel" wrestlers is that if the crowd finds something to like about them and they start getting cheered, the promoter will start writing their story as if they were a "face" (good guy). Their disposition may not change a lot all at once, but they will naturally stop doing things that will make the crowd boo them and ruin their t-shirt sales. Do you see our story in that? We were born heels in Adam and dead in our sins. Thanks to what Jesus did for us, we are now faces (whether we know it yet or not), and our actions will reflect that; we will either express Christ and be fulfilled, or sin and feel miserable. The cloud of witnesses in Heaven cheers us on (Hebrews 12:1-2). If acting and storytelling were the same as the lying God doesn’t like, wouldn’t 1 Kings 20:38-42 be different.?  In 1 Kings 20:37, a prophet even gets “busted open” (to borrow wrestling jargon) in order to tell a story more convincingly. Will a believer get amped up enough to try to stick a performer with a hat pin, like some little old ladies tried to do at the Mid-South Coliseum? I bring up this amusing anecdote to say that in general, believers are noticeably more at peace than they were prior to gaining the new life. If something would have riled up the old you to a 10 on the grumpy scale, it might get you to a 5 before you get a chance to think about it (and then it will fall off pretty quickly) now that you understand your own sainthood. Consider the size of Paul's abstraction: If you can eat grocery store meat formerly sacrificed to idols, then watching actors and wrestlers pretend to hate and fight cannot be a problem. When I was a child, I loved The A-Team. The legalists tried to steer us away from depictions of violence, lying, etc., but let’s look at four chaotically good fellows who defied social norms in Mark 2. Faced with a huge crowd, they tore a hole in someone’s roof to get their paralyzed friend to Jesus in order for him to be healed. In addition to the stated destruction of property, do you think everyone else just let that happen? Or might there perhaps have been some stealth, fibbing, shoving, intimidation, etc. in service of a good cause? Their faith was counted as righteousness as far as granting the request to heal their friend, so their hearts were in the right place.

May we gamble? After all, games of chance are prime opportunities for cheating, coveting, and starting fights. Casino games' odds favor the house, so they're a way to transfer money from your pocket to theirs. People with poor self-control and addiction issues fall into betting rent money, their children's food money, etc. For people without those problems, surely money that can be treated as disposable could be put to better use supporting persecuted Christians and advancing the Gospel, right? Plus, Roman soldiers gambled for Jesus' clothes at the Crucifixion. However, on numerous occasions throughout the Bible God's people have thrown dice as a way to ask God's will. (We have the Bible and the Holy Spirit now for that, by the way.) Thinkers like Wesley have historically used the line about money having better uses than that as a way to ban all forms of entertainment, including the sports and parties Jesus and Paul spoke of with approval in their sermons. Ultimately, your money is your money (Acts 5:4), and you can be as smart and altruistic with it as you wish. Assuming it is legal where you are (Romans 13), and everyone knows what they are doing, plays fairly, and can afford it, wagering can be just another hobby. Don't scandalize anyone with your behavior, and always have concern for the weaker brother, but you are free in Christ.  

Must we be utter pacifists? Jesus told His Jewish students to turn the other cheek in the Sermon on the Mount. In that culture and in that day, a slap was more of an insult than a physical attack. The notion of not "resisting" an evildoer is from Psalm 37. Over there, it's "don't be vexed by" an evildoer. We don't plot revenge for insults, pilfering, etc., because vengeance is God's, and He will repay (Deuteronomy 32:35). He has called dibs on vengeance, and we stay off of His throne. Read the plagues of Egypt, Deuteronomy 28, or Revelation to rest assured that whatever He chooses to do about what was done to you will outdo anything you'd like to in a moment of fleshliness. We can see in Job that He pays double to His people for our troubles. (He's going to burn this whole physical reality and replace it with a better one for us, and that's why Christians are naturally generous. We're like an orphan happily handing out his socks to the other kids at the orphanage because he's getting adopted today, and he knows that there's much better stuff at his new home.) However, God's people were never called to complete pacifism. The principle of preserving human lives because we are made in the Image of God extended to protecting ourselves and others from attacks. Killing an attempted murderer to stop him was not questioned because if he were successful, Genesis 9:6 would have demanded his death anyway. (It is this same principle at work in the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. As for the broader topic of abortion, another author summed most other cases up as a human sacrifice to the god of convenience featuring the most helpless and innocent victim by human standards being killed by his or her own mother and a doctor who has sworn to do no harm, and it is hard to think of something that would excite the Accuser more.) Being martyred for a greater love of God and laying your life down for love of neighbor are exceptions derived from the two greatest commands in the Law; the default position has always been closer to the times God helped Abraham (Genesis 14) and David (1 Samuel 30) go kill kidnappers to get their people back, which is one historical justification for the concept of a “just war”. Why would God train warriors (2 Samuel 22:35, Psalm 18:34, and Psalm 144:1) if he always opposes that sort of thing? Many believers have trouble reconciling God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites with the popular understanding of these matters, but all Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17), even the Book of Joshua. Jesus (Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name that we call Joshua in English, coincidentally) told His disciples that they would need swords (Luke 22:36) as they spread the word. When He said "That's enough" it can be read as "That's enough talk" rather than "That's enough swords". Plus, the legitimate use of force by governments and militaries is upheld even in Romans 13 (and even John the Baptist didn’t disarm Roman soldiers in Luke 3). Finally, would Paul have gone on about the Armor of God and the Sword of the Spirit in Ephesians 6 if fighting were forbidden in all contexts? A modern pastor hopefully wouldn't tell you to hold the Flame of Love to the Rock of Good Deeds and breathe deeply through the Crack Pipe of Faith, would he? If you choose to be a responsible gun owner as allowed by your government (Romans 13), be safe, don't harm anyone outside the scenarios God's traditional character allows, don't scandalize anyone with your behavior, and don't get into heated arguments with believers that think differently.  

Tithing is mentioned in two contexts in the New Testament. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for tithing their windowsill garden products but neglecting weightier matters of the Law like mercy (Matthew 23:23). This teaches us that tithing is a matter of the Law, and we're not under the Law (Romans 6:14) because Christ is the end of the Law for believers (Romans 10:4). The other place tithing is mentioned is in Hebrews when the author mentions the time Abraham gave ten percent of the loot he got killing bandits to Melchizedek once. The author of Hebrews used this example to prove the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek (a role filled forever for us by Christ now) to that of the Levites; in short, to prove we're not under the Law which includes tithing. Levites’ property was severely restricted to keep them focused on their role in the Temple system; modern pastors have houses, cars, book deals, jets, etc. Don’t get suckered into following half of a command that has been set aside (Hebrews 8:13). In 2 Corinthians 8 and 2 Corinthians 9, we find that we're free to give out of our abundance what we would like to (cheerfully, at that) in order to meet pressing needs. Jesus fed more people (five thousand vs. four thousand) with fewer loaves and fishes. Antics like “The church doors are locked and no one leaves until everyone donates another $20” provide opportunities to use the wisdom God gave us to discern the difference between a worship service and a stick-up. For any given verse, look for the speaker, the audience, and the context. When Paul talks about the "rich" in 1 Timothy 6, that is translated from the Greek plousios which means abundantly wealthy, having more money that you'd probably know what to do with; rich like Pluto the Roman god (or Scrooge McDuck, for those who haven't studied Roman fairy tales). When the modern equivalent of a Roman collaborator land baron starts a charitable foundation (and it's not a cynical tax avoidance scheme), then the Spirit may be at work. If you have the illusion of ownership in some companies in a retirement account, if you feel the effects of inflation on your budget, and especially if anyone can still call you an employee, you don't have to worry about plousios. Read Genesis 47 to find that based on your property tax, income tax, mortgage, etc., you’re probably a “slave” to someone by this definition. Doctors were "slaves" when the New Testament was written. We are supposed to owe no one anything but to love them (Romans 13:8), so staying out of debt and building a strong enough portfolio to avoid becoming a bum in your old age are important. (Being content with what you have in Hebrews 13:5 isn’t a prohibition of professional ambition, it was aimed at people tempted to renounce Christ to return to the synagogue for the associated social support and job opportunities.) Yes, it's okay to retire. If we are to "owe no one but to love them" then getting free from debt is a legitimate concern. Don't give more than you can afford to. Paul said to get free if you can (1 Corinthians 7:21, and someone giving everything away wouldn’t be able to do that). Doctors nowadays keep extending our lifespans (through Frankenstein-esque means at times). In Bible times, people worked until they died or until their five sons took over the farming and supported them in their infirmity. The New Testament warnings against idleness (like in 2 Thessalonians 3) were directed at believers that thought Jesus was returning immediately. They had quit their jobs to wait for the end of the world, and they were becoming a drain on the productive members of the congregation. They mistook Him returning "quickly" like a flash of lightning with no time left to repent once He's started with Him returning "now". God is very merciful and has waited a long time (not for Him) for as many of us to be saved as can be (2 Peter 3:9). That being said, even though "idleness" was a nicety for "don't be a bum", energetic retirees are great for advancing the Kingdom.  

What about music? “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1), including awesome guitar riffs. Despite old fairy tales about people selling their souls to a devil for musical talent, all human attributes and skills come from God (Exodus 4:11, Exodus 35:30-35, and 1 Corinthians 4:7). Don’t give the enemy credit where it is not due, and don’t lessen your estimation of our Maker. If the lyrics dishonor God, and the Spirit moves you to change the channel, change the channel. This will also give you ample opportunities to pray that the musicians be granted opportunities to hear the Gospel. Some of the “vilest” sex-and-drugs-crazed blasphemers end up converting. In Matthew 12:31, we are told that “every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven”, and only always failing to follow the Holy Spirit’s leading to Christ aka “blasphemy against the Spirit” (considering His good to be evil as in Isaiah 5:20) will not be forgiven. God likes to use infamous former opponents of Jesus like Paul to spread the Gospel.  

I keep speaking of church unity, what about the unpleasant Christians? You may have, for example, some racist old people at your church or in your family. What to do about them? Yes, everyone's descended from Adam, God wants to save everybody, and we are to love one another. But we’re also supposed to love the unloving, too. This is slightly out of context, but Christ did call a Syro-Phoenician woman a dog, Paul called Greeks barbarians, and Simeon had a nickname that would get people “canceled” now. Getting wound up about wedge issues should usually take a backseat to unity in the body of Christ. Be kind to, pray for, and respect your elders as much as possible. On the other hand, if they actually hate fellow Christians, then it seems that they are not actually Christians (1 John 3:15 and 1 John 5:1). Be polite, but don’t partner with evil.   

May we dance, as Christians? That is an odd question for believers from most denominations. There was dancing at the party when the Prodigal Son returned home in Jesus' parable, and He wouldn't have confused us with that if it were a problem. David danced so hard when the Ark of the Covenant returned that he flashed a few girls. (Have you ever had that much fun at church? Explain.) Zephaniah 3:17 says God dances with joy over you. How did this become an issue? Well, dancing too closely (as considered by some people that "leave room for the Holy Spirit" ignoring the fact He's within you now, Believer) might lead to kissing (which in Bible days was a greeting, and it still is in much of the world). Kissing might lead to some other stuff, and babies might happen, so some denominations nip it all in the bud. Some call this godly wisdom, others see a Pharisee fence. You are free in Christ. Don't mock someone's convictions, get in a big argument over it, or take their daughters dancing if it would be an affront to Christian unity. Again, I know I'm being repetitive about not scandalizing other believers and having concern for the weaker brother, but Paul wrote more about keeping us all together, loving each other, and maintaining the public image of Christianity by not falling into a bunch of warring factions than he enumerated lists of bad behaviors. I've highlighted a few topics to demonstrate that a biblical view is often more nuanced than any one denomination's policy about it, and that despite any differences in opinion, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. We can walk in Christian freedom, and God is big enough to guide us with Scripture and the Holy Spirit.  

Other traditional-minded believers make gender an issue in places that the Bible does not. They might try to explain Deborah’s role in Judges 4:4 as an exception in the wild days of the Judges. However, let us not make the mistake of thinking women are not allowed to lead. God would not break His own rules. He can pick anyone He wants to speak for Him, including Balaam’s donkey, but Deborah did more than deliver messages; she sat in the same judgment seat that passed from Samuel to Saul and then to David. Saying women can’t lead or teach also creates problems with the story of Huldah the prophetess (2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34), the story about the wise woman who got the rebel beheaded (by convincing all the people in Abel, men included) in 2 Samuel 20, etc. Philip’s daughters prophesied (Acts 21:9), Phoebe was a deaconess (Romans 16:1), Priscilla helped teach Apollos (and I consider him a good candidate for the author of the Book of Hebrews), Junia was well regarded among the apostles, etc. The verses (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) about women remaining silent in a church service (despite the same author addressing the same congregation telling them to make sure a woman’s head was covered when praying or prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11) has a context. Even in some traditional congregations today, men sit on one side of the room while women and children sit on the other as in the historical synagogues. Paul telling women to ask their husbands at home was telling them not to yell across the room during the sermon. Many Bible translations title 1 Corinthians 14 “Order in Worship”, “Intelligibility in Worship”, etc. The other passage frequently quoted about this matter is 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and taking a verse out of context out of that chunk loses the meaning. 1 Timothy 2:2 introduces a theme of peace and quiet. 1 Timothy 2:8 continues with men free of strife. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 features women not going overboard with the new Christian egalitarianism (see Galatians 3:28) by dressing in whorish/ostentatious ways that would have been seen as disrespectful to their husbands. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is better translated including “wife” learning in quietness and submission; Paul did not permit a “wife” to “admonish” or “lord over” her “husband”, which is consistent with his treatment of Genesis. Wives were invented to help husbands, and that help can take many forms, including work outside the home (Proverbs 31). Wifely submission within marriage is a part of marriage being a depiction of Christ’s relationship with the Church (Ephesians 5), but not every woman has to take guff from every man. A summary for groups that think too much about these issues would be “complementarian within marriage, egalitarian elsewhere”.   

Some denominations treat divorce as an unforgivable sin. Marriage is a union that God created, so splitting up is not to be done lightly. Marriage is a depiction of Christ’s relationship with the Church; we worship Him alone, and He provides for us (Philippians 4:19) and protects us (Hebrews 7:25). Ephesians 5:21-33 explains Christian marriage. Many husbands want the verse 22 submission without the verse 25 laying-down-his-life-for-her and vice versa.  The “Church fathers” wrote many unbiblical things about this topic, including discouraging remarriage after the death of a spouse, which is plainly allowed (Romans 7:1-6). Staying single to better serve the Lord is a good option as well, but widows, widowers, and the biblically divorced are free to remarry if they wish. The Gospels contain references to Jewish practices and phrases like “for any cause” that would have been unfamiliar to anyone outside the Holy Land in those days. Oddly, thanks to archaeological finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls and old divorce documents with rabbinic commentary, we have more background to understand what Jesus and Paul were talking about than the 2nd century “fathers”. Believer, if at any point in the following discussion you think you may have had an unbiblical divorce, remember Numbers 30:3-8. Rather than focusing on the misogyny and paternalism in Iron Age texts, take comfort in being able to claim that as part of the Bride of Christ (the Church) and as a child of God, any rash vows you have ever made (including proclaiming someone was “the one”) were already nullified by the Omniscient One. Don’t abuse this freedom by trying to apply it proactively, please. The grace we live in is not cheap; Jesus gave everything for it. The grace we live in is not cheap; for us, it is free. However, if anyone tries to enforce the divorce teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (to 1st century Jews about how they all failed to keep the impossible standard of the Law of Moses, and how they needed grace per Romans 3:19) regarding your divorce situation, they are a hypocrite if they haven’t given away everything, and if they aren’t missing a hand and an eye. We all stumble in many ways (James 3:2); to be perfect like God (Matthew 5:48), we need Jesus Christ’s finished work on the Cross (Hebrews 10:14, 2 Corinthians 5:21).   

Many people have been encouraged to remain in abusive relationships because the Church traditionally only recognizes adultery and abandonment by an unbeliever as grounds for divorce. God takes care of the widows and orphans, so the divorce prohibition is in part against putting a woman in the street, and the adultery prohibition is in part against a child not being able to honor the right parents. Would Jesus, who said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, wish continued harm upon women and children toward maintaining a symbol of His love for the Church? People have been told to “turn the other cheek” when beaten; in context, that meant to endure insults rather than retaliate because God avenges (Deuteronomy 32:35). Genesis 2:24 and Leviticus 19:18 prohibit abuse in marriage for everyone but masochists. The Law of Moses freed slaves who had been brutalized (Exodus 21:26-27). The 1st century Jewish religious authorities endorsed lesser-to-greater arguments (and Jesus did too with his comparison of circumcision on the Sabbath to healing on the Sabbath in John 7:23; He also said these authorities were authorized Torah interpreters in Matthew 23:2-3), so they reasoned that since a slave could expect that, then a wife was not to expect any worse. Regarding a spouse who won’t listen to you, to the Church, and to Jesus, and who instead insists on acting like an unbeliever, Matthew 18:15-17 says to treat them as an unbeliever. Marrying an unbeliever is “unequal yoking”, and both Testaments discourage it (Deuteronomy 7:3, 2 Corinthians 6:14); Paul says you can let them go if they want out, and you can remarry (1 Corinthians 7:15). Paul said “in such cases” rather than “in this instance”, so literal abandonment by an unbeliever is just one application of valid divorce and remarriage. Driving you away is abandoning you, and saying they want to stay married to continue to abuse you is semantics. If Paul would have to hide in a basket and get lowered over a wall to run away from potential converts that act like your “spouse” (Acts 9:23-25), they have already abandoned you, and they are in violation of the marriage contract. The paperwork is a formality.   

Exodus 21:10-11 says that a concubine could be released for diminishing her portion of food, clothing, or shelter. The same groups that insist that Caleb and Joshua merely “lodged” at Rahab’s brothel somehow insist marital/conjugal rights are in this verse. David, who did right except for the Bathsheba incident per 1 Kings 15:5, also refrained from sexual relations with concubines his son had slept with in 2 Samuel 20:3. Plus, there’s no way marital/conjugal “frequency” stayed the same as the righteous polygamist patriarchs added wives (The Law covers several issues pertaining to having multiple wives rather than prohibiting the practice). Also, do you think God wanted all the old men to get divorced because Viagra hadn't been invented yet? To be blunt, all those old guys were capable of the same erection quality and frequency as at the beginning of their relationships? That’s what it would take to prevent reducing her portion by the prevailing modern interpretation of the text. Plus, the old adage about putting a penny in a jar for every sexual encounter in the first year of marriage and then subtracting one for every subsequent encounter over the course of the marriage reveals that most couples fail by that interpretation. Paul’s advice about withholding relations to enhance prayer life would be a problem as well. Therefore, what is owed is food, clothing, and shelter. Demanding relations from an unwilling partner regardless of gender is marital rape, unloving, un-Christian, etc. In the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 7:2 just says “have”, and translation teams added phrases like “sexual relations”. The “marital duty” or “conjugal duty” in some translation teams interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:3 is just the duties of marriage – wives help and obey, husbands provide, etc. See Ephesians 5:21-33. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:4 frames these obligations in the sense of being one flesh. 1 Corinthians 7:5 points out the importance of our relationship with God even though marriage naturally divides our focus (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). There will likely be pastors that oppose things I say later, and because of their stance on mandatory relations, I can safely say that they are rapists and supporters of rapists. 

Exodus 21:10-11 is about the treatment of a slave: Jewish lesser-to-greater argument posited that a wife is to be treated better than a slave, so even the Pharisees of Shammai’s school allowed divorce for physical abuse and neglect. Since a slave could expect food, clothing, and shelter, then a wife was not to expect any worse treatment than that. Ephesians 5:29 reiterates this principle. “For richer or for poorer” sounds like guys were trying to hedge their bets. 1 Timothy 5:8 says people who won’t provide for their families have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers, therefore spendthrifts wed to “sugar-mommas” are ripe for the Matthew 18:15-17 plus 1 Corinthians 7:15 two-punch. There doesn’t have to be a divorce; we’re just identifying circumstances in which an innocent party may initiate legal proceedings reflecting a relationship that has already died and then may subsequently remarry without committing adultery.   

The party that leaves is not necessarily the party that broke the one-flesh relationship. God (after being good to people who were not good to Him for a long time, unilaterally keeping His part of the covenant as the best example for us) wrote the certificate of divorce in Jeremiah 3:8, but Ezekiel 16 lists the ways God’s people had already broken faith with Him. At the end of Ezekiel 16 (and in Jeremiah 3:14), God took His wayward wife back as in 1 Corinthians 7:11. By the way, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 in context seems to address the Greek philosophy fans who had asked about being celibate for the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7:1 whom Paul placates in 1 Corinthians 7:5,29. Yes, God got a Deuteronomy 24:1-4 divorce, therefore Jesus did not disallow all of those. The subsequent remarriage is legal because of the truth of Isaiah 45:5: there is no other real god for them to marry, so there was no complication of a second marriage to prevent reconciliation. Malachi 2:14-16 is about dumping faithful Jewish wives to pick up pagan wives instead under a one-wife rule, and its intent is just as pro-endogamy as Ezra’s mass divorces. The God who hates divorce did not leave Abraham’s physical descendants forever per Paul’s argument in Romans 11, and He will never leave you nor forsake you. He won’t divorce you for being divorced.   

There are well-meaning Christian educators that think Moses snuck Deuteronomy 24:1-4 into the Law. What do you think the God that allowed Miriam to contract leprosy for saying true but critical things about Moses, that prevented Moses from entering the Promised Land for the rock-bonking stunt, that is implicated in killing 14,700 people for complaining about the other people He was recently implicated in killing, and that threatened to add the plagues of Revelation to anyone who added to the text would have done to Moses for doing something like that? When Pharisees talked about Moses commanding divorce and Jesus talked about Moses permitting it, that was shorthand for the Law of Moses given to him by God. When Jesus said that it was added due to their hardness of heart, He meant that divorce was not part of God’s plan before the Fall; hence, He quoted Genesis 2:24 regarding the true spirit of marriage to preface His comments about a particular divorce scenario.   

When Jesus was asked about whether it was okay to divorce a woman “for any reason”, he was being asked to pick a side in the Shammai/Hillel disagreement. Moreover, He was being asked to answer that question publicly in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, who had taken his brother’s wife thusly. They were trying to set Jesus up to be killed like John the Baptist. Some background on the dispute: Shammai said Deuteronomy 24:1-4 divorces required serious grounds like sexual immorality such as not actually being a virgin when advertised as such (contract fraud), since adultery was a death penalty offense. Hillel interpreted it as being “for any reason”; this was meant to be a kindness since it wouldn’t require the airing of dirty laundry in front of a judge at the city gate that would make a crowd want to stone someone to death (and only the Romans’ say-so prevented that). It was this sort of quiet putting-away Joseph considered once regarding the unexpectedly pregnant Mary. Roman law permitted divorcing without even giving the certificate let alone a reason. Leaving a woman without a divorce certificate could allow a scoundrel to keep the dowry (Genesis 31:14-16 makes it clear that part of the bride price was intended to endow a wife financial security against widowhood) and prevented her from marrying again (The whole certificate business showed that a husband had quit his claim and would not come back later to try to get the wife back from the new husband; it basically said “you are free to remarry any man you wish”). 

When Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery,” it was in regard to the correct application of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, not to the rest of biblical divorce law. Paul didn’t just invent desertion as grounds for divorce, and what Paul wrote does not contradict Jesus because that is rooted in the Exodus 21:10-11 grounds that Jesus did not object to. In context, Matthew 19:9 is more like “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife using Deuteronomy 24:1-4, except for sexual immorality, like the Hillelites with their unbiblical “for any reason” divorce rule, and marries another woman commits adultery because the marriage with its associated responsibilities was still alive, therefore providing for this new heifer instead of the wife of his youth puts him in breach of contract.” There was a one-wife rule in the Greco-Roman culture; otherwise, adding wives like the patriarchs would have been fine. When Jesus said in Matthew 5:32, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,” no woman divorced a husband in the ancient world to go find herself. Women had few economic prospects apart from a man. Jesus saying marrying a divorced woman is adultery is in regard to the scenario of getting a woman to divorce for the purpose of marrying her like Herod did. Any cast-off victims are freed by their partners' breach of contract and can remarry.   

As to the notion of “perpetual adultery” bandied about by jilted men on Christian talk radio, Jesus said that the act of remarrying under the wrong circumstances is adulterous. If God refused to recognize remarriage as legitimate, and a physical relationship between a remarried couple was essentially an affair, then dissolving the second marriage and returning to the original spouses would fix it. On the contrary, whether the second marriage began lawfully or not, it becomes as binding as the original marriage was supposed to be; in order to avoid more adultery, the remarried person needs to remain faithful to the new marriage. Remember, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 also includes a prohibition of a first husband taking a woman back after a second marriage; this prevented wife-pimping and wife-swapping under legal pretext. After all, God expected Israel to be faithful to their treaty with the tricky Gibeonites of Canaan and even supported them in doing so with one of the greatest recorded miracles (Joshua 9, Joshua 10). See also 2 Samuel 21. They were told not to “marry” them, but they were expected to keep their word once wed (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 but Genesis 2:24). The incest issue often doesn’t get enough attention here. The issue of Herod’s marriage was complicated by Herod “marrying” his living brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:16). The second-marriages-are-binding principle would have only worked if their pairing could have otherwise been legally approved per the Law of Moses. (Marrying Canaanites was prohibited, but it was not a death penalty offense like incest per our earlier discussion of Hebrews 9:22.) 

In conclusion, it appears that churches that allow divorce with the possibility of remarriage (after applying Proverbs 18:17 “listen to both sides” first and only proceeding after much careful consideration and counseling unless anyone’s safety is at risk) may use Ephesians 5 (“Are they treating you rightly?”) and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (“Will they even listen to the Church when we tell them to straighten up and reconcile?”) to then apply Matthew 18:15-17 to declare the soon-to-be-former spouse an unbeliever, then use 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 based on Deuteronomy 7:3-4 to invoke 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 to say that an unbeliever has left the marriage by breaking the oath. Spouses blatantly behaving as unbelievers are treated as unbelievers, with unequal yoking being a form of "sexual immorality" and abandonment being derived from acting as if free from the marriage contract (the love and provision in Ephesians 5:21-33), whether still physically present or not. I assure you that assertions I will make later in this book will require far fewer backflips than things like that which are common practice in churches now. 

Legalism isn’t only about the “no-no’s”; plenty of churches are more than happy to give you plenty of things to do as well. Sometimes, it seems like they aren’t happy unless you aren’t happy. “Spiritual disciplines” sound godly. People mean well. They want to be better Christians, so they set their mind to becoming better Christians by disciplining themselves to pray more, read the Bible more, join accountability groups, etc. If you wanted to be a better magician, that would logically be the way to go about it. You could practice more, study better teachers, get more experience in front of audiences, etc. The problem is that Christianity is a relationship, not a hobby. If you believe Christ died for you and rose again, and you confess that He is Lord, you are a child of God. How would you feel if your own child came up to you and said that they didn't really want to talk to you, but their friends in the accountability group were making them? Your Father wants to spend time with you, and you get to spend time with Him! Isn't that great? If you wrote your child a letter about how much you love them, would you expect them to have to schedule time to make themselves read it? I don't say this to make anyone feel bad. Once you get into regular Bible reading, if you get away from it (life happens), you don't have to feel guilty, but you will feel "hungry". Gathering with other believers for mutual encouragement and support is biblical, but "accountability groups" that ask believers that are one Spirit with the Lord according to 1 Corinthians 6:17 "What is the state of your soul?" as if their recent performance had anything to do with it smell like worldly attempts at works-based religion to me. Jesus did it all for us. 2 Corinthians 5:21 tells me that He who knew no sin became Sin for me so I became the righteousness of God; Christianity is the world's best Lack of Accountability Group. 

Previous Post

Next Post