I realize that some of you were expecting this blog to give a few examples of meaningful and viable textual variants. But that will have to wait till next week. For now, I wanted to take on a different topic. I suppose I could justify this by saying that it is still on the topic of textual criticism, because I am discussing a man who was arguably the best textual critic ever to come out of North America. But this particular blog is not about textual criticism per se, so the justification will obviously wear thin… To make up for my lame attempt at an excuse, I will incorporate a glance at what is perhaps the most famous text-critical problem in the New Testament.

I was at the annual Society of Biblical Literature conference in San Diego today. One of the sessions was dedicated to the memory of Bruce Metzger (who died in February, just days before his 94th birthday), a man who taught New Testament at Princeton Seminary for nearly five decades. There were four presenters, the first of whom was Bart Ehrman, Professor Metzger’s last doctoral student.

Ehrman relayed the famous ˜squirrel story" that anyone acquainted with Metzger lore knew about: One day, while walking with an unnamed student across the campus at Princeton Seminary, Metzger and student stopped to see a squirrel racing up a tree. The squirrel jumped from the tree to another that was out of its reach. Suddenly, the squirrel fell to the ground and died. Metzger turned to the student and said, "I know what the Greek word for squirrel is."

Ehrman went on to note that the story had some features to it that simply didn’t ring true: Metzger was a compassionate man who would hardly have made such an insensitive comment at the demise of the furry little creature; Metzger was a humble man, not given to bragging about himself to the effect of using the occasion to parade his knowledge; and squirrels, as a rule, do not die if they miss their target: they simply get up and keep on scampering.

After several years of hearing many variations on this story (I have heard at least two quite different variations myself), Ehrman finally found the occasion to get to the truth of this seemingly apocryphal story. He began to tell Metzger the story and when he came to the part about the squirrel’s unfortunate end, Metzger interrupted: "poor little squirrel." This was proof that the story was a myth since Metzger’s attitude was obviously at odds with what he was supposed to have said years earlier.

From this, Ehrman offered an analogy to the SBL crowd: getting to the truth of the historical Jesus is a tricky task, and legends about him would often spring up without any genuine historical base. In other words, Ehrman saw in the apocryphal story about Metzger a parallel with the stories about Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels.

There are some difficulties with Ehrman’s analogy, however. First, the squirrel story only involved one unnamed eyewitness at an undefined period. In fact, several different names were given for the student (including Ehrman’s!) in different versions of the tale. The period in which it supposedly occurred spanned decades. This is unlike the Gospels in that most of the stories involve more than one eyewitness and are stated as occurring at relatively specific times.

Second, the story has had many versions that often widely diverged from each other. (For example, one version that I heard but which was not mentioned in Ehrman’s telling of the tale: Metzger was walking across the campus of Princeton Seminary when he saw a squirrel acting quite erratically. It ran up one tree, then down again. Up another tree, then down again. It repeated the same acts a couple of times. Metzger stopped to observe its behavior. A crowd of students gathered around him to see what was so interesting. The squirrel continued its behavior then suddenly stood up, looked around, and keeled over. The students were waiting for some profound comment to come from the lips of the revered professor. He looked puzzled for a moment, then said, "Does anyone know the Greek word for squirrel?" I like that version of the story!) But here’s the problem: the many varieties immediately create suspicion about its historicity. What is most analogous is not the Gospels en toto, but the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7.53-8.11). That passage has more variations than any other pericope in the Gospels. It is not without reason that most New Testament scholars reject the authenticity of the story. And a large part of the reason is that the story has multiple versions, and is located in several places in the Gospels.

Third, the oral tradition about Metzger and the squirrel spread without controls, spanning the globe and cutting across decades. But it was oral tradition created in a time when the printed page had come to replace memory. We are not like the ancients whose memory was far more acute; unlike the ancient world, ours is a written culture, not an oral one.

Fourth, Ehrman is a devotee of Metzger. Almost anyone touched by Metzger’s life was. But Ehrman was especially so. He called Metzger his Doktorvater. He described Metzger as the greatest living textual critic in his book Misquoting Jesus. And he dedicated the book to him. Yet, in spite of his obvious fondness for Professor Metzger—or, more accurately, because of it—Ehrman was unwilling to perpetuate the myth. Instead, he did historical research and determined that the story was a myth. He set things right in a public setting (SBL) and spoke the truth about its roots. Now if Ehrman was a Metzger devotee and a good historian, it should not surprise us that he wanted any memory of Metzger to be accurate. The man was a giant among scholars who needed no embellishment; the truth about him was already astounding.

Putting all this together, the analogies with the historical Jesus that Ehrman suggested seem to be inadequate. Most stories about Jesus involved multiple witnesses; most stories about Jesus were pinpointed in time (or at least narrowed considerably rather than fitting more than one decade); most stories about Jesus did not take on such a wide variety of forms; and oral tradition in Jesus’ day was substantially more stable than it is today. There is one analogy that fits, however: Ehrman was a devotee of Metzger and yet investigated the truth of the story; so also, the evangelists were devotees of Jesus. Should we not expect them also to have investigated the truth about Jesus stories?

It is always refreshing to put to bed myths about a great hero because such bubble-bursting displays honest research and scholarship. And now that Ehrman has set the record straight in a public setting, there is born memory in community. Those of us who were at the meeting will tell the squirrel story as a fable and not confuse it with historical fact. Perhaps the evangelists could tell the difference, too.

Divorce is sin. Divorce is bad. God hates divorce. Divorced people can never remarry. If you remarry, you will be in a perpetual state of sin unless you remarry your former spouse. These are all the things that constitute good conservative Christian counsel to those who are considering divorce. Right?

Yet after divorce and subsiquent remarriage, the same person gives counsel to the repentant remarried person. God is gracious. Divorce is not a sin that cannot be forgiven. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so don’t divorce again in order to go back to your former spouse.

It would seem that with such bi-polar counsel, the one considering divorce should just act now and ask questions later!

My two previous posts asked Is Divorce Ever Good? and Is Divorce Ever Understandable? These two drew heavily on experience and situations that seemed to call for a “greater-good” approach to some divorce cases when abuse was present. Now I want to deal with the Bible and what it has to say about divorce asking the question Is Divorce Ever Biblical?

The problem comes when we begin to use Scripture to support our positions concerning divorce and remarriage. Those who believe that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority on all issues upon which it speaks will see these things differently. In my opinion, some have a more balanced hermeneutic, while others have a “proof-text” mentality. In the end, I believe that divorce is always sin in that it is the result of sin. I believe that our focus should be on marriage the way that it was intended, one man and one woman, both of whom are doing the best they can to sustain a godly marriage who don’t give up at the first sign of trouble. Yet I also believe that we need to rethink our hermeneutics with regards to divorce understanding that things are not the way they are supposed to be.

Here are some of the reasons why I don’t believe that the issue of divorce in the Bible is as black and white as people so often make it.

First, concerning experience: No one can separate their theology from their experience. This is not only impossible, it is, I believe, outside the will of God. Experience constitutes our life. Without it we find no point of referent to any Scriptural account. It is only when our hermeneutic recognizes the vitality of experience that it can be kept in check. I become very leery of those who act as if they have what I call the “white-coat-scientific” interpretation of Scripture. This is just not possible. If there is anything the failures of the Cartesian system have taught us, it is that we are not as objective as we would like to think. The overly literal proof-text approach to Scripture assumes that God wants us to step outside of experience and interpret it without its regards. While experience is not the final arbiter of truth, it has a needed and godly contribution to make. Without it, there is no wisdom.

Second, concerning systematic theology: Systematic theology assumes the contribution of many different elements to our quest for truth. Among other things, we must understand that all of Scripture contributes to our interpretation, not just one proof-text. Not only does each individual passage have a context, but there is also the canonical context, meaning that all that Scripture says about something must contribute to any formulation of a doctrine concerning such. Protestants should understand this well as Catholics have often attempted to proof-text a denial of sola fide by quoting James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Catholics rightly point out that this is the only place that the phrase “Faith alone” is used and it says justification is NOT by faith alone. Yet Protestants rightly understand the tension that this creates with Pauline theology. In the end, Protestants resolve this tension by suggesting a both/and approach rather than an either/or. “Salvation is by faith alone,” as the saying goes, “But not by faith that is alone.” We find the same issues with regards to divorce. There are some passages that, when the context is not fully understood, seem to suggest that the Bible teaches that divorce is always the wrong decision (with two exceptions). I argue that when systematic theology is taken into account and the full counsel of Scripture is allowed to speak that the teaching of Scripture is that divorce is always sin, but it can be the least sinful of two options. Therefore, my encouragement is for us to do systematic theology, not proof-text theology.

Third, problems of Biblical data: Let’s do a test using the Scripture for our support. If were were to seek proof-texts rather than a deeper understanding of the canonical whole, we are going to have a lot of problems.

Problem #1: Everyone Qualifies for Divorce. Using the overly literal hermeneutic all people have legitimate grounds for divorce. How? Let me demonstrate. Christ said that divorce was unacceptable except for immorality (pornia) (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Christ also said that anyone who has ever lusted has committed adultery (moicheuo) (Matt. 5:28). It would be a safe assumption to say that adultery constitutes immorality of the worst kind. Therefore, everyone who has ever lusted has given his or her partner grounds for divorce. Since everyone has lusted, all marriages qualify for divorce.

Problem #2: Many people are polygamists in God’s eyes. Not only does an overly literal approach to Christ’s words cause a problem, but let’s add another proof-text. Paul tells the Corinthians that whoever sleeps with a prostitute has become one flesh with this person (1 Cor. 6:16). Paul utilizes that same text that Christ used to illustrate his point “The two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Christ said that those who have become one flesh are forever bound in God’s sight, right? Paul said that the person is one flesh with whomever he or she has had sex with. Ergo option #1: You are joined in marriage to all those with whom you have had sex. Ergo option #2: You are only married to the first person you had sex with and any after this are those with whom you are committing adultery, even your present wife!

Problem #3: God seems to approve of divorce for something other than adultery. Most people don’t realize this, but in the Old Testament post-exilic period, the Israelites were required to divorce their spouses. Israel had broken the covenant of God and married foreign women. God informed Israel in Deut 7:3 that intermarriage was not allowed. Therefore, as the narrative of Ezra suggests, in order to be reconciled to God, they had to divorce their foreign spouses. Ezra 10:10-11 “Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, ‘You have behaved in an unfaithful manner by taking foreign wives! This has contributed to the guilt of Israel. Now give praise to the Lord God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the local residents and from these foreign wives‘” (emphasis mine). They did just that. In this case, while their spouses were not guilty of infidelity, the greater good was for them to divorce. This introduces an explicit instance of the greater good possibility. While divorce is always evil, it might be the lesser of two evils.

Problem #4: When Christ speaks of divorce and remarriage in Matt. 5, the context is that of universal condemnation. In other words, this section of Matthew has Christ presenting to the people a seemingly impossible code of ethics. Many of the religious leaders thought that they stood before God as righteous due to their own self-righteousness. By Christ’s seemingly radical words, these leaders were condemned based upon a higher standard of Kingdom ethic. While these ethics are not wrong, there is no one who can stand in their site without a pronouncement of guilt. Christ was bringing a universal condemnation upon mankind. Everyone who hates has broken the fifth commandment. Everyone who lusts has broken the sixth commandment. Everyone who has divorced has broken the law. In the end, this evidences universal sinfulness and universal need.

Humanity is inherently sinful with no hope outside of Christ. In this context, divorce is seen to be out of concert with God’s original intent just as all sin is. Divorce is not the way it was supposed to be. In Matt 19:4-6, Christ says about marriage, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” God did not intend divorce, He intended faithfulness. God did not intend lust, He intended fidelity. God did not intend hate, He intended love. Yet the world is not what it was intended to be. Divorce happens because we are fallen and relationships take on characteristics of the fall. Sometimes, this fallen condition is more evidenced in one spouse while the other, in futility, fights for the preservation of the marriage. Once divorce occurs, the fault cannot ever be laid at the feet of the abused. The fault is always the abuser. Yet, ironically, those who divorce their spouse due to abuse are often villified more severely than the abuser. Who is really at fault?

Nevertheless, the divorce is a result of sin, therefore the divorce should always be defined as sinful since it is not the way it was supposed to be.

Is divorce ever biblical? Well it depends on what you mean by “biblical.” Objectively, from the standpoint of the way things were meant to be, divorce is always bad, just as killing is also always bad. But because of the hardness of the human heart, as Christ put it, because of the falleness of man, divorce, like killing, is often a necessary evil. Only in this sense it is biblical.

In the end, I would caution those who use proof-text to counsel about divorce and remarriage. Please consider the entirety of the Scriptural witness and clothe this with the wisdom of experience. In the end, while you will not have the black and white answers that you may seek or desire, you will find that the tension with which the Scripture speaks on such matters is a healthy tension that, only when recognized, makes the Scripture sufficient to deal with such issues. Imbalanced proof-texting is not the way it is supposed to be and can be very sinful.

My counsel to those who are struggling through marriage is always to understand the terrible effects that divorce has on a family and culture. It is never a good thing. But if the abuse of the other spouse is so severe that it is doing damage, physically or mentally, to either yourself or your children, consideration needs to be made if an ultimate divorce is not the greater good of the situation.

A student was kind enough to sketch us out. Rhome is on the left and I am in the middle. The guy on the far right is Timon Bingtson. He was an intern for The Theology Program.

1. richards on 09 Nov 2007 at 6:08 am #

   Where’s Michael’s vest?

2. stevemoore on 09 Nov 2007 at 7:09 am #

   Michael? I thought that was the guy from Hawaii Five-0.

   ;^)

   Great picture guys…

   -steve

3. Lisa S. on 09 Nov 2007 at 8:53 am #

   Wow… that’s pretty close!

4. irreverend fox on 09 Nov 2007 at 10:04 am #

   is that the stage of truth?

5. JohnT3 on 09 Nov 2007 at 10:12 am #

   Very good work

   Sorry Rhome Mom still thinks Michael is the cutest one of the group.

   

6. John Elliott on 09 Nov 2007 at 10:49 am #

   That is awesome!

   We should use this drawing as the basis for some RMM bobbleheads.

   Have a great weekend!

7. bpratico on 09 Nov 2007 at 12:12 pm #

   Why is everyone’s head so big?

   Bob

8. JohnT3 on 09 Nov 2007 at 3:46 pm #

   Seminary

9. Ed Komoszewski on 09 Nov 2007 at 4:37 pm #

   Michael, you do an awesome David Hasselhoff impression!

10. Lisa R on 09 Nov 2007 at 7:18 pm #

    JohnT3…lol

11. Gean Ann Nelson on 13 Nov 2007 at 9:34 pm #

    Will you be insulted if I tell you that your English grammar is incorrect in the title of this blog entry?

The news has been out since 2004 that the world’s leading atheist, Antony Flew, changed his mind in light of the available evidence. Like waking up from a bad dream, a number of atheists and skeptics reacted in, well, . . . disbelief. Their stance shifted to skepticism and then, as this late-in-life conversion became undeniable, it shifted to outright denunciations of Flew. In his God Delusion book, Richard Dawkins refers scornfully to the "over-publicized tergiversation [apostasy]" of Flew in his "old age," having been "converted to belief in some sort of deity." He contrasts Flew with the "great philosopher" Bertrand Russell, who "won the Nobel Prize."

Flew was of course, the atheist philosopher for decades, and his accomplishments, insight, and creativity can’t be minimized by such cheap shots from within his former “community." His recently-released book, There Is a God: How the World’’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Harper One, 2007) tells a remarkable story of Flew’s pilgrimage. He had been the son of a Methodist minister, but as a teenager he "rejected the thesis that the universe was created by an all-good, all powerful God." The book recounts an astonishing career of achievements and acquaintances, including his participation in Oxford University’s Socratic Club during C.S. Lewis’ tenure as president (1942-1954). The club’s stated goal was to heed Socrates’ exhortation to "follow the argument wherever it leads." This is the maxim Flew has sought to follow all his life. But for many of his critics, "free-thinking" is a one-way street: thinking is "free" if you move away from God, not toward God.

We should remember that Flew didn’t just change his mind about one thing”and late in life, at that. He earlier repudiated his Marxist beliefs. Also, he came to realize that his juvenile insistencies" that first led him to atheism were ill-founded"”namely, that evil decisively disproved God and that the free-will defense didn’t relieve God of his responsibility for evil. Indeed, before he would come to renounce atheism, Flew repudiated a number of previously-held beliefs including determininsm (in favor of free agency) and the rejection of disembodied personhood as incoherent.

Flew challenges his former fellow-atheists: "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a reason to at least consider the existence of a superior Mind?" An appropriate question indeed”especially for those who assume that nature is all there is. What prompted Flew’s change of mind to become a believer in God (a "Jeffersonian deist" ) was modern science itself guided by philosophical arguments. There are three key considerations: (a) nature’s obedience to laws; (b) the intelligently organized and purpose-driven nature of life; (c) the very existence of nature (something rather than nothing). Flew takes time to explain these points. In the midst of this, he comes to acknowledge there is a point to the design argument he once rejected.

I could go on, but I won’t review the whole book here. (Dr. Gary Habermas offers a nice overview of this book in the next issue of Philosophia Christi”of which you can get a sneak peek. And while you’re at it, check out the upgraded Evangelical Philosophical website at www.epsociety.org). I did want to point out a couple of excellent bonus features to the book, however. Roy Abraham Varghese (Preface and Appendix A) has a fine critique of the "new atheists" (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and so on). He points that these thinkers have mistakenly resorted to the old logical positivism of the late A.J. Ayer: for a statement to be meaningful, it must be scientifically provable; ironically, Ayer himself came to see that his whole system itself could not be scientifically provable and was therefore meaningless. He confessed that his view was "full of mistakes." Yet these new atheists are embracing a system that, in Ayer’s words, "died a long time ago." Furthermore, a physical world by itself cannot account for rationality, life’s self-organizing capacities, consciousness, conceptual thought within language, and human identity and agency.

The second appendix is by the Christian historian N.T. Wright, who makes an argument for the historicity of Jesus and the plausibility of Jesus as God incarnate and of his bodily resurrection from the dead. Flew offers his "free-thinking" comments on Wright’s arguments: "I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright’s approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time . . . It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful." Flew affirms his openness to any further revelation of God, asking: "Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation?" He at least sees that "the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition."

This book is a fascinating and honest story of someone who has courageously followed the evidence where it has now led him. Flew not only tells his personal story, but he shares with us the specific evidences and arguments that led to his change of mind. It’s an exceptional book to readand to give away to all "free-thinkers" in the truest sense of the word.