Divorce Your Remarriage

REACT: New Testament Prof. Craig Keener's Divorce and Remarriage Interpretation

• Chris Iverson

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 2:40:54

Craig Keener is a well-known and accomplished evangelical scholar, author, and professor who has written and spoken on the New Testament's teaching on divorce and remarriage.  He defends a variation of the majority protestant view by finding exceptions for adultery and abandonment.  Dr. Keener goes further by asserting that Jesus spoke hyperbolically when calling remarriage adultery.  He concludes that every civil divorce actually ends a marriage. In an interview conducted by Kirk Miller of Logos Bible Software, Prof. Keener defends his view and I react to it based on my restrictive interpretation, providing viewers with different interpretive options to consider.

Book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FH9YRS7N/
Insta: https://www.instagram.com/divorceyourremarriage/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DivorceYourRemarriage
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-7751594
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61578367894327
Email: DivorceYourRemarriage@gmail.com

#Divorce #Remarriage #divorceyourremarriage #Keener

SPEAKER_04

Welcome back to the Divorce Your Remarriage Podcast. I'm Chris Iverson, and today we're going to be reacting to Dr. Craig Keener's view on divorce and remarriage. Uh Lagos Bible Software, they actually just put this video up not that long ago. Lagos Bible Software is like a fantastic Bible software. I have a subscription to it. It's great. Actually, I recommend people get a subscription to it. It's worth the subscription price just for the audio courses that you get. The color, the branding for Logos is blue. So I'm wearing blue in solidarity with Lagos Bible software. Earlier, I did a reaction series, a nine-part series reacting to Mike Winger's view on divorce remarriage. You can find that uh on YouTube. I have a under the playlist section, you can find it there. So I did a whole reaction video to that because people need to know how am I going to respond to somebody like like a Mike Winger. Mike Winger is really popular. He's a more popular speaker, but Craig Keener is like in a different lane. He's more in the academic lane. He'll be telling us about his credentials here in a moment. He is a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. That's rarefied air reserved for people like Al Moller and D.A. Carson and people like that. Now, I disagree with him. That's hence the reaction video, but I don't want this to seem like everything Craig Keener says is bad or whatever. Most of what he says, I'm sure I would totally agree with. I don't know all of his different teachings and other different subjects, but this is a smart guy. And so on most things we're going to have uh agreement on, but on this particular subject, we disagree, and that's what we're going to get into right now.

SPEAKER_03

Did Paul allow divorce and remarriage or not? In 1 Corinthians 7, his words are both debated and deeply personal for many. Today on What in the Word, I'm joined by New Testament scholar Craig Keener to unpack this challenging passage. Welcome to the podcast, Craig.

SPEAKER_00

It's great to be with you, Kirk.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, let me just say later on, Kirk's going to tell us that Logos doesn't, you know, endorse any particular review of either Kirk Miller or Craig Keener, here the scholar. They're just interviewing them to get their perspective on these different topics. But the fact that Logos would have Craig Keener come on one of their public-facing videos like this just shows you the credibility and reputation that Dr. Craig Keener has uh has uh earned over uh the course of his scholarship.

SPEAKER_03

And before we get started, uh Craig, would you mind telling us a little bit about yourself for those who are who may be unfamiliar with you, how you serve Christ and his church?

SPEAKER_00

Sure. I'm a professor of biblical studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. I'm married to Medine Wasunga Keener. And um she works with especially international students because she used to be one before she got her doctorate. And um I also well I mentor doctoral students, I I teach doctoral and master students, and I uh write on biblical topics about 20,000 pages, 40 books so far, and and so on.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, so you are a maybe we could call an elder statesman in biblical scholarship. So um one of the Well I didn't mean it in that way, but uh you are uh yeah, a premier uh scholar specializing in the New Testament uh specifically. Um and today we are going to be talking about uh 1 Corinthians 7, 12 through 16. And let me just ask you what makes this passage so difficult? Why are we spending a whole conversation on this text?

SPEAKER_00

Part of it is trying to harmonize this with the Gospels where Jesus talks about divorce. And part of it is there have been different views through church history, like many of the early church fathers no divorce, no remarriage, and then you have um in the Reformation people looked at it again and uh said, No, there are certain exceptions in the New Testament. But then there's also the added complication that divorce is so common in our culture that we have a lot of people who've suffered from it, and so it's a sensitive issue uh personally and pastorally too.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04

And like so, yeah. So he says the church fathers had no divorce, no remarriage. They would allow divorce for adultery, but they didn't, they they didn't allow for remarriage even after uh the innocent party to adultery, divorced the marriage. Now, I don't agree with the church fathers on that, but that's that that's just to be precise there. He he kind of skipped over the the Orthodox. A lot of people in the West just don't can think about what the Orthodox teach on this subject. I have some videos about that uh that you can watch, but um, and he talks about how in the Reformation uh that more exceptions were interpreted by the reformers, and that's true. You see that championed by uh Martin Luther, and you also see with John Calvin, and kind of spreads and it gets formalized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is a fantastic confession of faith, except I disagree with it on divorce and remarriage. And there might be some other parts, like little nuances that I disagree with. I'd have to go back and look. And he's right, in modern times, we have a higher divorce rate. So what Dr. Keener's talking about here is like pastorally, how it's difficult and everything. But one way to interpret that is what Paul writes in Galatians 5, 9, that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. That once you start having uh uh all these divorces and remarriages, there's all this pressure exerted. And then people try to find ways to accommodate the practice of their days. Um, interpreting 1 Corinthians chapter 7 is hard because we're trying to understand what Jesus and Paul said together. Oh, and so Logos is looking into this with 1 Corinthians 7, which is uh kind of an awkward way to enter into this discussion. Normally you'd start with uh what Jesus says in the Gospels, or you start with the Old Testament, but rarely would you start with Paul. Uh, and and you'll see you'll see how that gets awkward later on, but we'll still be able to get through it. It'll be fine.

SPEAKER_03

Let me add at the beginning, we always like this um to note in in this show that as we talk about these issues, whatever issue we're talking about, um, the any view that's represented or that's presented by a guest, um, or even things I have to say um in these shows, they are this is not the position uh that Logas is taking. Um we we recognize that Christians disagree over these matters, good Christians disagree. And that is, of course, true um when it comes to the topic of divorce and remarriage, which is incredibly debated. Um, the other thing is that it's an incredibly personal issue for me.

SPEAKER_04

I I appreciate Kirk's uh statement here about how good Christians can disagree on subjects like this, and I I agree with him about that. I think I would like to see more people who are permissive. Now, Dr. Keener has a more permissive view, it we'll see that in a moment. But I would like to see more people who have a permissive view, whether they're scholars or pastors or church leaders, be more accepting of people who have a more restrictive view on these passages.

SPEAKER_03

Many. Um, this is not we should never discuss the Bible as purely in the abstract. Um, so every part of the Bible should be personal, but um many people's lives have been touched by divorce. Um, I think of pastors who have to um or who get to walk with people through um difficult marriages and be there for them, and and maybe pastor people who have been through divorces. We think of people who's who who know family members and friends, maybe parents who have experienced divorce, or maybe you're listening to this and you're wrestling with divorce, or maybe you've gone through divorce. And so we never want to talk about this as if we're talking about people someplace somewhere else who aren't impacted by this. This is, we understand this is a sensitive and deeply personal topic.

SPEAKER_04

We need to have truth and love. I totally agree with all of that. As long as we don't change our conclusions because we're being sensitive. That's a caveat that we have to have in there, because that's very easy to do with this issue. So our sensitivity doesn't change the original intention of the biblical writers. And therefore, our sensitivity shouldn't change our interpretation of what they wrote.

SPEAKER_03

Um, but there are a lot of viewpoints, as I said. Um, and maybe before we get too far into the weeds of those views, let me read the passage that we're going to be specifically focusing on verse 15. That's probably the the uh the main center of debate of debate. But I'll I'll read verses 12 through 16 for context. And I have the NASB open here. Paul writes this, he says, But to the rest I say, not the uh but to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one is leaving, let him leave. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband, or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Now, Craig, can you help us understand the context of this passage and how it that that context informs our approach to this specific paragraph and verse 15 in particular?

SPEAKER_00

Sure. Paul's writing this to uh the Christians in Corinth. They've just been Christians for a few years. Um it's a pretty young church. And um he's got a lot of issues he's got to deal with in the church. And in 1 Corinthians 7, he's responding to a letter that they wrote to him. He says that in in verse 1. Uh now concerning the letter about which you wrote to me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Well, apparently they've said it's good for a man not to touch a woman, and he's responding to that um and qualifying that. Uh well, it's a little late to say that now that you're married. Um you need to go ahead and act married, since you are married, especially given the preceding paragraph about um sexual immorality in the church. So, you know, you you think you're being whole holy and spiritual by abstaining, but then you wonder why your spouse is visiting prostitutes and so on. So um then he comes to another issue. Well, what happens if you're married and your spouse a lot a lot of them would have been married before they became Christians. Your your spouse is not a Christian, or the parents arranged the marriage, your spouse is not a Christian, and you think, well, we're spiritually incompatible, can we break up? And so he quotes a saying of Jesus, verses 10 to 12. That's why he he says there, not I, but the Lord says this. He's quoting a saying of Jesus. And then when he goes on to qualify that uh in in verse 12, he says, No, this is what I say, not the Lord. He's not saying that what he says is not uh significant or inspired. Actually, in I think verse 40, he says, No, I think I have the Spirit of God, which is one of the closest, you know, closest to explicit points of Paul speaking of inspiration in his letters, but he's saying this isn't a saying of the Lord. This is my saying. And like Jesus says, you've heard it said in the law, you shall not commit adultery. I say to you, you shall not break up your marriage. Uh Paul says, You've heard it said by Jesus, but this is what I say to you to qualify in a kind of situation that Jesus didn't address.

SPEAKER_04

It is true that the Corinthians, their viewpoint, their interpretation was that celibacy is required for the Christian life. That was the argument. It's good for a man not to touch a woman because they thought that we got to be a celibate or whatever. And oh, look, we have these unbelieving spouses, we would like to divorce them, right? Um, but Paul is saying something different. Paul is saying, well, celibacy is preferable. It's preferable. And Dr. Keener says that Paul uh agrees with them that it's good for a man not to touch a woman, but he qualifies it. And I think that's that's right that Paul is saying celibacy is preferable, but not required. Uh, and if you're married, stay together. Like it's a little late for the celibacy thing. Now you already got married. So when the Corinthians are asking about, well, we have these believer, unbeliever marriages, can we break them up? Paul goes, no. And you see that in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verses 10 and 11. That context right there, I just want to pause here, is really important because uh later on in verse 15, uh, Dr. Keener is going to claim that Paul has an allowance for uh divorce and remarriage there. And here's the point from the context, nobody's looking for remarriage. The Corinthians aren't looking for remarriage, they're trying to get out of marriage, they're not looking for remarriage. So, and Paul is like, well, celibacy is preferable. And he knows they want celibacy, they want out of these marriages. So nobody's looking for remarriage. What's odd later on in verse 15 for Dr. Keener to think that Paul is implying, congratulations, you can get remarried. Congratulations, we don't want to be, we don't want to be remarried. So that's something to consider later on when we get to verse 15. Now, Dr. Keener here then says something that I disagree with. Now it is true that in verse 10 and 11, Paul paraphrased Jesus' teaching, right? Jesus famously calls remarriage adultery seven times in the Gospels. Paul, he just paraphrases here's what Jesus says. It's not like a direct quote word for word, it's a paraphrase. It is also true that verses 12 and following, Paul is teaching something that Jesus did not have occasion to address. And Dr. Keener does say that Paul is continuing to apply Jesus' teaching to believer, unbeliever marriages. And that's really important here because there's actually a whole view in evangelicalism that Kirk will bring up much later on in this video. There's a whole view that Jesus' teaching was only for believer-believer marriages and was not for believer-unbeliever marriages. And Dr. Keener right here rejected that concept. He says, no, verse 12 and following, uh, that Paul is applying Jesus' teaching to believer-unbeliever marriages, saying, Jesus said, don't divorce. So if you're married to an unbeliever, don't divorce. Oh, that is great. Now, but here's the part that Dr. Keener says I disagree with. So let's go back to this and just listen to it uh closely here.

SPEAKER_00

This isn't a saying of the Lord. This is my saying. And like Jesus says, you've heard it said in the law, you shall not commit adultery. I say to you, you shall not break up your marriage.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so Dr. Keener says, you know, Jesus said, You have heard it said in the law, you shall not commit adultery. I say to you, you shall not break up your marriage. So, but what Jesus actually says is different. If you look at Matthew 5, uh, what he actually says is, you have heard uh to give a certificate of divorce, but I say to you, remarriage is adultery. So Dr. Keener says it's you have heard it said, don't commit adultery, but I say to you, don't remarry. But actually, it's don't it's the certificate of divorce that Jesus is uh rejecting in Matthew 5, 31 and 32. He's not rejecting the teaching on adultery or um qualifying that. What he's saying is Moses had a law in Deuteronomy 24.1 that a man could give his wife a certificate of divorce, but I say to you, basically, don't divorce, don't remarry. So Jesus was overriding the Mosaic law on divorce there. So what Paul, and that's different than what Paul is doing here. This is just a wrong kind of analogy from Dr. Keener, in my opinion. What Paul is doing in 1 Corinthians 7, 12 and following, he's not overriding Jesus. He's not qualifying what Jesus says. Paul is applying what Jesus said to a question Jesus wasn't specifically asked about. Paul is applying it. Now, Dr. Keener, it's interesting because he just said this that um Paul is applying Jesus' teaching, and then he says, well, he's like qualifying Jesus' teaching. We I mean you gotta you gotta pick a side here. So I I think he's applying what Jesus taught. And so my question for Dr. Keener is do you think Jesus was applying or explaining Deuteronomy 24 law in Matthew 5.32? So you go to Matthew, Matthew 5.32, Moses said certificate of divorce, but I say don't divorce, don't remarry. And you also have that in Matthew 19, 7 through 9, where the Pharisees say to say to Jesus, Yeah, but Moses had this certificate of divorce, and then Jesus says, Yeah, that was for your hardness of heart. So is Jesus explaining Deuteronomy 24? Yes, Deuteronomy 24 is good law, and we need to apply it right now, and you're just not applying it correctly. Is that what Jesus is doing? Or is what Jesus is doing is he's saying, Yeah, okay, Moses lets you do the divorce thing. We're not doing that anymore. That was for hard-heartedness, you know, but I say to you. So to me, it sounds like Jesus is overriding the Mosaic law uh from Deuteronomy chapter 24 by going back to the beginning. Jesus is not embracing the regulation. That's what that's the Pharisees' position, embrace the regulation. Jesus is instead going back to the beginning before the regulation. So my question to Dr. Keener is was Jesus applying and explaining uh the Mosaic law or was Jesus overriding it? Uh is Jesus' law the same or different than the Mosaic Law, another way of asking the same question. And my second question is: do you think Paul is applying or explaining Jesus' teaching, or do you think Paul is overriding Jesus' teaching? There's just no way Paul is overriding Jesus' teaching. He's got to be applying it. And Jesus, on the other hand, was overriding the Mosaic Law. So that's not the same thing. So what Jesus does with the Mosaic Law is not what Paul is doing to Jesus' teaching, not the same thing.

SPEAKER_00

I say to you, you shall not break up your marriage. Paul says, you've heard it said by Jesus, but this is what I say to you to qualify in a kind of situation that Jesus didn't address. So yes, you're not allowed to break up your marriage, but what happens if the other spouse walks out of it? In in Corinth, as elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world, if either party w walked out of the marriage, it was over by by definition, because um, under Roman law, marriage was held together by mutual consent, and Roman law was very relevant in Corinth, which was a Roman colony. So either party could walk out, that was the end of the marriage, and Paul is saying that's not on you. You can't you can't do anything about that. So uh what what other uh implications that might have will wait until we uh uh unfold the passage, but yeah.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, so now I agree that 1 Corinthians 7, verse 15 is about what happens if your unbelieving spouse walks out on the marriage. Uh, if either party walks out, it ends the marriage legally, legally, under law. So I agree that was the law.

SPEAKER_03

Well, let's start. Um, maybe you can walk us through the different interpretations and the arguments for and against them if you want to take kind of the a first view and and help us understand why this view exists, what people look to in the text to establish that view and maybe how you'd evaluate it then.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so I got to say I really like how Kirk Miller here is trying to structure uh this conversation. He he wants the different views and the arguments for and against each one. Now, I'd tell you, unfortunately, I don't know that Dr. Keener actually goes through all the different views. I'll defend them here a little bit. It's hard. There's a lot of different views, and to have them all off the top of your head and to be able to give them all is difficult to do. But here's the point this is absolutely the right way to proceed on this. You want to get the different views, understand the pros and cons of each one, and then pray and then try to decide what you think the scripture teaches.

SPEAKER_00

Well, I think verse 10 is pretty clear. Um because we already have that in the Gospels that you're not supposed to leave your spouse. Um, there's some debate about whether leave means divorce. Uh it doesn't have to mean that, but again, in the Greco-Roman world and especially with Roman law, it effectively did mean that, that if somebody walked out of the marriage, that was the the end of the marriage. Uh and it we'll go back and well, hopefully we'll go back and talk about the the gospel passages as well, because that that provides a context for uh you know what Paul is is citing here. Um and then you have um Paul dealing with a different situation. Well, what happens if you have a spouse who's not a believer? And Paul is saying Jesus' teaching still applies here. You can't say that God hasn't joined it together just because you weren't believers when you got married, or just because this is important.

SPEAKER_04

Dr. Keener just said Jesus' teaching still applies here. So when a believer marries an unbeliever, uh uh they are joined by God. So I agree with Dr. Keener there. Jesus' teaching applies to all valid marriages, regardless of whether one, both, or neither are believers. Jesus' teaching applies to all valid marriages. Now that might sound obvious, but I mentioned this a minute ago, but most evangelicals say the opposite. Most evangelicals that I'm aware of say that in verse 12, there's a phrase. The phrase is to the rest. And they interpret that phrase uh to mean that Jesus' teaching does not apply to believer, unbeliever marriages. Now, why would they say that? Well, because later on, when they get to verse 15, where Paul says a believer is not enslaved after an unbeliever uh abandons the believer, they want to be able to say that that abandonment frees the believer to remarry. But there's a problem because if the abandonment frees the believer to remarry, that contradicts what Jesus says. Jesus never said you can remarry uh because you were abandoned. So Jesus said remarriage is adultery and he gave one exception. And whatever you think that exception is, it's not abandonment. So, therefore, if all you had was the teachings of Jesus, you would conclude you cannot remarry because you're abandoned. So, to make it possible to remarry for abandonment, uh, most evangelicals say that Paul narrows Jesus' teaching to only believer-believer marriages. And they get all that from to the rest, which to the rest doesn't say that. It's not what it says. Um, so that and then they construe the spouse who abandons a non-believer, even if they claim faith, uh, and that way they make it permissible to remarry for abandonment. So if so here's what they do they say if you got two believers who are married and one abandons, they'll say, Well, the abandoner must not have been a believer. And so now that was actually, you thought it was a believer-believer marriage, but it was actually a believer-unbeliever marriage. And so then because of after the abandonment, then the believer can go ahead and remarry. And that's just a really cute kind of system that they have uh there. And it really doesn't work because they also then think that Jesus teaches an allowance to be able to divorce and remarry for adultery. So if Jesus could imagine uh imagine somebody who claims to be a believer and then commits adultery, he couldn't imagine somebody who claims to be a believer and abandons. That doesn't make any sense. I don't understand this category where Jesus is only talking about believer-believer marriages and one of them is an adulterer, but but he couldn't have been an abandoner because that's that's too terrible. I that doesn't make any sense to me. So so then if it was a believer-believer marriage and Jesus gave an exception for adultery, then he would also have to give an exception for abandonment uh if this whole system was going to hold together. And now I don't think the exception is for adultery, or and I don't think there's an exception for abandonment. We'll get into that. Okay, but if you look at Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, here's my question. How could any of those audience members at the time think Jesus was only speaking about believer-believer marriages? How is that possible? Go ahead and look at the passages yourself. There's no way they could have concluded that. Jesus rooted his teaching in creation, which applies to everybody. We're all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Jesus taught it to the Pharisees in Matthew 19, and they were unsaved. So Dr. Keener is right that Jesus' teaching all applies to all marriages, not just believer-believer marriages. Um, and so uh as so the result is that verse 15 cannot allow a person to remarry after abandonment because Jesus doesn't permit remarriage for abandonment. Uh now, unfortunately, Dr. Keener doesn't make that deduction here, uh, as we'll see. And here you'll you'll just uh it's what seems to me, and maybe Dr. Keener has a way to explain this, but it sounded like a contradiction here from Dr. Keener's reasoning because earlier he said he treated what Paul said as like a qualifier to what Jesus said. But here he says that Paul is applying Jesus' teaching. So again, we really got to nail down is did did Jesus apply or override the Mosaic Law? And is Paul applying or overriding Jesus' teaching? There's just no way Paul is overriding Jesus' teaching, and there's definitely Jesus who was overriding the Mosaic Law. So those are two different things going on there. Okay, let's continue.

SPEAKER_00

Your spouse isn't a believer. And when he goes on to speak of the verse 14 is one of the most uh difficult uh passages for uh just uh probably any any view on it. Uh what does it mean that the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her husband? Uh presumably it doesn't mean that they're automatically saved. First Peter 3 actually uh talks about trying to win the unsaved spouse to to the Lord. Uh but what it what it does mean uh well I think what it means you had discussions about this in antiquity where say uh one spouse was a Roman citizen and the other wasn't. What was the status of the children? Well, here uh we're talking about what's the status of the children in a mixed, spiritually mixed marriage, and I think it's probably talking about uh the degree of influence. If there's a divorce or if one party walks out of the marriage, uh in antiquity, uh the husband would normally get the children, especially if if you know they were all Roman citizens, uh, the husband would would get the children. If the wife is the believer and you know the children are left behind, her uh her influence is uh is pretty much negated. The husband usually quickly remarried in that culture, and um the step stepmother would be the uh the main influence. So I think it's talking about the sphere of influence, uh access to to the children. But then verse 15 is the one we uh uh uh where the the debates uh come in the most because uh in the gospels, in some of the gospel passages, it looks like there's no exception. No, no remarriage is permissible. And so in verse 15, is when it says the believer's not under bondage, does it just mean the believer is free to divorce?

SPEAKER_04

Although verse 15 is where a lot of the debate happens. Verse 15 is also the uh textual basis that most evangelicals use to justify most uh divorces and remarriages. So verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 7 is a high-stakes verse, matters a lot. The phrase here that matters is the phrase not enslaved. So we have a believer and an unbeliever, the unbeliever departs, the believer is not enslaved. So the question is what does not enslaved mean? He assumes, without proving it, that not enslaved means not married. I don't think not enslaved means not married. So what Dr. Keener thinks is happening is that Paul is talking about the marriage bond when he's talking about slavery. What he's saying is that the marriage bond is broken by the abandonment, uh, presumably by the abandonment and the divorce. Now, I would say that's that's incorrect. So they are legally divorced when people they abandon, they're legally divorced, okay, but they're still married from God's eyes, from God's perspective, they're still married. Um, that's, you know, and and so Jesus calls remarriage adultery seven times in the New Testament. And and so the concept that remarriage is adultery is because legal divorce isn't sufficient to actually end a marriage bond. So if a husband and wife are married and they get a legal divorce, it's like irreconcilable differences or whatever, they get a legal divorce, from God's perspective, they're still married. The divorce doesn't do anything. It's it's it's as if they didn't get a divorce. Divorce, not divorce, doesn't matter. God views them as still married, he joined them together, they're married. So then if the man, let's say, remarries, that remarriage is a continual state of adultery against the first spouse. Mark chapter 10, verse 11 and 12, it says that his remarriage is adultery against her. So he is he is cheating on a person who is the person he's cheating on, his first wife. Why is that? Because the divorce has not dissolved the marriage. If the divorce did dissolve the marriage, it would be impossible to commit adultery in any sense. But since it did not divorce the marriage, the remarriage is adultery against the first spouse. So back in back to 1 Corinthians 7, verse 15, not enslaved is the Greek word duolo, and it's somebody who is enslaved. Uh, if someone is bound in a marriage, that's a different Greek word. That's deo. So, for example, later in this chapter in verse 39, deo is used to say that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. That's the marriage bond. Woman's bound to the husband, that's deo. That's a different Greek word with a different meaning for a different relationship. Duolo is for slavery. It's used later in verse 21, six verses after this one, it's used uh in this chapter. Uh, it's a different form. It's duolos, but it's the same idea. It's referring not to marriage, but to slavery. So I am arguing that the believer who was abandoned by the nonbeliever is not free from the marriage, but rather they are free from the practical encumbrances of a difficult marriage. They had to, you know, believer, non-believer are married, presumably at the difficult relationship that they're in. And so when the unbeliever leaves, it's this feeling of relief. Oh, finally, I don't have to deal with this challenging relationship. I can do what my heart really desires, which is to serve God. Finally, they're not going to hold me back. And the same thing with a slave, Paul references in verse 21. The slave uh has to do what the master tells them to do. And uh now they can't do what they really want to do, which is to serve Christ. They are fervent, they want to serve God, and they can't because they're under this relationship. They're encumbered by this pre-existing relationship from before they were converted. Earlier, I mentioned that in 1 Corinthians 7, this part of the letter is addressed to people who are trying to get out of marriages so that they can be as faithful as possible in their Christian walk. So, and Paul says faithfulness means staying in your marriages, but if you're abandoned, then you can have what you're looking for: a life of service to Christ without the encumbrance of a difficult, unbelieving spouse. When he says you're not enslaved, he means you are no longer encumbered by this difficult marriage. Now, there is an action that Paul wants the believer to take in 1 Corinthians 7, 15. There is an action. And the action is let it be so. That's the command from Paul to the believer who's abandoned by their non-believing spouse. So now Dr. Keener is going to argue uh that there's nothing for the believer, the believer can do about this unbeliever leaving. Well, you can't. They left. What are you going to do? You can't stop them from leaving. So Paul can't be saying, uh, let it be so. But that's actually the words in the text. So Paul clearly thinks there's some kind of speech or conduct that the believing spouse could do to try to maybe stop the unbeliever from leaving. There's something that they could do that Paul is like, don't do that. Don't do that thing. Let them go. It likely means something like it's okay to use persuasion to keep your unbelieving spouse there with you because it's a marriage. People should stay married and you don't want them to leave. And then if they leave, then they're uh they go marry somebody else and they're gonna be kind of trapped in that marriage. It's gonna be an adulterous remarriage, and it's gonna be harder for them to get saved later on. So maybe that's what the believer is thinking, and they're like, Well, you know, I want you to uh not do that. And, you know, also maybe the believer is like, also, we have children together and we need to raise these kids together. What are you doing? You can't be leaving like this, it's bad for the kids, right? So all these things. So the believer can use persuasion to try to keep the unbeliever there. But but it's not okay to use like pressure and leverage. When people are married, their lives are integrated together. You got family and friends and assets and all kinds of stuff. And if somebody tries to deintegrate, they can make it very difficult and practical ways to do that. And so, and so I think Paul is saying, let it be so. Don't be using leverage on the person and pressuring them and kind of making it untenable or very difficult for them to leave. Use persuasion, sure. Don't use pressure and leverage. That's not the Christian way. We're called to be uh peace. And hey, listen, if they leave, now you can do what your heart desires, which is to serve Christ. You're no longer enslaved by this difficult relationship. I think that's what Paul is saying there. He is not saying, congratulations, you who want to be a celibate, you're free to remarry. I don't think that's what Paul is saying there.

SPEAKER_00

So the believer doesn't really have a choice in that, in a sense, because according to the law um in in the diaspora, not not so much in Judea and Galilee, but according to uh Roman law, if the if either spouse walks out of the marriage, it it is effectively dissolved. Uh or does it mean freedom to remarry? Um that's the that's the big debate in verse 15. And some people will say, well, look, later in the passage, it speaks of uh a believer being free to remarry if their spouse dies. And in Romans 7, uh the believer, well, under the law, a person is free to remarry only if their spouse dies, otherwise they're bound to the marriage. But Romans 7 is speaking in a general way because actually the law did make provision for divorce. So the other view is that the So Dr.

SPEAKER_04

Keener here is responding to an objection from people who are in the permanence camp, which is the camp I'm in. Permanence is a little bit of a misnomer. I would just say that marriage is undivorceable. I don't think marriage is technically permanent because I think if a spouse dies, the surviving spouse is free to go ahead and remarry. So that would mean marriage is not totally, totally permanent. Uh, but uh the label is permanence, it's stuck, so I'll I'll accept the label. So he's he's he's he's responding to an objection from permanence, people. And the objection goes like this 1 Corinthians 7, later in the chapter, Paul says, a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. That's verse 39. Therefore, Paul cannot be saying an abandoned spouse, an abandoned believer is free to remarry because only death ends a marriage. And so Keener's responding that same statement from Paul, wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. Paul also says that in Romans 7. But in Romans 7, it's speaking about the law, and the law permitted divorce and remarriage. So, therefore, the statement from Paul must be a general statement that doesn't outline all the exceptions. So now, here's the problem with Dr. Keener's reasoning on that. Even if we say Romans 7 was about the Mosaic government law, instead of talking about like the law from the Eden or the law from Jesus, even if we just say it's the Mosaic government law, like from Deuteronomy 24, verse 1, here's the issue with that. If you look at Deuteronomy 24 there, it even says the remarriage is wrong because Deuteronomy 24 says if the woman is divorced and remarried, she is defiled. So just because Deuteronomy 24 didn't use the state, the government, to forbid remarriage, that does not mean Deuteronomy 24 said the first marriage is over. And that's a that's an easy mistake to make. But in fact, Deuteronomy 24, 1 through 4 teaches the first marriage is not over, since the woman is defiled by the second marriage. So Paul's statement that a woman is bound to her husband for life has always been true. That was true in the Garden of Eden, that was true during the Old Testament period with the Mosaic law, even with all the polygamy and everything else that happened there in the divorce and remarriage. Paul's statement that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives has always been true. And it's true in the New Testament, it's true today. The next question that's going to come up in people's minds is they're going to say, well, wait a minute, wait a minute. There are men who had multiple wives in the Old Testament who appear to be going to heaven. People are divorcing remarriage in the Old Testament, and we presume that they're going to heaven. So how is it that if somebody is a polygamist today, I would say they're not going to heaven if they die in a polygamous state? But in the Old Testament, they would be going to heaven. And here's what's going on. In the Old Testament, more sin was tolerated than is tolerated in the New Testament. Now, for some people, this is a radical concept, but it really shouldn't be. So polygamy and remarriage was tolerated more than with believers, but Jesus raises the standard in the New Testament. When I say he raises the standard, I don't mean he changed the moral law. I'm not saying that. The moral law has always been the same, it's never going to change, it's always been the same. What I'm saying is the tolerance went down. By raising the standard, tolerance went down. It means the same thing. That's what I'm that's what I mean there. So the tolerance for sinful conduct is different, it's less now than it was in the Old Testament. So we see this when Jesus says in Matthew 5.17, he that Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill. And fulfill means to add until it's full. Now, what's interesting about this verse is people, evangelicals today, tend to interpret Matthew 5.17 to try to prove that Jesus didn't change anything with the law. But that is the opposite of what he says. What he says is that he's not here to abolish the law. That's true. But not abolishing doesn't mean not changing, because he says, I'm not here to abolish, I'm here to fulfill. And the word fulfill means to fill. So you have a vase, it's half full. Now we're going to fill it all the way up to the top. That's adding to the law. So an analogy that might be helpful to understand this concept of how you can add but not abolish. Let me explain this. You can override old laws to bring uh to lower the kind of the tolerance for sinful conduct. So here's how that would work. Suppose you have a sandy beach and you have an umbrella on the sandy beach and it casts shade over a particular area. And then you cut, and then somebody comes in the next day and they take a much larger umbrella and they plop it in the sand near this umbrella. And this large, much larger umbrella casts a shadow over the space that the old umbrella cast, but also a lot more space as well. That's what it's like. It fulfills, it overrides the lesser law, the Mosaic law in the Old Testament. And we see this all over the place when you begin to look for it. So uh we're we're not requiring circumcision anymore. The Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday. I know not everybody agrees with that, but I think that's the case. We're no longer doing sacrifices, we don't need a temple, we don't have high priests, we're not celebrating the high holy days, right? And if you look at Hebrews 7, verse 12, it says that there is a change in the law in the New Testament. And so the change uh for divorce and remarriage is what was tolerated before, is not tolerated now. That's why Jesus said, Moses allowed it for your hardness of heart in Matthew 19, 8. That's why Jesus said in Matthew 5, 31, 32, you have heard it was said by Moses, certificate of divorce, but I say to you, divorce and remarriage is adultery. So he's raising the standard. Um, and the general principle that the moral law forever binds everyone, and the theological idea that Christ in the gospel strengthens the obligation is in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's in chapter 19, part five. Here's what it says: the moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and and that not only in regards to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the creator who gave it. Neither does Christ in the gospel anyway dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. And so this is also the view from the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church from way back. Uh, so it's really just more of a modern evangelical thing that as far as I can tell, uh, where this has become popularized, that that the Mosaic law, like that we're still doing it or something, that that Jesus is just uh applying it and explaining it. That's not what's happening at all. Jesus is overriding it with with regards to divorce and remarriage. So just going back to what Dr. Keener uh said, now I don't rely on this whole argument about uh verse 39, a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. I don't I don't rely on that argument. I don't say that, well, um, because in verse 39 there's no exceptions, it's just bound as long as you live. That therefore uh uh not enslaved uh can't mean not married. I don't rely on that argument for a number of reasons. Well, here's what I do. I just go to verse 15 and I say not enslaved does not mean not married. If it did, Paul just called the nature of marriage to be slavery, which is an absurd outcome. Here's what here's what I want to know from evangelicals who think an abandoned spouse is permitted to remarry in the New Testament. If you read 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and verse 15, you observe that an abandoned spouse is quote, not enslaved. That's correct. But then you assume not enslaved means not married, and then you Deduce from your assumption that the abandoned spouse is free to remarry. Now, here's what I want to know. Why do you say that the nature of marriage is a covenant? If you think the phrase in 1 Corinthians 7, 15, not enslaved, means not married, you should say that the nature of marriage is slavery. When the man gets on one knee, why shouldn't he ask his girlfriend to be his slave? Why not replace wedding showers with slavery showers? We should update the vows. Do you take this man to be your slave? In the same way that none of us would call marriage slavery, Paul didn't either in verse 15. When he said not enslaved in verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul meant you're free from the challenges of a difficult spouse who now left you. He did not say they're not married. Jesus called it adultery seven times in the New Testament.

SPEAKER_00

The believer is not bound in such a situation. And here we could cite ancient divorce contracts and what bound and loosed specifically meant in such contracts. And we also could look at verses 27 and 25.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so Dr. Keener uh made a claim here that I dispute. So he said that the phrase not enslaved is what would be written in divorce contracts, divorce certificates. Uh now the argument is since this is what would be written in a divorce certificate, Paul's audience would know he meant not married when he said not enslaved. However, not enslaved is not what is written in those divorce certificates. Now check out this video from Dr. Keener, where he correctly states what is required on divorce certificates, and it's different than what he just said here.

SPEAKER_00

The essential formula in the bill of divorce is you were free to anyone. You were not bound, you were you were free to any man. So, in other words, free to remarry. That was the point of divorce. Um when there was no freedom to remarry, it was because a valid divorce had not taken place. So when Jesus says you can't divorce your wife and then marry somebody else because that's adultery, what he's saying is the original divorce wasn't valid.

SPEAKER_04

All right, so the certificate of divorce under the Pharisees, which is what was used by everyone under uh Jewish law, required the phrase, quote, you are free to marry any man. Now remember, Deuteronomy 24 only allowed a man to give the certificate of divorce to his wife and not vice versa. If a man, let's say a man's going to divorce his wife and he wrote on the certificate, you are not enslaved on a certificate of divorce, they would not be viewed as divorced under Jewish law. That would not be a divorce. That would be an invalid divorce. A totally different document was used to free a slave. And marriage and slavery were everybody understood those are two totally different institutions. So and the document that would be given to a slave to free them was called a manumission, totally different document. The fact that Paul wrote not enslaved in verse 15, and that would not work on a certificate of divorce, is evidence that Paul did not mean not married when he wrote not enslaved. So what Dr. Keener is doing is assuming something. He's assuming that Paul is speaking to a type of freedom in verse 15. And it's the same type of freedom imagined in the certificate of divorce. That's what he is thinking is going on here. But he makes that connection by trying to equate the words not enslaved to you are free to marry any man. And just think about those two phrases. You are not enslaved, you are free to marry any man. Are those synonymous phrases? Do those mean the same thing? Of course not. They don't mean the same thing at all. So if not enslaved meant not married, then every time a master freed a slave, the master divorced his slave. God's people were slaves in Egypt and they wanted to be freed. Does anybody think, does anybody does it even occur to anybody to think that the Egyptian slaves, God's people, were married to Egypt? They were married to Pharaoh and the government. No, of course not. Of course not. It's not a marriage. That's not the nature of the relationship. It's slavery. That's not marriage. So anyway, that there's just no way that's what Paul meant there.

SPEAKER_00

But I don't want to get ahead of the discussion. So I can go there now, or we can we can wait if you prefer.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, let's wait um on some of those details. But one view, for instance, there there is, and and a lot of these views are not, views on divorce and remarriage are not just about how one interprets First Corinthians seven. As you've mentioned, um, even just hovering over this footnote um or this note in the NASB, um, it it presents some of these other gospel accounts. Um, Matthew's account contains what's called that exception clause, the poor, the uh, the fornication um exception. The other gospels, uh, Mark and Luke do not include that exception. And so there's all debates about that. Why does Matthew include the exception? How should we understand the exception? And then there is Paul's exception here. And so a lot of the views are about divorce and remarriage relate to how you synthesize all of this together, how you read these texts together. Um, there is one view that would say Christians are disallowed from divorce and also then by implication, disallowed from remarrying. Um, how would they maybe interpret this passage, the arguments they would give, and how do you evaluate that view?

SPEAKER_00

In in this passage, they would say that um not being bound in such uh such cases just means you know it's not your fault if the other person walks out. Like verse 16, you you have no way of knowing whether you're gonna be able to win them. If they want to leave, you can't stop them. And that's obviously true. You can't stop them. Um you can maybe try, but on under under ancient law, there was no way you could you could prevent that.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so Dr. Keener is responding to people who have the permanence view, uh, who say not enslaved means not obligated to stop the unbeliever from leaving. Okay, or something like not obligated to try to restore the marriage. So I just want to reiterate that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that if the unbeliever departs, let it be so. Uh, so that indicates that there is some speech or conduct that a believer could take to attempt to prevent the separation. That Paul is saying, well, that's just going too far. You don't need to be doing that. So Dr. Keener sees this kind of in black and white terms. The believer can't stop them from leaving. Paul can't mean don't try to stop them. Uh so therefore, Dr. Keener argues not enslaved must mean something else. It must mean not married. But that just can't be right because Paul says, let it be so, which means that there is at least something that the believer could do to try to prevent the divorce, but that Paul is telling them not to do that thing. So I think not enslaved means something slightly different. So I think it means not encumbered by this difficult relationship from serving God. So that includes the idea that the believer doesn't need to follow the unbeliever around for the rest of their life and try to restore the marriage. It includes all of that. But the main point is not that. The main point is that the abandoned believer in 1 Corinthians 7 is now more free to do what their heart desires, and that is to serve God unencumbered by that difficult marriage. So and I get that from reading 1 Corinthians 7, 15 in the context of verse 21, which talks about a slave who is freed and therefore able to serve Christ.

SPEAKER_03

Would that view maintain that the believer, if their spouse or their former spouse leaves them, it's like, well, you can't control what they do. So obviously that's true. The question isn't whether that's true. The question is whether that's what Paul is saying or if he's saying something more than that. But under this view, um that you can't stop someone from leaving. So in that sense, you're not under bondage to keep trying to maintain the relationship. Um, would they hold that the marriage is still in the eyes of God intact then?

SPEAKER_00

Um it depends on how literally they take the passage that remarriage is adultery in in the gospels. So that's a that's another debate. And for that, we would we would need to look at those passages to whole nother conversation.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00

All right.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. Okay, yeah. So there's that view. Um, and and how would you evaluate that? Um, this is not your view. So, what would be maybe how you would why you find that unconvincing?

SPEAKER_00

Well, because of what bound and loosed actually meant in divorce contexts in ancient.

SPEAKER_04

So Dr. Keener continues to assume not enslaved means the same thing as not bound to a spouse, despite the fact that marriage and slavery are two different things. The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 7 15 is a different word than is used for marriage, and he referenced marriage divorce contracts, and we already covered how putting not enslaved on a divorce contract would not divorce people.

SPEAKER_00

Ancient sources. So being bound to the marriage obviously means you can't in monogamy, it means you can't marry somebody else. But in ancient Jewish divorce contracts, both those recovered from the Judean desert and some earlier New Testament commentators weren't aware of those. But also in Mishnah Getin IX, um, the mission is a bit later. Um, but it's this is uh going back to the schools of Shemai and Hillel. So it reflects probably the generation of Jesus' ministry.

SPEAKER_04

When you hear an evangelical talk about divorce or remarriage, and they're gonna go to the Talmud, usually this is where they're gonna go. So the Pharisees had two schools of thought, two rabbis that people followed that were kind of a big deal. It was Hillel and Shemai. And Hillel was bigger, and he kind of won the debate over time for on most subjects most of the time. So anyway, so Hillel interpreted for uh Deuteronomy 24, verse 1, that divorce was allowed for any cause. Now you had to have a cause. If you had no cause, technically that's no good. But if you had if you had any cause, it could be a very small cause, then you may divorce. Hillel also believed, according to the Gemera and the Talmud, that if a wife cheated on a husband, that he must divorce her. Uh Hill believed you a man could divorce his wife for any cause. Wife can't divorce her husband, but the husband can divorce the wife. Okay. Now, Shammai believed a husband uh could divorce his wife for adultery or we'll call it adultery-adjacent conduct by the wife. Now, notice the husband is doing the divorcing, both for Hillel and Shammai. The wife is not doing the divorcing. Now, the can the wife ever divorce? Yes. If the court determined that their marriage is invalid, then the court would require the husband to divorce the wife. Now, Hallel and Shemai do not premise their view on Genesis. Jesus does premise his teaching on Genesis. Halel and Shemmai, they premise it on Deuteronomy chapter 24. In Matthew 19, the Hill school of the Pharisees confronted Jesus, as we can tell from verse 3, because he says, Can you divorce for any cause? That's a halel thing. Okay. And Dr. Keener will say that Jesus chose a view that is closer to the Shemai view, which is that adultery allows for divorce and remarriage. That's Dr. Keener's uh interpretation of the exception clause there in Matthew 19. The idea that Jesus' teaching was similar to the Shemai teaching is full of problems. Shemai did not teach a woman could divorce for adultery, but Dr. Keener thinks Jesus taught that. Shemmai did not teach a man or woman could remarry after abandonment, but Dr. Keener thinks Paul taught that. Shemmai allowed a man to divorce a woman for immodest behavior, but Dr. Keener doesn't think Jesus taught that. Shemmai premised his teaching on Deuteronomy 24, verse 1, but Jesus premised his teaching on Genesis 1.27 and Genesis 2.24. Also, Jesus specifically rejects the Deuteronomy 24, verse 1 allowance for divorce in Matthew 19, verses 7 and 8. And here's the other problem. Dr. Keener and most evangelicals will bring up Hillel and Shemai, but they rarely bring up the Damascus document, which was likely believed by another group called the Essenes. This is the third largest group, we believe, of uh Jewish believers at the time of Jesus. And they wrote that if a man marries a second woman in the lifetime of his first wife, he commits fornication. And so this document and this document premises its conclusion on the same argument from Genesis that Jesus uses. So I now I argue that there were not two views contemporary with Jesus, but that there were three views. So I don't think that Jesus chose, you know, Pharisee one over Pharisee two, but rather Jesus affirmed the view of the Essenes in the Damascus document. They root their views in Genesis. It all lines up much closer to what Jesus said. So if someone wants to view Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage through the lens of, you know, what were the different views at the time, they should lay out all three views, Hillel, Shemai, Essenes, and then argue for which one they think Jesus' view is closest to instead of leaving out the Essenes. Jesus' view is much closer to the Damascus document. It's like not even close. It's like, it's it's like almost the same argument, almost exactly, as what you see in the Damascus document. So this idea that, and so what Dr. Keener's going to do when this evangelicals do this all the time is they say, Well, there's two views, Hillel and Shemai. Pick which one you think Jesus was uh was teaching. And they'll say, Well, Jesus' teaching was closer to the Shemai view. So that must have been essentially what Jesus was teaching there. And that is just not the right way of looking at it, you're just leaving out a whole different view that's much closer to what Jesus taught.

SPEAKER_00

He would have known this stuff if he studied under Gamaliel, who was a Hillelite. Uh I'm probably going off too much into too much detail, but all that to say um we also have it attested from that period from these documents from the Judean Desert, these ancient sources. That the Jewish divorce contract, the basic uh explicit expression of that was you are uh you are now free. That was said to the the woman when she was given the certificate of divorce. And when it was spelled out more fully, you are now free to any man, or when it was spelled out even more fully, you're not free to marry any man. Not being bound in that context explicitly meant you're no longer held to this marriage, you're now free to marry any person.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so again, not enslaved on a divorce certificate would have been viewed as an invalid divorce. So Paul is not using the technical divorce certificate language in 1 Corinthians 7, 15 to indicate that an abandoned spouse is free to remarry. And what's we what's odd to me about this is Dr. Keener just said that what you have right on the certificate of divorce is you are now free to marry any man. And then he says that's the same thing as saying you're not enslaved. And so you're gonna have to decide. Yeah, I and put it in the comment below. Do you think that's the same thing? Do you think you're free to marry any man and you're not enslaved? Means the same thing. We'll continue.

SPEAKER_00

And also something relevant in in this context. Like some people say, well, the context doesn't mention divorce again, but it actually does. And this is why I'm glad we're using the NSB here, because a lot of translations for some reason they don't they don't stick very closely to the uh forms of the verbs. In verses 27 and 28, uh Paul Paul is giving advice for those who are able to bear the advice. Don't uh you know, it's it's it's healthier to stay single. He gives the same advice to both divorcees and to single people in that context. So verse 27.

SPEAKER_04

So I'm a little confused by Dr. Keener's characterization of this as advice, as opposed to like teaching that they're obligated to abide by. I understand when you're on video, you say things maybe you didn't mean or whatever. So I don't want to uh belabor that too much. But um, before Dr. Keener goes into these verses uh that he's gonna talk about, we need to have some context that Dr. Keener, I think, skipped over, but perhaps he doesn't view the chapter this way. Uh, I don't know. But Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 addresses distinct groups of people in different sections. And you really have to know which section you're in and which group he's speaking to. Otherwise, you're gonna think that instruction for this group actually applies to this other group, and it doesn't. And I think that's the mistake that's happening in this video here. So, in so for example, in 1 Corinthians 7, in verses 8 and 9, he's speaking to widows and widowers. And you know that because he says, he says at the very beginning there in verse 8. And then for verse 10 to 24, he's speaking to the married. And again, you see that because in verse 10 he says to the married. And starting then in verse 25, Paul writes, to the betrothed, totally different group. Paul is going in reverse chronological order. First, widows and widowers, they're the oldest, the most honorable, that whole thing, and then to the married, and then to the betrothed, presumably the youngest. You see this with Paul. He tends to write to the highest or the most honorable or the oldest first, something like that. And he goes to the younger or less honorable, whatever, later on. Okay, so that's just how he tends to write. Um, so in starting in verse 25, Paul writes to the betrothed. And it's important to note that when a man and woman were betrothed to be married at this time, they called them husband and wife. They were not husband and wife, but they called them that. That's how those Greek words were used at that particular time. So they're not actually married, but the words we ordinarily reserve for marriage were used for the betrothed couple. Now you can see that very clearly in Matthew 1, 18 and 19, where it says, Joseph and Joseph uh and Mary were betrothed, and Joseph was her husband. You might scratch your head and go, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait, how can you be a husband if you're not married? But that's how those words were used at that time. So here in verse 25, um, we're talking, talking to the betrothed. So when Paul, after verse 25, talks about a husband or a wife, Paul is talking about a betrothed people, not married people. He's not talking to married people there. So Dr. Keener treats this passage as though Paul was speaking to married people. That's totally incorrect. He's not. Verse 25 clearly shows this passage is to the betrothed. The married section ended at the end of verse 24.

SPEAKER_00

He says, Are you bound to a wife? Don't seek a wife. Uh are you released from a wife? No, he doesn't say a lot of translations just say, are you unmarried? But he's not saying, are you simply unmarried? He's saying are you demarried? That is, not are you free, but are you freed? Literally. Ah and and so he says and there's only a couple ways to get freed from a marriage. That is one, okay.

SPEAKER_04

So I I agree the passage is talking about being freed. That's not the question. The question is freed from what? And Dr. Keener says it means freed from a marriage, but it's not talking about marriage, it's talking about betrothal. So he's saying if you're freed from a betrothal, and then you go and remarry somebody else, that's not sin. That's what Paul is saying here.

SPEAKER_00

Divorce, the other is your spouse dies. Uh presumably, he doesn't have to say, Don't kill your spouse. I mean, the Corinthians were young Christians, but presumably they knew enough to know that.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00

So are you are you bound to a wife? Are you are you married to a wife? Don't seek to be unmarried. Are you unmarried from a wife? It has to mean the same thing, it just meant. So in other words, are you don't seek to be divorced. Uh if you are divorced, don't seek to be married. But then the next verse in verse 28, he says, But if you do, you haven't sinned, and if a virgin does, they haven't sinned. So he says the same thing for divorced of divorced person, presumably for the kind of exception he makes earlier, that he says for um for for a virgin. So he's recommending uh not marriage, just like he does for virgins. But the the issue uh would seem to be the validity of the divorce. Don't break up your marriage. He's he's clear on that. He cites Jesus very clearly on that. But also, you know, if your marriage is broken up against your will, you're not bound to the marriage. You're not still married to the person, which means it's not adultery in God's sight.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so this is just a great example of how missing uh missing the context in this case where Paul switched from the married to the betrothed in verse 25, how missing that context can lead you to incorrect conclusions. If you think Paul wrote that anyone who is divorced is free to remarry, you cannot square that with what Jesus and uh Paul wrote. Like for example, in 1 Corinthians 7, 10 and 11. That is that is unsquarable. So there's no way verse 27 is speaking about married people, it's talking about betrothed people.

SPEAKER_03

So I while you were speaking, I pulled up a text comparison just to see how the different translations. There are a couple others that retain release in both instances. Um that is interesting, but some of the others say free, which could make you simply think unmarried as in you've never been married.

SPEAKER_00

Is it and that's free instead of freed, even though the Greek is pretty clear.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. So the CSB, for instance, says um it retains release in in both cases, it looks like, um, as well as I thought there was one other. Um, so that's interesting.

SPEAKER_04

So and and you're arguing then based on the use of this word, um Kirk Miller here uh pulled up the Greek word for uh duolo, and that's the word used back in verse 15. And he's looking at the Greek word for not enslaved. We talked about earlier. Dr. Keener thinks that not enslaved means not married, and I think not enslaved means not encumbered from being able to serve God by this difficult relationship. In order to try to figure out what he meant, they're like, well, let's look at the Greek word. Um, and the meaning of this word as he has it on the screen here clearly means enslaved. So now there's another Greek word in uh in that verse for not, and then together they mean not enslaved. And now, if you look at the definition for the word and how it's translated, it it just means enslaved. That's where it's translated everywhere. Enslave or a variation of that concept. It's never used in the New Testament to mean married. But Dr. Keener, uh, he's gonna go up um a level of generality. So so he's he's thinking to himself, something like this, I think. Well, what does marriage, the concept of marriage or that relationship of marriage, have in common with slavery? And if you go up to a level of generality, uh they both entail relationships of some kind, and they both have obligations. And so what I look to is the aspect of marriage and slavery that they have in common, the relationship aspect. The slavery relationship is difficult and it encumbers a Christian from fully serving Christ. And so a believer-unbeliever marriage relationship is also difficult and it also encumbers a Christian from fully serving Christ. So that's how I understand it. But from Dr. Keener, he he he deduces that Paul means not married by not enslaved, and he does that by looking at the obligation side of the equation. So what he says is that marriage has an obligation to it, slavery there's an obligation to it, and so Paul is speaking to the obligation part. But here's the here's the issue that's problematic. Slavery is a one-way binding, it's unilateral. The the slave is bound to the master, but the master is not bound to the slave, right? But marriage is bilateral binding. The human-to-human slavery is bad, but marriage is honorable. Later, uh, in the same to the married section of this chapter, Paul refers to slavery in verse 21. And the freedom experienced by the freed slave is freedom to serve Christ more fully. Uh, it's not freedom to be re-enslaved, right? So that tracks more with my view about how it's freedom from this difficult relationship, this uh daily practical experience with being married to this person, living with them. Now, the other problem with Dr. Keener's assumption that Paul is analogizing the obligation to slavery to the obligation of marriage is that a different Greek word is used for the obligation of marriage in this chapter. So that Greek word is deo, it's in verse 39. And typically, when two different Greek words are used near each other to refer to similar ideas, the reason two different words are used is because they mean two different things. So that means that duolo does not refer to the marriage obligation, but rather the practical difficulties of a believer-unbeliever relationship.

SPEAKER_03

Um you are not bound. This is the word. So I have a word study pulled up here. This is the word for bound here, which is oftentimes used in the context of slavery, as we see. But you're arguing that this word means more than just because there would be a second view. So we've talked about the view that says no divorce and thus no remarriage. There's another view that would say that Jesus and Paul, so this passage allows for divorce, freedom in that sense. But once you're divorced, sort of there's there's no going back to you're not, you should not, you ought not to remarry. That would be illegitimate. And you're and you're arguing against that view now by saying that the very word that Paul uses in terms of the context, the Greco-Roman context, as well as even how Paul uses it later in the chapter, um, argues against that. Is that am I understanding you correctly?

SPEAKER_00

Yes. Yeah, and I'm saying that we need to take the the word in in light of how it's used specifically in divorce and remarriage context.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. Now, what would you say to someone who says, okay, that's that's that's great, that we see how this word is used. And this was the exact word that was used in those in those contexts you're referencing, or is something similar used?

SPEAKER_00

The divorce contracts were normally in Aramaic.

SPEAKER_03

Okay, okay.

SPEAKER_00

Uh but yeah, it's the same, it's the it we it would be translated this way.

SPEAKER_03

Okay.

SPEAKER_04

Um, what if so Okay, so I disagree with Dr. Keener that divorce contracts uh would be translated into Greek to say not enslaved. You're free to marry any man, not enslaved wouldn't be wouldn't be in there.

SPEAKER_03

So what what if someone I could see someone maybe arguing back, um rebutting, well, that's sort of the outside context. How much should we be reading that context in Paul? Like just because that was the context doesn't mean that Paul is assuming the same sort of arrangements. Um, like maybe he's going against the grain. How would you respond to that claim?

SPEAKER_04

I do think we uh it's an advantage to us to be able to have archaeology and evidence from the time, and we can use that to help us understand the text. I don't think it's necessary in the divorce remarriage context. I think you're gonna come to the same conclusions if you read, if you understand what they meant uh at the time as you would if you take all the archaeological information and the Talmud and all the stuff that we've got today uh to help us. Um, really, the question is do we read it in the cultural context of that time or the cultural context of our time? Because inevitably, we're going to be not even knowing it. We're going to be reading into uh the text are our notions from today, and we're going to be putting anachronisms into the text. For example, most people, it doesn't occur to them to think that when uh Matthew uh is writing in Matthew chapter one that Joseph is the husband of Mary. Uh, if if Matthew hadn't written that they were betrothed, people would think that they're already married. That's what we would think today, because we don't use husband and wife in the exact same way that it was used at the time that Matthew wrote the gospel. It is important to be able to have the cultural context then because our our alternative is to use our context. And there is an argument to be skeptical for. Let me let me just say that, because we have archaeological stuff that we've dug out today. What if tomorrow we dig out something totally different and then we realize oh, because because we reinterpreted this verse based on limited archaeological data, we misinterpreted it. Uh, but now we have more data. Now we now we're going to change our interpretation of it because we were just missing some information. And so that's a danger when you are using historical uh documentation and stuff. I still think it's uh on balance, it's better to use historical context uh than not, but that is that is a danger. So people do have to be careful with reading historical stuff and archaeology and using that as part of your interpretation. But I do think it's probably better.

SPEAKER_03

Or that argument.

SPEAKER_00

If he's going against the grain, you would expect him to make that more explicit. Okay. I mean, he's using he's using the wording that was used uh in divorce contexts, in a divorce context. And so um it's it's what he would expect his audience to uh to understand. And again, uh later on in the context in verses 27 and 28, uh I think it's it's clear that uh he means the same thing.

SPEAKER_04

No, uh Okay, so Dr. De Keener just repeats this that it was in the divorce contract. I'm just gonna need to see somebody's gonna have to show me a divorce contract that said you are not enslaved. And it does not say you are free to marry any man, and uh some kind of evidence that they took that to mean a valid divorce. And I'm just not going to find that. I just I just don't think that that exists. In the Talmud, it says the opposite. In the Talmud, it says you had to say you are free to marry any man. Saying you are not enslaved would have been an invalid divorce. I've read 25 books on the subject. I don't see anybody showing me a divorce certificate that says you are not enslaved. And if there was that, then the next step would be someone's gonna have to show me that was a valid divorce because the Talmud would say it's not a valid divorce. So there's just really no evidence for the idea of not enslaved, meaning not married.

SPEAKER_03

Now, I did, I I would I'd be curious what you have to say about the end of the chapter. You mentioned this. Um, admittedly, he says, so he talks about here, he's talking about if the spouse dies, and everyone like the Christians are, as far as I know, maybe there's some outliers, but Christians are pretty universally. Okay. Christians are pretty universally agreed, at least pretty universally agreed, that when a spouse dies, that frees you from the marriage and presumably then remarriage. Paul seems to say is say such in his analogy in Romans 7, as you mentioned.

SPEAKER_04

And yes, I I agree a person can remarry if their spouse dies.

SPEAKER_03

Um now Paul uses this language, a wife is bound. And he says that if the husband dies, she is free. Now, these are not uh you can see in the bottom of my screen, um, Lagos is showing me the underlying Greek. These are not, this is not the exact same word that he uses up in verses 15.

SPEAKER_04

Um, so Kirk brings up the point that I mentioned earlier. Uh bound in verse 39 is deo, not enslaved in verse 15 is duolo. Not the same word, not the same word. Kirk mentions it here, he sees it there in Lagos, which is wonderful Bible software, let me just say. So bound has a specific technical meaning in the marriage context to refer to the marriage bond. Duolo in verse 15 doesn't refer to the marriage bond. So not enslaved doesn't mean not married.

SPEAKER_03

But one could argue that the sense is so similar that we should then take the idea of like if bound here means presumably that they're free to remarry. Um, which um it talks about, I mean, you that seems to be a pretty safe assumption, most people would recognize.

SPEAKER_04

Um, so Kirk says it's an assumption that Deo in verse 39 and Duolo in verse 15 mean the same thing because the sense is the same. But notice neither Kirk nor Keener are comparing duolo uh in verse 15, duolos in verse 21, right? They're going from verse 15, here's a word, to verse 39, here's a word. We think these mean these two words mean the same thing. Okay. But there's another word to look at that I think is pretty important. That's the word duolos in verse 21. So verse 21 has uh a number of things that are important about it. Verse 21 is the word is much closer. It's duolos, and the word in verse 15 is duolos. Same same root concept about slavery. So it's talking about the same concept, slavery. They're both in the to the married section, right? The to the married section goes from verse 10 down to verse 24, and I'm talking about comparing two verses between in verse 15 and verse 21. So they're right there uh in that same little passage there. So it would seem like that would be closer context to help you understand the meaning of duolo in verse 15. So if we understand verse 15 in light of verse 21, then the freed person is not supposed to get re-enslaved, right? In verse 21, the idea is you're you're free from slavery there. If you can get your freedom, you should get it, Paul writes there. And so that would be great. Now you can serve Christ. The idea is not, the idea is not you're freed, so now you can go get into slavery again. No, of course not. The idea is you're freed, so now you can serve Christ. So if you understand verse 15 in light of verse 21, then the idea would be that your uh when your unbeliever leaves you, now you're free to serve Christ, not free to remarry. But if you understand verse 15 in light of verse 39, then the freed person can get remarried. So the question is we have to figure out which verse is closer to Paul's meaning in verse 15. Verse 21 or verse 39, it's obviously verse 21, verse 15 and verse 21, they're both talking about slavery. They're using essentially the same Greek word, they're much closer to each other in the text. Verse 21 appears to be an analogy back to verse 15. Uh, so it's like referencing verse 15 and verse 21, where verse 39 isn't referencing verse 15 in any way. So that's there's basically no reason to select verse 39 over verse 21 to be the context by which we understand not enslaved in verse 15.

SPEAKER_03

Um, that therefore we should take the similar language of binding and freedom as would you as implying the freedom to remarry. Would you is that a good argument in your opinion?

SPEAKER_00

Yes, yes, I think so. It's it's it's used synonymously.

SPEAKER_03

Okay. So so we've kind of walked through the views, the no remarriage, no divorce, no remarriage, the divorce, but no remarriage. And then the view that you're articulating is divorce is allowed. Um, and when divorce occurs, remarriage is allowed. Would you qualify that in any way?

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I think that I think the point is don't break up your marriage. And the exception is when you can't control it, then you're not held responsible for that.

SPEAKER_04

So okay, so Dr. Keener thinks that Jesus taught a person can remarry if their partner was uh unfaithful. That's the Westminster Confession of Faith view, the innocent party to adultery is another way people label that view. So Dr. Keener thinks Paul taught a person can remarry if their partner abandons them. So from that, Dr. Keener deduces what he thinks is like the background concept underlying these two exceptions. So exception one is for adultery, exception two is for abandonment. And so Dr. Keener is trying to figure out what is the background idea that results in adultery and abandonment as being exceptions. That's what he, that's the work he's doing in his mind. And the background concept is his real view on divorce and remarriage. So the background concept is if you're enough of a victim, you're allowed to divorce and remarry. But here's the problem with that background concept: it contradicts directly some of the text. So, for example, if you look at the second half of Luke 16, 18, Jesus said, He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

unknown

Okay.

SPEAKER_04

So here's a woman who is abandoned by her husband, she's the victim. He divorced her. She didn't do the divorcing. He she couldn't do the divorcing. He he would give her a certificate of divorce. This is the Jewish law, right? If she remarries, it's adultery. Now again, she's the victim. And Jesus says, if she, the victim, remarries, it's adultery. And so Dr. Keener says the victim can divorce or remarry, but this text in Luke 16, 18, says if the victim remarries, it's adultery. Now, also if the perpetrator remarries, it's also adultery, but we're just focused on the victim question because that's Dr. Keener's like theory. The victim can remarry. So Dr. Theory, Dr. Keener's theory must be incorrect because Luke 16, 18 says the victim cannot remarry. So to this, Dr. Keener's standard like reply is that Jesus was just giving a general rule and not laying out the exceptions. But that reply doesn't work here in Luke 16, 18. The woman was the victim. Her husband divorced her. Nothing in the text of or uh or context here indicates that she was the bad actor. Rather, it looks like her husband was the bad actor. And Matthew 5.32 says something uh similar there.

SPEAKER_00

Um so it's not saying divorce is allowed across the board. Right.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, that's a good clarification.

SPEAKER_00

You know, um it's it's a matter of the b uh in in with all the exceptions, the believer is not allowed to break up their marriage, but if the marriage is broken up against their will, now the question is what does that entail? We have the explicit exception here of abandonment, explicit exception in Matthew 5 32 and 19. Of um infidelity.

SPEAKER_04

Dr. Keener is going to address uh uh the the line the line drawing problem. Okay, how much of a victim does somebody have to be before they can divorce and remarry? Now, this is a nightmare of a problem for people with the permissive view. When does the conduct qualify as adultery? There are a number of things a spouse could do that are uh unfaithful, but it's not really adultery, or it's unclear if it's adultery. So, what qualifies as infidelity that allows for divorce and remarriage? What if somebody gambles away all the money? Does that make a spouse sufficiently a victim so they can divorce and remarry? What if a spouse uses the silent treatment for five years? Does that qualify as abandonment? So we have a line drawing problem, total nightmare for people with a with a permissive view, total nightmare. Second, Dr. Keener said the exception clauses in Matthew 5.32 and Matthew 19.9 are for infidelity. Now, I disagree with that interpretation. In those two passages, the exception is in the Greek the word pornea, which is typically translated fornication. The word fornication can refer to, you know, one type of sexual sin or it can refer to all kinds of sexual sin. And if it means one kind of sexual sin, uh that would have to be indicated by the context. It has to be indicated by the context because otherwise you wouldn't know which one it is. Is it homosexual conduct? Is it sex outside of marriage? What kind of fornication is it? You wouldn't know unless the person tells you, here's what I mean by it. Is it incest? They'd have to tell you what they mean by uh fornication for you to kind of narrow it down to one kind. So I agree with all of that, that you need context to limit it. And if you don't have context, then generally it means all kinds of sexual sins. When the exception, when fornication, whatever Jesus meant by that, when fornication occurs, that does allow uh divorce and remarriage. I agree with that. So all we have to figure out is what does the word fornication actually mean? Dr. Keener thinks it means adultery. For example, the wife cheated on the husband. That's what he thinks. I don't think that's what it means. I think Jesus specifically tells us what he means in the second half of Matthew 532. And what he tells us is that the kind of sexual immorality is an invalid, adulterous remarriage. It's in the second half of Matthew 532, where Jesus spells that out. So here's the concept. Suppose you have a man, he's 25 years old, and he finds a young lady, she's 24, I don't know, and so he marries her. This is his first marriage, but it's her second marriage. It's an adulterous remarriage. What I'm saying is if that 25-year-old man divorces her, he can remarry. Why? Because his marriage to her was an invalid adulterous remarriage. And that's what Jesus says in Matthew 5.32, the second half. He defines what he means by prunea when he says if a man marries a divorced woman, he commits adultery. That sexual sin, adultery, is what he means by fornication in the exception clause of Matthew 5.32. So now why can the man remarry? Somebody might say, well, the man was married at age 25 and then he divorced her, he's a divorced man. He shouldn't be remarrying, right? Well, this is the exception. The exception is he can remarry if his first marriage was invalid. And the reason is because if he goes to remarry, he's not cheating on his first wife because they were never married. He has no obligation to her. His only obligation to her was to divorce her because it was an invalid marriage. He had to leave her so they can quit their fornication, quit their adultery. Now, somebody might say, now, Chris, I don't understand. The word fornication usually means sex outside of marriage, but she's, you know, married, quote unquote, to her first husband, even though they're divorced, under my theory, right? That's why her remarriage is adultery. Well, the sex between the man and the woman is fornication between them. That's the sin between them because they're not married, the man and the woman. It is true, it is also adultery against her first husband. So there's two sexual sins going on. There's the sin of his uh sex with her between them. That's fornication. There's also a second sin going on that it's on top of that, which is it's adultery against her first husband. So it's both fornication and adultery at the same time. And that's actually what the Damascus does. Document, I think, is referring to when it says that if a man marries a second woman while his first wife is alive, then he commits uh fornication twice. He commits two sexual sins. The two sexual sins would be the sin between them because they're not married. So though that sex that they have is a sexual sin, but it's also cheating against his first spouse. Now we see the word fornication used this way by the early church. We see it in the Damascus document where it calls a remarriage fornication. And we see Jesus explaining that that's what he means by fornication in Matthew 5.32. Let me write so that part where Jesus says, whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery, that's the scenario Jesus is referring to in the exception clause. The man married a woman who is divorced. And so the sex between them was fornication. So additionally, the exception clause can't be for adultery. Dr. Keener thinks the except it be for sexual immorality refers to adultery. So that again would be the case where a man's married to a woman, she is unfaithful to him, and so then the man divorces her and he remarries. So that's Dr. Keener's view on it. Westminster Confession faith, a faith view. It's also called the innocent party to adultery view. It's very popular in evangelical circles, but I think it's I think it's incorrect. But there's a number of problems, actually, with that view that a lot of you evangelicals have never heard of. So I'm just going to give you a couple of them. First of all, if you look at Matthew 532 and Matthew 19, 9, the man is divorcing the woman. And then there's the exception clause, but the man's divorcing the woman. So under this theory, it would only allow the man to divorce the wife for infidelity. It would not allow the wife to divorce the man for infidelity. So it'd be a gendered exception that favors the man. Because there is never an exception clause that allows a woman to divorce her husband for sexual immorality. Now, that is not a problem under my view, because the point is that if the marriage that they entered into was invalid, they can, they can and should divorce that. And then they can remarry because it wouldn't be cheating on the first spouse. So the logic of it doesn't require a gendered result. But if you think Jesus' exception was for sexual immorality, then he's telling his audience only a man can divorce his wife for infidelity. A wife can't divorce her husband for infidelity. It doesn't work the other way around. Consider Jesus is speaking to people who believe the moral law is gendered. They're accustomed to Deuteronomy 24 that allows a man to divorce a wife, but not a wife to divorce a husband. So thinking like that their whole life, and then they hear Jesus say, oh, there's an exception for adultery, that's what they would have thought he meant. If they thought he was taking the Shemai view, that's what they would have thought he meant, that a man can divorce a wife for infidelity, but not vice versa. There are all of these things, Jesus' actual words, the shamai view, and just the way they thought the moral law was gendered would all have made them think that Jesus was only allowing a man to divorce for infidelity, not vice versa. But that's a real problem because that goes against like the whole context of how Jesus and Paul write and talk about divorce and remarriage. The rules for divorce and remarriage are the same for both genders. And you see them, you see the genders flipped in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, in Mark 10, and in Luke 16, 18. Also, all of 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul spends a lot of time flipping the genders. If the widow this and the widow were that, and the betrothed guy, this, and the betrothed woman that, the rules are the same back and forth, but suddenly for adultery, they're not the same. That doesn't make any sense. So then adultery can't be what he meant by the exception clause because it would be a gendered outcome, which would be uh against uh the context of what uh Jesus says in Paul rights on the subject. So that's the first problem with uh interpreting the exception clause as adultery. The second problem with treating the exception clause as being uh for adultery is that Jesus specifically rejects divorce for adultery in Matthew 19 verses 7 and 8. Let me say that again. Jesus specifically rejects divorce for adultery in Matthew 19, verses 7 and 8. There, the Pharisees ask Jesus about divorcing for adultery based on Deuteronomy 24.1. That's their question in Matthew 19, 7. Now Jesus says, no, that is not okay. It is not okay to divorce for adultery. He says that in verse 8 that Moses allowed you to do that for your hardness of heart. Divorcing a man divorcing his wife because she cheated on him is hard as a hard-hearted act. That's what Jesus says in Matthew 19:8. Now we know the Deuteronomy 24, 1 allowance for divorce was divorcing for adultery. We know that because of Jeremiah chapter 3, verses 1 through 8. There, the divorce that occurs there is because the wife uh committed adultery. That's why the divorce was there. And it references back to Deuteronomy chapter 24 in verse 1. Also chapter 24 and verse 1, if you look at the Hebrew word there, it's for a matter of uncleanness. That word is usually, almost always, related to some kind of sexual sin. In Deuteronomy 24:1, Moses permitted uh them to divorce for uh men to divorce his wife for adultery. And then Jesus in Matthew 19, verses 7 through 9, he rejects and overrides the Mosaic permission for divorce for adultery. So Jesus specifically rejects, specifically rejects divorcing for adultery. Also, those were Hillel Pharisees that were talking to Jesus in Matthew 19, 7 through 9. And in the Talmud, Hillel said that Moses commanded a man to divorce his wife for adultery. That's in the Gemera section of Giton 19.10. So that's the question they raise in Matthew 19:7, where they said, Why then did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement? That's for adultery. And then Jesus specifically rejects divorce for adultery in Matthew 19, verse 8.

SPEAKER_00

Um what else could be um yeah, we could we could talk about that. I think probably physical abuse, uh putting cyanide in your spouse's coffee, things like that would probably but but not like I just got tired of the person. That's absolutely not.

SPEAKER_04

All right, so I I agree that safety is a justification to retreat in any scenario, married or whatever. So if retreating is insufficient to be safe, you know, it's a husband and wife are married and there's abuse uh and there's a safety problem for the spouse or their child. If retreating is insufficient to be safe, then a legal divorce is necessary to be safe, then a legal divorce is permissible. But a person cannot remarry as they're still married to their bad spouse for life. Now I have an episode about divorcing for safety as well, as you can watch and learn more about that. But if there is a safety issue, step one is get safe. Step two is call the police, and step three is call your church leaders.

SPEAKER_03

Let's let's hold, I'd love to get into that. Let's hold off some of those practical questions. It is important to say too. I think you would agree. Tell me, tell me if not. But like it's important to state that even if scripture, on and as you're interpreting it, does a does permit divorce, it's not like I don't think anyone would argue that scripture has a willy-nilly sort of lax view of marriage and divorce. Um, from the beginning it was not so, Jesus said. And Paul is expanding on what Jesus says by saying, not I, but the Lord. He's referencing Jesus. Now he's saying, as an apostle, I'm sort of expanding on something, a situation that Jesus did not directly address. Um, but there's no view that I'm aware of that is, I mean, I'm sure there are some people, but um, among um, let's just put it this way typically um people are not approaching, even where they do see permissions for divorce and remarriage, it's not a case of sort of anything goes. There's, and even here, when we say that on the view that you're articulating where Paul permits divorce, it's not permission under any circumstance. He's like he says, even in the passage above, that there is a situation where someone leaves their spouse. Um, it looks like two believe two believers, for instance, and one illegitimately leaves the other.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so Kirk quickly brings up the idea that verses 10 and 11 from 1 Corinthians 7 is about two believers. And if you look at that passage, uh, does anything in that text indicate this only applies to two believers? It doesn't. Nothing in the passage says that. Now, some people will say this. They'll say, Well, it's written two believers, so it's only a moral rule for believers. But does that mean that when a text says honor your parents, that only applies to children who are believers? No, that's not how this works. It applies to everybody. So verses 10 and 11 are a paraphrase of Jesus' teaching. And if you look at Matthew 19, Jesus is teaching about divorce and remarriage to the Pharisees who are unsaved. So it's the rule that they are supposed to follow, even though they're not saved. So he premises it in creation, which applies to everybody. So how could anybody in Jesus' audience have thought that was only about believer-believer marriages? They would not have thought that. Uh, if you look in Mark 10, Jesus talks about a woman who divorces her husband and remarries. A woman divorcing her husband was not under, uh, was not doing that under, you know, Jewish law. So this is somebody acting outside of the Mosaic government kind of tolerance for divorce. So now, so the question then is where does Kirk get this concept that verses 10 and 11 are just for believer-believer marriages? So where he gets this from, this is a popular evangelical view. I'm pretty sure this is where he gets it from, is the phrase to the rest in verse 12. And so what he thinks is to the rest means that now Paul's going to be talking about believer-unbeliever marriages, and that the preceding text then therefore must have been only about believer-believer marriages, which then narrows all of Jesus' teaching to believer-believer marriages. And they get all of that from the phrase to the rest. But that's not what Paul means by to the rest. What to the rest means is, hey guys, I just paraphrase what Jesus says in verses 10 and 11. And now I'm going to be applying that to some situations Jesus did not specifically speak on. It's not intended to narrow Jesus' teaching to believer-believer marriages. And uh Dr. Keener seems to agree with me on this. He said earlier that Paul is applying Jesus' teaching to believer-unbeliever marriages in verses 12 and following. So instead of thinking of this passage as Jesus teaching to believer-believer marriages and Paul's teaching to believer-unbeliever marriages, instead we should think about this as Jesus' teaching on all marriages, and Paul's applying Jesus' teaching to a specific question from the Corinthians. So the point is, Paul is saying, here's what we know from Jesus, and deducing, here's what it means for your specific scenario.

SPEAKER_03

Um, and so we're talking about specific situations. Um, we talked about the use of the word, one of the questions I had was about this. So in the Lagos um exegetical guide, it automatically pulls up important words. And so these are really helpful uh to see in a passage like this. One of the key words is this word for separate, another is enslaved. We talked about this idea of enslaved or bind bind, like how that's used in this context, how it's used outside of First Corinthians. What about this word um separate or leave? I think the NASB just has leave. Um the question is, does that word imply because I could see someone saying, well, hey, it's just saying let that person leave, like physical separation, but not necessarily legal divorce. Um help us think through that matter.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, and people people will sometimes say that. Um But the the the problem the problem is that in the Greco-Roman world, if a spouse left, it automatically dissolved the marriage.

SPEAKER_04

So yeah, so I I agree with Dr. Keener there. That if a spouse leaves, the marriage is auto-divorced.

SPEAKER_00

Again, putting it in the in the specific context of how the wording would be used uh back then. And actually it sometimes was used as I recall, I should I should have gone and looked this up, but I think it I think it's already pointed out by Deisman's light from the ancient East. So over a century ago, I think. Um where sometimes carizo was used with regard to divorce.

SPEAKER_03

Okay. That's why I was wondering if it's ever used, if Paul is just using it sort of in a illustrative metaphorical sense, or if it's actually ever used with that um with that semantic range. Um yeah. So maybe another question uh that sometimes comes up um is Paul uses this language, I'm trying to find it here, but he says, in such a case, um, and I know that people sometimes point to, yeah, in such cases right here, um, people sometimes point to this because let's just sort of uh for sake of time, when people talk about exceptions for divorce and then for divorce and remarriage, if they hold the that that additional element. Um the exceptions are when Jesus talks about fornication. So if a spouse commits fornication, um, there's the passage here that talks about abandonment, um, is typically the language people use. Um so someone just abandoning the marriage. Um, but there are others who hold that there may be even further exceptions. So you mentioned abuse, for instance. Now, some people will say abuse is functionally a form of abandonment. If you abuse your spouse, you've so mistreated them that it's as if you, even if you haven't walked away and you're still like that person still wants to be married. Functionally speaking, they have so mistreated their spouse that it is it should be sort of included in this exception from 1 Corinthians 7. Other people don't feel the need to do that. They would just simply say the exceptions that the New Testament provides are not exhaustive. We shouldn't get willy-nilly with any exceptions, like uh a spouse burns toast and so you should divorce them, or you just get sick of them and you're not yeah, yeah, you're not physically attracted to them anymore, or whatever. Like we we need to be serious about um the permanency, the intended permanency of marriage. But but I know um I think Andy Nicelli, for instance, who wrote an article surveying all the texts, he argues that in such cases, this this language shows that Paul is leaving the door open um in a in a way to say, like, I'm talking about instances that happen, and this is not the exhaustion of such instances. Um, I'd be curious what you have to say about Paul's use of that language in such cases, if you if if you think that's helpful as we approach the topic of divorce and remarriage.

SPEAKER_00

I do, and and actually um and Andy Nicelli via you have taught me something because I hadn't I hadn't paid attention to that before, but I think that makes sense uh given uh how Paul uses uh language like such such cases uh elsewhere, like where he's giving a vice list in Galatians 5, and he says, and such things like these, you know, it's not exhaustive, but it does um but but it also means they need to be analogous.

SPEAKER_04

So again, not just like yeah, so I think in such cases means abandonment or something analogous to abandonment. So a safety problem uh is a form of abandonment if there's like abuse, for example. But again, that doesn't mean a spouse can remarry. It just means that after the separation, they're free to serve Christ without the encumbrance of that difficult relationship. But I agree in principle with the idea that in such cases, uh, you know, extends to analogous things and uh safety would be an analogous uh situation to abandonment, because they're compelling the person to retreat, which causes them to be not in the same dwelling anymore.

SPEAKER_00

Um again, the schools of Shemai and Talel uh in Mishnah 159 in in Jesus' day they were debating grounds for divorce, and Jesus weigh in, sort of on one side, a little bit stricter, but um so I just want to note real quick that Dr.

SPEAKER_04

Keener says Jesus doesn't totally take the Shemai view, but kind of the Shemai view. And that daylight between Jesus and Shemai, I think, shows a weakness uh of Dr. Keener's uh particular interpretation. I think there's actually a lot of daylight, as I mentioned earlier, between Dr. Keener's interpretation of Jesus and what Shemai taught. So uh, and there's so much daylight, in fact, that you just can't really say that Jesus and Shemai agree.

SPEAKER_00

School of Shemai says you can divorce your wife if she's unfaithful. School of Hillel says you can divorce your wife if she burns the toast. You know, for basically any cause, the husband is allowed to do it. And Rabbi Akiba, a later rabbi from the School of Hillel, says, if you find someone more beautiful, so the examples you gave of things that are not acceptable are actually, you know, the kind of things Jesus was clearly repudiating when he when he weighed in on the subject.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. I how would you go about determining um because you you've contributed, this is an area where you've written quite a bit on, and you've contributed to multiple view books or at least one book. Um, and I believe you've you've you've been the one defending that position that there are there are more exceptions beyond just the ones directly mentioned in scripture. Is there a controlling principle? I liked how you said they have to be analogous. Um I know some people have spoken about like things that are so um rupturing, like they they effectively rupture the covenant, they effectively violate it. Right. Yeah. So how would you go about what would be that principle if someone was to say, this gets really practical? Like, how is this not just, you know, Pandora's box to just it is kind of a Pandora's box.

SPEAKER_04

So and not only because there's like this largely undefined, unmoored from the text victim perpetrator framework, and you have to define who the victim is, and good luck in a lot of cases, but also because if someone remarries and they were not supposed to, they'll say, well, just express remorse and continue the remarriage. So it's a Pandora's box for both those reasons, because there's a bunch of gray areas where they have a hard time figuring out if somebody is permitted to divorce and remarry under their theory. And then even in the cases where they're not allowed to divorce and remarry, if they do, they just say, you know, express remorse and you can stay in your remarriage. So it's a Pandora's box, uh, opens the door to uh lots of divorces and remarriages. And and by the way, that's a bit the bigger problem, the fact that they don't require the divorcing of remarriages that they would say are adulterous, they'll say it's adulterous, also continue it, which is the bigger problem uh here than actually the victim perpetrator framework, in my opinion. But the the they'll just never say a person should divorce their remarriage. Now, Kirk Kirk said something that was interesting. So he said that a spouse who is a perpetrator can act so badly that they rupture the covenant of marriage. So first, we have to ask the question what is the nature of marriage? And you'll notice they just jumped into 1 Corinthians 7 and got into the text. This is something that uh evangelicals do a lot. We like to get into the text, stay close to the text, and we don't like to think about and talk as much about the nature of things, but inevitably it comes up. You just really can't avoid it. Uh, and because the problem is if you don't have uh a concept of what like the nature of marriage is, what's gonna happen is you're gonna go to text one and you're gonna come to one conclusion. You're gonna go to text two and you're gonna come to a different conclusion, and you're not going to realize that you have a background contradiction because your conclusion in text one assumes the nature of marriage is A, and your conclusion from text two is gonna assume the nature of marriage is B. And those are not the same, those are contradictory to each other. So we're not, we don't do the nature thing as much because we're trying to stick close to the text, which is a good aim, but you you have to get into the nature of things. Kirk's statement seems to assume the nature of marriage is covenant, and that's a very popular evangelical view. But I think the nature of marriage is family, and Dr. Keener uh he kind of says it both ways. So sometimes he calls it a covenant and sometimes he calls it family. He's got it on his website that he calls it, he does both. Uh so Dr. Keener says it both ways. The difference is that a family cannot be undone. Uh, you can't make your brother to not be your brother. It's a fact. A covenant you can undo. You're not supposed to, but you can undo. So consider this. So a contract is an agreement between two humans, and a covenant is an agreement where God's involved in a special way. So I agree that the consent to marriage is a covenant. Yeah, there's an agreement, and the nature of the agreement is a covenant because God's involved in a special way. God joins them together. But that's not really the question we're asking. We're not asking about the nature of the agreement. We're asking about the nature of the marriage, the relationship, what's going on there, and the nature of the marriage itself is a family. Now, I get that from the same place Dr. Keener gets it when he calls it a family. And that's Genesis chapter two, where Adam says of Eve, she is now my bone of bone and flesh of flesh. And that's family language, as you also see in Genesis 29, 14, where uh Laban says of Jacob, are you not my bone and flesh? And that's the exact same reasoning Dr. Keener uses. So he is, he appears to agree with that, at least in theory, but he doesn't always, in my opinion, apply it consistently to his view on divorce and remarriage. If it's a family bond, it cannot be dissolved except by death. So I think it's a contradiction in Dr. Keener's view. But Kirk implies it's a covenant, and he says that the perpetrator spouse can commit conduct that ruptures the covenant. Now, I don't know what he means by rupture here. Maybe he Means just damages the relationship. Maybe that's what he means. But usually when I hear evangelicals kind of use these phrases, what they mean is something like it ends the marriage. And if that's what he means, we have a problem. So if a if a wife commits adultery on Monday and the husband doesn't know it, are they still married on Tuesday? That's my question. And now I'm sure Keener and Kirk would say, yes, they're still married on Tuesday because there's not been a civil divorce. Civil divorce would be required in their view to dissolve the marriage. So that conduct, the adultery, did not end the marriage. So I just want to mention that because what people do sometimes is they'll say, Well, my spouse cheated. That ended my marriage. And my divorce is just like updating the legal records of it. And that's just incorrect. And that's not Kirk and Keener's actual view. But sometimes when people hear, oh, it ruptured the covenant, they think, oh, the marriage is already over. I just have to go ahead and go to the courthouse and get and take care of it. But that I don't think that's their view. But sometimes it's like unintentionally kind of received that way by the audience.

SPEAKER_03

What's what's the controlling hermeneutic here?

SPEAKER_00

I think the controlling hermeneutic is you look at the exceptions that are explicit, and those exceptions are all all when the other person is breaking breaking up the marriage. So another Okay, so Dr.

SPEAKER_04

Keener just kind of said the same thing. He said, uh, when the other one is breaking up the marriage, but yeah, that's not true. If until the divorce happens, under Keener's view, the marriage is not is not over. He might say it's substantially contributing to the breaking up of the marriage, but to say that they're they're breaking it up or they broke it, I think is not actually what his his view is. I think what they mean is the fault for the divorce as on the uh bad actor, on the perpetrator. I think that's what they mean there.

SPEAKER_00

So in other words, the believers should do their best to preserve and make whole their marriage, but it doesn't take two to break up a marriage. Some people say it takes two. That's not always the case.

SPEAKER_04

Right.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah. If I can give um an example, because at a certain point I can you know, I I I do the exegesis, my job as a biblical scholar is easier than as a pastoral counselor in the sense that I can say, don't break up your marriage. But if the other person breaks it up, um and you know, I I see abuse as an analogous situation. That's the one that I've been explicit about. But how do you define abuse? That gets a little bit more tricky. But in actual pastoral situations, it can get really tricky where sometimes we don't completely know the answer. Uh we don't know who's telling the truth or whatever. And and so we have to um principle of grace, principle of keeping together marriage, put those principles together. I I came across a situation, this was actually in a different country, where uh somebody pulled me aside and said my wife um she uh she refuses to touch me, she refuses to uh uh do anything with me. Um she barely will speak to me. And I I I probed deeper. I mean, I I said, was she abused at some point? And he said, not that he knows of. I mean, he uh didn't know that enough to know like growing up if she was, but as far as as far as he knew, that wasn't the case. I knew I was only hearing one side of the story, but from the side of the story I was hearing, she was effectively abandoning him without leaving without leaving the home. And I know this can be for either gender, but in this case it was uh it was the wife. And he said she wants me to be the one to file for the divorce, so I'll be the guilty one. What should I do? Am I allowed? I can't love her anymore. And I I just prayed for God to give me wisdom. And I s what I suggested was okay, well you can't love her anymore for her sake. You say, Can you love her for Jesus' sake and try one more year of showing her love and we will pray that God will change things and that um he says, For Jesus' sake, I'll do it. Now, some people will think I was too strict and some people think I was too lenient, but yeah, when we put it into the pastoral practice, we come up with a lot of hard situations that go beyond where our exegesis takes us, and we we have to do our best to rely on principles.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so Dr. Keener is honest about the immense problems with applying his view to real-world situations. I really appreciate his honesty. And you can see how he's unsure, he's pausing, he's sighing. And that's because his view is unworkable. Uh, there's this line-drawing problems all over the place. And you have not only the question of how much victimization is required to permit divorce and remarriage, you also have the question of how much information do you actually have? Will both sides even talk to you? Are both sides telling you the truth? They might even tell you what they think is actually the case because they have strong emotions and they have been persuaded that that is the case. When perhaps if they didn't have as much strong emotions, they would characterize things and give different rendition of what occurred. So it may not be that they're like lying, it could just be that they're uh persuaded and they're biased because they're in the middle of it and they're genuinely telling you what they think is the case, but it's not really an accurate representation. So, based on this unworkable system, church leaders are supposed to advise someone whether they can remarry. And if they get it wrong, which is inevitably going to happen under this system eventually, the church leaders will be condoning adultery. They'll be saying, you can remarry when they're not supposed to be able to remarry. And that's pretty bad. It's a pretty bad outcome for this system that Dr. Keener advocates for. I think the academia in evangelicalism is basically like informally over the churches. So these scholars are the ones teaching the pastors who teach the church. So the scholars don't have, you know, legal control over church property. They can't hire and fire pastors. I understand that. But if you had to draw like an informal org chart of evangelicalism and a high level, academia is basically over the churches. The professors are teaching the future pastors, the pastors are not teaching the professors. So it is essentially the responsibility of evangelical academia to give specific instructions on what to do in these individual cases. If they're going to teach, there's all these exceptions, there's these principles and all that stuff. You're going to have to give specific directions. I personally think it's irresponsible to say, here are some general principles. Good luck. Uh, that's that minimal level of guidance ensures church leaders will end up condoning adultery eventually. So, right now, these scholars are saying, here's some high-level guidance, we'll leave you church leaders to incur the guilt of inevitably making wrong decisions in complex situations. I just think that's wrong. You know, I mean, they're sending out seminary students in their 20s, you know, and sending them out and saying, all right, here's some general principles, unworkable theory. It's on you if you do it wrong. And of course, they're going to do it wrong because you have two students who come out of these seminaries and they're two different senior pastors years later, and student A and student B see the exact same situation and they they sincerely, genuinely try to apply the principles that you taught them, and they're going to come out with different conclusions. And one of them is condoning adultery and the other one is not, and we don't know which was which. So I don't think evangelical academia should be putting thousands of church leaders in impossible situations like this. If you want them to follow your system, adjudicate these scenarios. Now you can imagine a ton of these kinds of cases. You can get feedback from pastors about them, what's happened here, what's happened there. You can categorize them and you can write them in a book or put them on a website, and then a pastor or elder can follow your system to determine the precise, correct outcome in specific cases. If you're going to have this theory, you need to codify it and go through the detailed situations. Otherwise, you're teaching your students to morally fail in this area. I just think it, I just think it's victimizing the students to give them this unworkable theory and say it's difficult. We understand good luck, and then they're going to morally fall in this area when they condone adultery in the future. I just think it's not a responsible way of handling this.

SPEAKER_00

We we have to do our best to rely on principles.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. Um, I you have mentioned the other passages and how we synthesize these. So I I ran a um smart search in the Bible. Um, what does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? And so Logras is able to pull up the various passages um in scripture, um, Old Testament as well, but these synoptic passages. Um and so we have kind of those brought to our fingertips, help us make sure we're not missing any major ones. But yeah, how would you how would you maybe help us synthesize and think about the statements from Jesus? I think specifically the exception clause um around fornication. And yeah, you get this statement frequently um in Jesus, even when he doesn't include the exception clause about um whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. So, how should we think about that language? Uh very literally, it would seem to disallow any divorce or remarriage.

SPEAKER_00

Well, if we take it, if we take it very literally, this will have real implications for pastoral ministry because it means that people on their second or third marriage are actually living in adultery. It's not, it doesn't talk about the wedding, it talks about the marriage. So every time they have intercourse, in which case we should be breaking up second or third marriages. And some people actually do teach that. I've come across that before.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so I appreciate Dr. Keener's agreement that if Jesus' teaching is literal, second and third marriages ought to be broken up. That's my view. Uh, when Jesus called remarriages adultery, he meant just what he said. He meant that. So Dr. Keener seems to be implying since breaking up a second and third marriages is like disruptive and it's difficult, then it's implausible that this is what Jesus meant. But actually, we should expect whatever Jesus taught here to be difficult, since the disciples even objected to it in Matthew chapter 19 by saying, if Jesus, if your teaching is true, if this is the case, it's better not to marry at all. So if an interpretation of Jesus' teaching makes a regular person say, that's extreme, that's not evidence that the interpretation is wrong. Rather, whatever Jesus taught here, it would make a regular person astonished by his teaching.

SPEAKER_00

But the question is, Jesus often uses hyperbole. So is this literal or is it hyperbole? In the context of Matthew 5.32, where you do have an exception clause, but even apart from the exception clause, the um the question of hyperbole, going back to verse 28, you've got six times where Jesus says, You've heard it said, but I say to you, well, in verse 28, Jesus says, Whoever looks in a woman to lust after her, um, or going back to the Septuagint, it's probably evoking the commandment about you shall not covet your neighbor's your neighbor's wife. Uh whoever looks in a woman to lust after her or to covet her sexually is uh has committed adultery in his heart. And then he gives her a response to that. He says if your eye causes you to to stumble, or tr trips you up, or your or your hand or your foot, cut him off. But most people I know they must never have lusted because they've never, I mean, they have both of their eyes.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, wow.

SPEAKER_00

So what we most of us take that figuratively, uh, in the sense that we take it as hyperbole or rhetorical overstatement, graphic way of driving home the point. It's true, but it's true keeping in mind the figure of speech. It's like getting a camel through the eye of a needle, or uh uh gulping down the camel hole, or um moving mountains, or a number of other uh rhetorical overstatements. When we come to the very next paragraph, whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. So is that literal or is it like what he just said in the in the preceding paragraph? If it's if it's literal, then we would need to break up second and third marriages, considering them all illegitimate. If it's hyperbole, it's a graphic way of saying don't divorce, because the validity of a remarriage depends on whether the divorce was valid. I mean, if you if you remarry but you're still married to the original person, and monogamy is the rule, then you know, then it is adultery. It's literal adultery. Um so uh the the the exception clause that Jesus gives, I think, also qualifies things further because uh this is in Matthew 5, 32 and 19. Some would argue that the exception clause uh Jesus didn't have to state it because it's already implicit, everybody understood. If the marriage is already broken up, if you have a valid divorce, then uh you know it wouldn't be it wouldn't be adultery if you're married. But in any case, whether this is Matthew's correct interpretation or explication of Jesus' meaning, or whether Jesus explicitly said it, either way, the point seems to be that I think what Dr.

SPEAKER_04

Keener is trying to say is whether Matthew is directly quoting Jesus or whether he is properly paraphrasing Jesus. I think that's what Dr. Keener is saying that he he's not opening up the possibility that Matthew incorrectly wrote down what Jesus said. That's not that's not what he's saying.

SPEAKER_00

That um infidelity would be grounds for a valid divorce. Now, people don't all take pornea the same way here. Jesus doesn't use the word moi, which is the common word for adultery, he uses pornea, and so some people have said, well, this pornea could be incest, like it is in 1 Corinthians 5, or an incestuous marriage, like Greeks said Egyptians would marry their sisters, or so on, and Greeks could marry their half-sisters. Greeks said Persians married their mothers. I don't know if that's really true, but um, that's what Greeks thought. Um, so the problem with making it a narrower, or some people say, well, it's it's just during the betrothal period rather than the actual marriage. So, like what Joseph did with with Mary. The the problem is the pornea doesn't have a narrower meaning than moiia, it has a broader meaning than moiia. It's any kind of sexual immorality. So if anything, it would be broader than adultery. I don't know if you're married how uh how sexual immorality would be broader. It seems to me it would be the same thing, but um yeah, for that would be uh unfaithfulness to the covenant. If there's no specification in the context that narrows it down, then in 532 and 199. Uh and again, adultery was grounds for divorce pretty much everywhere in the ancient world, even the school of Shemai accepted it, and it was it was not just accepted, it was mandatory. Under Roman law, a husband who knew that his wife was being unfaithful and refused to divorce her could himself be prosecuted on the charge of linokinium, that is, being her pimp, because that was considered like prostitution under under Roman law. So just to say generally, it it means sexual immorality. It was a standard charge in antiquity with the understanding that the other person is breaking up the marriage.

SPEAKER_04

Okay, so Dr. Keener didn't raise my view of the exception clause, but I think Jesus explains the exception clause in the second half of Matthew 5.32. Uh the idea is that if a man married a divorced woman, uh his marriage would be invalid. So the sex the man has with the divorced woman is fornication because uh they're not actually married. So that was the meaning of the word pornea or fornication there in the exception clause in Matthew 5.32 and Matthew 99. So if the marriage is invalid because it's an adulterous remarriage, the man can remarry after divorcing that invalid marriage. So Dr. Keener said there's nothing in the context to narrow the meaning pornea to something more specific than all sexual immorality. But I disagree. I think Matthew 532b is there to give a more narrow, specific meaning to pornea, and that is an invalid, adulterous remarriage. Dr. Keener uh also said that everybody knew adultery allows for divorce. That is not true. That is not true. The Damascus document does not allow somebody to remarry because their spouse cheated on them. Jesus' divorce and remarriage argument mirrors the Damascus document's statement. So the Pharisees specifically ask Jesus about divorcing for adultery in Matthew 19, 7. And in the next verse, Jesus says, No. To see that, you you'd have to compare Matthew 19, 7 and 8, and Deuteronomy chapter 24, 1, and Jeremiah 3, verses 1 through 8. So there's just no way Jesus is permitting divorce for infidelity.

SPEAKER_00

Now, Matthew only speaks of it with regard to the the wife's unfaithfulness. And in the saying that we have in Luke, it also uh seems to work out that way that the um the husband is the one with the right to to remarry. Uh and the husband is the one with the authority to divorce. That fits Jesus' context in in Judea and Galilee. And so that's what Matthew naturally would have been addressing. But Mark has the saying uh in both directions, and that makes sense because when they're asking about um when the Pharisees ask Jesus in Mark chapter 10 about divorce, the context of it goes beyond the context in Matthew. The context in Matthew, Matthew's addressing a situation, this was a live debate among the schools of the Pharisees, precisely in Jesus' day. What are the proper grounds for divorce? Any cause with the Hillelites? Or is it specifically marital infidelity? Although the Shemites included in that, like going out in public with nude hair, if a woman wasn't wearing her head covering, she was trying to commit adultery, whether she succeeded or not. So, you know, there's a cultural context to that as well. But in in Mark, Mark isn't so interested in the Pharisaic debate. He's more interested, he introduces it by talking about they were testing Jesus. And that word testing appears elsewhere in Mark in like Satan testing Jesus, but also the Pharisees test Jesus in chapter 12. When they're trying to get him in trouble uh with the government, well, here I think they're trying to get him in trouble also, because earlier in Matthew, sorry, earlier in Mark, there's only one case of uh uh a situation with a marriage breakup, and that's when Herod Antipas, this is chapter six, Herod Antipas and his his wife Herodias, they get married. But they've both been married to somebody before. And uh Herodias divorces her husband to marry Herod. It was a big scandal. Josephus talks about the scandal as well. Josephus being a first century Jewish historian. So when you come to chapter 10, um, they're testing Jesus. John the Baptist got executed for criticizing Herod and Herodias's marriage.

SPEAKER_04

All right, let me just pause right here. Dr. Kinger doesn't mention this, but uh it appears that John the Baptist's objection to Herod and Herodias's marriage was because it violated the Leviticus 18 laws on uh prohibiting incest because he was marrying his brother's uh wife, not because it was a divorce and a remarriage. I'm not saying that John the Baptist had a different view than Jesus on divorce remarriage. I don't think that's the case. I'm just saying that wasn't his specific objection there. And Dr. Keener doesn't raise that here. It's not really relevant for the point he's making, but I just wanted to highlight that that little uh fact there that John the Baptist was objecting because it was incestuous. Jesus in Mark chapter 10 states a principle that would mean it's adulter, that that was an adulterous remarriage.

SPEAKER_00

Well, in in chapter in chapter 10 of Mark they're asking Jesus about, you know, is it lawful to divorce? They've probably heard his his teaching before that he's against he's against breaking up your marriage. And so uh if he says certain things publicly, it can get him uh in hot water. That's how they got that's how John the Baptist got in hot water. So um anyway, uh let me let me get back to the uh the heart of the discussion here. Uh Jesus appeals to creation, so they're they're appealing to the law of Moses, making uh divorce allowable. Jesus says, uh, well, it was only because of the hardness of your heart that that uh that God allowed that, that Moses allowed that for you. Uh that was a concession. And even Pharisees admitted that some things in the law were concessions, that God's ideal standard was higher. Jesus appeals to an earlier passage in the law that would be more controlling passage for God's ideal, the way God created us. And of course, the kingdom is restoring that creation ideal. Uh God didn't make our hearts to be broken, to have to deal with betrayal. God didn't want us to go into marriages thinking, okay, well, maybe it's going to break up. He wanted us to be faithful to our marriages. That was the uh plan from the beginning. He weaves together two texts from Genesis, uh, where God made them one, uh, Genesis 1, 26 and 27. Um, well, then we know that the woman is taken from the man, but they become one flesh again. Uh there's a restoration, a bringing together male and female in marriage in in chapter two. Um and uh they're no longer two but one flesh. Uh, the end of the end of verse eight there. And since it's clear that God joined them together as one flesh, let no one separate them. And so the disciples ask him uh privately about what's going on, and uh that's where Jesus talks about whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. Now, if this is literal, uh obviously again breaking up uh second and third marriages, and he and he puts it both directions, which uh would fit the situation of Herod and Herodias. Um Pharisees were against uh against that kind of behavior, big outcry in Judea against it, but Herod and Herodias feel free to follow Greek practice where either party uh can divorce the other. And so it fits that. It'll also be relevant to Mark's audience because Mark's audience in the diaspora, uh even Jewish people often follow the the Greek practice in the Greek and Roman practice in the diaspora. But here's the here's the thing as to whether it's meant literally or not. In in verse 11, he talks about it being adultery if you were married. So in other words, what that means is you're still married to the original spouse. That's why it's adultery. That's uh part of the image. But in verse uh uh nine, he says, what God has joined together, let no one separate. He doesn't say you can try, but you're still going to be married to each other.

SPEAKER_04

I appreciate that he says he says if Jesus meant adultery literally, you would have to break up second and third marriages. Totally agree with that. So, but what he's saying here is that there are two texts in Matthew and Mark 10 that point in different directions. Mark 10, 9 implies man can dissolve a marriage. Mark 10, 11 through 12 implies man cannot dissolve a marriage. So, which is it? Either man separates doesn't mean separate, or it must mean that adultery doesn't mean adultery. Dr. Keener will say adultery doesn't mean adultery, so man can dissolve a marriage, but he shouldn't. That's how he reconciles that. Here's the problem. Uh Mark chapter 10, verse 9 is part of an argument Jesus is making. So the argument goes like this Genesis tells us that man and woman are made separate from each other, Genesis 127. And when they marry, their sex is called one flesh, indicating the human experience of marriage is an experience of unity. Therefore, Jesus infers that when they were married, God must have joined the husband and wife together. What therefore, what therefore, see the word therefore in the text of Mark 10, what therefore God has joined together. Let not man separate. So God must have joined the husband and wife together kind of supernaturally. So the idea is that the human experience of marriage is designed from, it's patterned after, it's symbolic of, it's a it's a picture of the spiritual reality of what occurs when people are actually married. So the idea is what spiritually happens when people are married is God makes them family. So you can't just make a person your family that God makes them family. That's what happens when people are married. The nature of marriage, the way it's designed, how it's going to work is it's going to show forth that same unity. That's what Jesus is inferring there in Mark chapter 10. So if you look at Matthew chapter 1, 18 through 24, you see Joseph is betrothed to Mary. The angel tells Joseph to take Mary as his wife. Joseph takes her as the wife, but they don't have sex until sometime after Jesus was born. They were married when Joseph took her as his wife, and they were one flesh later. The point is that when a man and woman are married, God joins them before they have sex. So Jesus is saying the reason we know God joins them is the nature of marriage is designed to be unity. So, and we see the same thing with like uh the way communion is designed, right? Where you have bread and wine. And why is it bread and wine? Because that's symbolic of body and blood. It wouldn't make sense to eat, I don't know, grass clippings. It has nothing to do with, it's not symbolic, it doesn't picture it at all. And so with marriage, oh, the actual conduct with husbands and wives is unifying. They leave father and mother and they have a child together, child looks like them. So it has that unity there, and they have one flesh is another form of unity. So Jesus is talking about look at all this unity stuff. He's focusing on one flesh because the word one there is doing a lot of work. There are two, now they're one. So he's talking about the unity there, and the unity uh there in the human experience shows that the nature of marriage is God joined them together. So to understand this, you have to kind of take a step back and understand that marriage has like three steps uh back in the time of Jesus. There was betrothal, then there was marriage, and then there was intimacy that came after the marriage. So when Jesus says the therefore God has joined them uh together, he was drawing a conclusion. He was inferring that joining is the actual marriage. And it's and so when he says, let not man separate, Jesus is referring to living together, being married together, being experientially in your daily life unified. Uh Jesus does not mean you can unjoin what God has supernaturally joined together. So similarly, if churches, for example, stopped taking communion, that doesn't undo the supernatural reality that communion was designed from. For example, Jesus says in Mark chapter 7 that by their traditions, the religious leaders were making void the word of God. Obviously, Jesus didn't mean the word of God was actually being made void, just that it was being taught and applied uh in an improper way. So there's what there's what God does and how humans are to respond in harmony. And that's what Jesus was referring to here in Mark chapter 10 and verse 9. God joined, so you guys should act in harmony, don't act in disharmony, just like they when they were making the word of God void. We're supposed to receive God's word, we're supposed to follow it. We're not supposed to misapply it. Uh, if you misapply it and override it by traditions, Jesus would call that making the word of God void. It's not actually void, it's just not being applied correctly. So it's the same kind of concept here. So that means Dr. Keener's attempt to make the word adultery to not be adultery here, uh, just uh by applying, you know, Mark chapter 10 and verse 9 and trying to use Mark 10, 9 to kind of supersede the word adultery here doesn't work.

SPEAKER_00

He doesn't he doesn't take it literally like you're still married. And so the question is these are two kinds of sayings. One is giving the the moral imperative don't break up your marriage, and the other uh is using the image of hyperbole to graphically reinforce it. That's why you can have an exception, like the exception for infidelity in Matthew. But if uh Joe isn't married to Teresa anymore, how can Teresa still be married to Joe? So once you've got an exception, it it looks at this like hyperbole. Same same with the exception in First Corinthians uh exceptions, maybe in 1 Corinthians 7. And also when Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman, the woman at the well, right, uh, he doesn't say you you were married once and you've lived with five guys since then. He says you were married five times and you're not married to the guy you're living with now.

SPEAKER_04

So the mistake that he makes here with the Samaritan woman is that the words husband, wife, married, divorce do not convey validity. So it is true that Jesus said you've had five husbands, the man you're with now is not your husband. And so if the word husband conveyed validity, then Dr. Keener's point uh has uh some value to it here. But the words don't convey validity. The Greek words do not mean the marriage is valid or invalid. You have to derive whether or not the writer or the speaker means, believes those marriages were valid or invalid by the context, not the Greek word. So Jesus calls these guys husbands, but that doesn't mean, that doesn't tell us whether Jesus viewed them as valid marriages or not. So they were husbands legally, so that's a different question from whether or not God views those as valid marriages. So for example, in Romans chapter seven, the woman's second husband there, that's not a valid marriage. In Mark chapter seven, Mark says Herod married Herodias, but that was an incestuous marriage, and Mark did not believe that was a valid marriage. First Corinthians chapter seven, verses 10 and 11 says the woman is divorced from her husband, but still calls the man her husband. So, and also says that she is unmarried. So that tells us the Greek words here do not convey validity because there's no way to make sense of 1 Corinthians 7, 10 and 11, if all those words are literal. To know whether or not they thought that marriage was valid or not, you have to understand the context of it. If what we had from Jesus' teaching was just a Samaritan woman, we would not really know for sure whether or not Jesus was saying those were valid marriages or not. He is throwing shade at her, you know, multiple marriages. So you might think he thinks those are not valid, but you wouldn't know for for certain from that passage. So that would be an unclear passage to be able to use to try to derive Jesus' whole theory and viewpoint and his teaching on divorce and remarriage.

SPEAKER_00

So you can't take all the sayings literally, and the majority of the sayings it looks like okay. Um all of them except the you know, you're you're still married, it's adultery. All of the others qualify that and show us that Jesus is using hyperbole.

SPEAKER_04

Well, except Paul also says a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. So you'd have to add in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 as well. And then Paul uh in 1 Corinthians 7, 10 and 11, when he paraphrases Jesus' teaching, doesn't never doesn't allow for any remarriage there.

SPEAKER_00

In that case, which again he often often does.

SPEAKER_03

And the hyperbole would be functioning, presumably in this way where adultery adultery is such a um uh rupture-causing act, um that to comparably to illegitimately leave your spouse and remarry is likewise such a rupturing act to what ought to have been the permanency of your marriage. So, under this interpretation, Jesus wouldn't be saying, in the eyes of God, you are literally still married, despite legally remarrying and divorcing and all that.

SPEAKER_04

This so here's another weird problem with this view is if you look at Matthew chapter 19, verses three through six, Jesus is making an argument. He's building an argument. He was asked, Can you divorce? And he says, No, and he's building an argument. If you look at his argument, it's a no exception kind of argument. God joined them in the Garden of Eden, don't divorce, that's it, right? And that's why the Pharisees then ask him in verse seven, well, what about divorcing for adultery? They ask him again, you know, what about this Mosaic thing? You know, and then Jesus says, No, that's not good enough in verse eight. So, so there's actually a lot of text that gives you the idea that marriage is permanent. And so it's it's just very strange to read all of that and then come to the conclusion that, oh, it's all hyperbole and you know, Jesus didn't really mean what it otherwise sounded like and what all, you know, basically the entire early church thought he meant, which is that, which is that marriage is permanent. I mean, they would excommunicate you for life. I mean, this is not just a few people in the early church, this is like everybody, basically, in the early church said would excommunicate you for life. We have council after council with canon after canon saying that they would deny you communion for life. This was like everybody understood that that was uh what Jesus meant there. So it's just kind of odd to be like, oh, it was clearly hyperbole, everybody would have known it at the time. When people at the time did not know that in the early church, they did not think that's what he meant.

SPEAKER_03

This hyperbolic interpretation would see adultery as a stand-in for as hyperbolic language for just how devastating um the act of divorce and remarriage would be to what the the original marriage ought to have been.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah. And in the same way, whoever looks in a woman to lust after has committed adultery in his heart. Um, that there's an element of hyperbole there.

SPEAKER_04

Now, the all right, so let's address this hyperbole question, the hyperbole argument. Adultery in the heart is is not hyperbole. You know, sin starts on the inside and then it comes out. And first, it usually first comes out in words and then it comes out in deeds. So adultery in the heart is pretty precise language, actually. Let me address Dr. Keener's like larger point here. Yes, Jesus does use hyperbole. Uh, faith to move mountains and camel through the eye of a needle and swallowing, swallowing a camel are are examples of hyperbole. But you know, the passage where Jesus says, if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, because it's better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with two eyes. That's technically, I don't think, actually, hyperbole. Not that Jesus is telling trying to tell people to maim themselves. He's not. But the the fact is, if an eye was causing you to sin, it would be better to go to heaven with one eye than to hell with two eyes. I mean, that that's a true statement. That's not hyperbole, it's literally true. Actually, the power of that statement is how extreme it is and how undeniably true it also is. That's why it's a powerful statement. So it's not actually hyperbole, it's just the fact that your eye isn't what causes you to sin, it's your sinful nature. And so it's your sinful nature that you should cut off. And that's what Jesus' whole point there is, and it can be hard to do. When Jesus calls remarriage adultery seven times, did he mean, did he mean it was adultery, or did he mean it was something else? The first reason why Jesus meant adultery when he called remarriages adultery, if Jesus meant something other than adultery, he would need something in the context to tell us that. Now, consider the exception clause. Dr. Keener and other evangelicals rightly say if pornea in the exception clause is not infidelity, you need something in the context to tell you that. Now, I think we have something in the context of Matthew 5.32b, but here's my point. They stress you have to have something in the context to make pornea mean something other than all kinds of sexual sin, but they don't need something in the context to make the word adultery to not have its ordinary meaning. How could Jesus' audience know he meant it hyperbolically? At the time of Jesus, if a woman was invalidly divorced and she remarried, the remarriage was called adultery literally. How is Jesus' audience supposed to know he didn't mean adultery the way that term was ordinarily used in the divorce from remarriage context of the Jewish people? For example, if you read Romans chapter 7, included in the meaning of that text is that if a woman was married to two men at the same time, she was an actual adulteress. Not hyperbole, actual adulteress. Paul was not being hyperbolic, he was being precise. And so is Jesus. The second reason why Jesus meant adultery when he called remarriages adultery, Dr. Keener thinks Jesus meant adultery hyperbolically. That means remarriage isn't adultery, it's adultery light. So Mark 10 tells us the adultery is against her, that is, it's against the first spouse. So here's why Dr. Keener's view doesn't work. He has a substantial internal contradiction. Dr. Keener says if a spouse commits infidelity, the other spouse, the innocent spouse, can remarry. He says if the remarriage of the guilty spouse is literally adultery, then uh the innocent spouse couldn't remarry. And here's why. Walk through the logic here. One, the guilty spouse remarried, it would be adultery. Two, therefore, the guilty spouse is still married to the innocent spouse, therefore the innocent spouse would still be married to the guilty spouse, and therefore the innocent spouse's remarriage would be adultery. Right? So the whole point is if the guilty spouse's remarriage is adultery, that's because they're still married to the innocent spouse, which means the innocent spouse's remarriage would also have to be adultery. So uh, since the innocent spouse's remarriage isn't adultery, in Dr. Keener's view, the first marriage must actually be over. This marriage must actually be over. So Jesus says adultery, but he doesn't mean adultery. He means it hyperbolically. He's not saying you're violating your marriage. He's saying hyperbolically it's adultery. So so Dr. Keener says Jesus is saying uh remarriage is adultery light. Uh so okay, but here's why that doesn't resolve Dr. Keener's problem. Adultery light leaves him with really the same issue. Um, it's just that, it's just that now he's just redefined the marriage to be marriage light. So let's go through the steps. If the guilty party, uh guilty spouse remarries, it would be adultery light under this view, right? Therefore, the guilty spouse is still attached in a marriage light way to the innocent spouse, right? This has to be something that they're violating. It's adultery against her. So if it's adultery light against her, there's still some kind of obligation there. So therefore, the guilty spouse is still attached in a marriage lightweight to the innocent spouse. Therefore, the innocent spouse would still be attached in a marriage lightweight to the guilty spouse, and therefore the innocent spouse's remarriage would also be adultery light, but that's not what Dr. Keener thinks. Dr. Keener thinks the innocent spouse can remarry, and it's not adultery in any sense. So therefore, it's not enough for Dr. Keener to say Jesus meant adultery hyperbolically. He would have to say Jesus said adultery against her, but he meant something other than adultery against her. So it's not just a matter of degrees, adultery versus you know, lesser adultery. Dr. Keener would have to say that Jesus used the word adultery but didn't mean adultery, meant something totally different. So imagine a man enters his first marriage. He marries a woman who's divorced her one and only prior husband, and she divorced him for infidelity. So that's the innocent party to adultery, remarries, right? The man is married to the divorced woman for 20 years. Dr. Keener thinks that that marriage is valid and morally permissible. Okay. Then her first husband from 20 years ago, he finally remarries. Dr. Keener would say her first husband committed adultery light against his wife from 20 years ago when he entered his second marriage. For that to be true, the woman's first husband has some kind of connection to his first wife, and that connection is substantial enough that Jesus would call his remarriage hyperbolically adultery against her, even 20 years later. So, in some way, her first husband is cheating on her by his remarriage, after even though she's been remarried for 20 years. The only way that works is if she's still married to her first husband because there is no permission to divorce and remarry. For adultery, for infidelity. So Dr. Keener just needs to explain how this is going to work. If Jesus wasn't speaking hyperbolically, here's the question: What exactly does adultery against her mean? So if you were going to say this not in hyperbolic terms, but you were going to say this in precise terms, what exactly is the adultery? Because it's adultery against her. There's still some kind of connection there. You're going to have to make sense of that. Um, what is the marriage light thing that the man violates with his adultery light? What is that connection that he's violating? He's doing adultery against her. What in what way is he uh is he sinning against his first wife 20 years later when he remarries after she's been married for 20 years? Is there any evidence for that, whatever that concept is of what the adultery light is, what the nature of the marriage light thing is? Is there any evidence for this concept in the early church or extra-biblical writings? Now I've researched and I have found nothing to support anything like this theory. This is totally foreign, as far as I can tell, from all the early church stuff that I have read, tons of passages from the Talmud. Nobody's talking like that. So I just don't think that's what Jesus meant.

SPEAKER_00

Say, uh, well, it's just hyperbole in the world. It doesn't matter. Yeah, right. The point of hyperbole is to drive home the point. Don't break up your marriage, uh, be faithful to your marriage.

SPEAKER_03

Um, one final question, coming back to 1 Corinthians 7, um, specifically verses 12 through 15 or to 16. Now I imagine someone preaching through Corinthians, or maybe they're preaching and they're coming across, um, they're maybe tackling divorce and remarriage texts in some context, preaching or teaching, I should say. Um, maybe they're preaching the whole chapter. I could see someone doing that. That would be quite a task. Um, but it's all sort of it's all a unit, a larger unit in that sense. But let's let's focus specifically on verses 12 through 16. If someone was preaching just that paragraph or they're preaching this paragraph within a larger sermon on the on the entire chapter. Do you have any advice you would give to the preacher or teacher when it comes to these verses?

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I hope I think Paul makes um Paul Paul gives enough latitude to deal with a lot of the situations we have to deal with. And he is talking to believers, so not what happened to them before they got married, because divorce and remarriage was really common in a Roman context, a Roman urban context. And so presumably a lot of them came from backgrounds where this was already before their their conversion. But it's still gonna probably in the average congregation, it's still going to step on some people's toes who are contemplating or haven't repented of breaking up their marriage. And we also have to we also have to be especially careful for those who may have been hurt, um, may have may have been betrayed by divorce, didn't want it or didn't want their marriage to break up, or they were like not in the explicit exceptions, say they they left because their husband was beating them or something. And I think most of us pastorally would say you you shouldn't stay there and let them beat you. You have the opportunity to get out. But they may feel especially because uh if they come from churches or even some people in our own church may look at them like uh you shouldn't have left your marriage. We have to be be as careful as we can with our wording, given the range of people who may be hearing us, to to make sure to uphold these major principles of fidelity to marriage, but not being hard on people whose marriage was broken because of uh circumstances beyond their own control. And if somebody uh is responsible for it, then it's important to it's important for them to take ownership of that and to make things right with God and insofar as possible with their former spouse and with if children were involved. I mean divorce has such a terrible impact on children. Um I'm just thinking of the pastoral implications of of these things, but I think it's I really think that Dr.

SPEAKER_04

Keener cares about being kind, and I think that's a wonderful trait. And this is something that those of us who are on the permanent side can learn from. I think he's actually a very smart man, and a lot of stuff I'm sure I could learn from him from his uh many writings and all of his uh scholarly work. But here's what I want to point out sometimes those of us who have a permanence view, we're worried about being kind. And and we're worried, like, well, will that make us slip up in our interpretation? Will we be faithful to the text? And we're so accustomed to being like attacked for our views that we can just can kind of get a martyr complex or whatever. But if we meet someone who is divorced, we don't know who left who. Uh, we don't know what happened there. So now if they're remarried and their prior valid spouse is alive, we know the text says that remarriage is is adultery and that needs to be the remarriage needs to be divorced. I I understand that. But we shouldn't come to the conclusion that divorce, uh, sorry, that marriage is permanent because we have a personality trait to be harsh. It's just what we honestly believe the text says. We're supposed to read the text for what it says and then share our view with people, and then they'll they'll agree with us or disagree with us or whatever, whatever happens here. But we also shouldn't forsake you know, sympathy and empathy and kindness. The scripture says God's kindness leads us to repentance. So we have to do both. We have to have truth and love and not just try to pick one or the other uh like it's some kind of competition between the two when when it certainly is not. So I am really glad that Logos did this. Kirk Miller did this interview with uh Dr. Keener. You can hear their view, you can hear my view, you can decide for yourself. Let me know what you think uh in the comments. Logos Bible software is fantastic. By the way, they're not paying me to say this. I actually use it. I have a subscription for it. I recommend it to people to get it if they can afford it and they're gonna use it. It's really good Bible software. Also, get a copy of my book, Divorce Your Remarriage. You can get that at Amazon.com. I have a link to that in the description below. Subscribe, like, do all the things. And let me let me know what you thought about this episode. And I will talk to you next time.