Theology in the Raw - S2 Ep1073: What Does the Bible Say about Divorce and Remarriage? Dr. Constantine Campbell

Episode Date: May 4, 2023

Dr. Constantine Campbell is Professor and Associate Research Director at the Sydney College of Divinity, and previously served as Professor of New Testament studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago and Moore Theological College in Sydney. His doctorate is in ancient Greek language and linguistics (Macquarie University, 2007). Dr. Campbell is the author of 16 books, included the recently released Jesus v. Evangelicals: A Biblical Critique of a Wayward Movement. In this conversation, we look at the question of divorce; specifically, what are the biblical allowances (if any) for divorce. Constantine takes a more generous view, which argues that the text of Scripture allows for more than just two reasons (adultry and abandonment) for divorce. 

Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology and Around. My guest today is Dr. Constantine Campbell, who is Professor and Associate Research Director of the Sydney College of Divinity. Previously was a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago and Moore Theological College in Sydney. He's the author of many books, including the recently released Jesus V, as in verses, Evangelicals, which we talk about in this podcast. But we largely focus on one chapter in that book that he wrote on a biblical view of divorce. What are legitimate grounds, biblically speaking, for divorce and remarriage? Are there any? Which ones are there? How many are there? And what about verses that seem to suggest that divorce should never be pursued?

We talk about all of that and more on this second guest appearance with Constantine Campbell. So please welcome back to the show, the one and only Dr. Con Campbell. You might have the coolest name of any guest that I've had on it do you get that a lot do you get a lot of compliments in your name I don't think your name is pretty cool man so my name is I would cool not interesting and unique maybe but yeah thanks for having me thanks for having me again I think it was Michael Bird that said bad Preston your parents branded you well because there because there's not a lot of competition out there for you. That's true. That's true. Yeah. Well, thanks for coming on the podcast. Tell us really quickly about this recent book

you wrote. And then I really want to focus on the divorce question because I know, and I told you offline, but I'll tell my audience now, I've been in such a crazy busy season recently and I was so planning on reading your book and especially the chapter on divorce and I didn't get to it. So this is me going straight to bypassing the book, going straight to the author, because I've heard that you have some really thoughtful, interesting thoughts on divorce. So that's ultimately where I want to get to. But tell us about this book. What sparked writing the book? What's the elevator pitch of what it's all about? Yeah. So the book is called Jesus v. Evangelicals, a biblical critique of a wayward movement. And I see you sort of chuckling there just at the title. Yeah, it's a bit cheeky, I know. It's especially a critique of American evangelicalism, but not

limited only to American evangelicalism. But given the weight and the prominence and the influence of US evangelicalism. I think it's an important sort of critique that is important for all evangelicals, wherever they may be. I come from an evangelical heritage. You know, I became a Christian in an evangelical church, studied at an evangelical seminary, taught at one, taught at an evangelical seminary in the States, and so on and so forth, and have always been part of that world. But I guess for a long time, I've been a quiet critic of evangelicalism, both theology, but

also and especially culture. And my ruling guide is really the authority of the Bible. And so the book is wanting to uphold the dignity of Jesus and the Bible and actually hold evangelicalism against that measure. So it really is not the sort of book where it's like, well, I'm done with Jesus and I'm done with the Bible and on to something else. It's really, for me, it's kind of the opposite. It's actually trying to sort through temporary evangelicalism in light of the teaching of Jesus and the witness of the Bible.

You made a distinction between evangelicalism as a culture and as a theology. Can you break that down? Yeah. Yeah, because I guess they're probably over overlapping or intertwined i would imagine the culture to me is an easy one to like yeah there's a there's a cultural thing going on here i think it's on the face really unhelpful theologically that gets a little more complicated um you would love to hear you unpack that absolutely yeah there definitely is an overlap i think um and i think we all like to think in an ideal world, our culture is shaped

by our theology completely. So if you understand the theology, then you understand the culture. But the reality is not really the case, I think. And that's especially, I think we see that especially around the issue of divorce, which I guess we'll come back to. There are cultural factors that shape the application of theology as well as just the way that churches and church cultures feel about certain issues. So I have a chapter in the book called Acceptable Sins. And this is really exploring, okay, like theologically, evangelicals want to say, know all sin is sin right and and and so uh you know it's not as though really some sins are are more important than others but but actually you know we're uh whatever our sins may be we we require god's mercy and forgiveness and we need to repent and believe in that sort of thing but the the reality is in the culture, some sins are taxed more heavily than others.

And in evangelical culture, that really revolves around sexual immorality, divorce, remarriage, those sort of, they're actually strangely quite obsessed with sexual relationship type sins. Whereas other sins, which are actually biblically quite weighty, tend to be ignored or accepted, or they're less scandalous. And I think the most obvious one is pride. You know, our churches are full of pride, and there are leaders who quite infamously have operated out of pride and arrogance and bullying and domineering.

But these are not the sins that get you fired, you know, from a church ministry position, at least not right away. Whereas, you know, if you commit adultery, bam, you're out like that. So there is a disjunction between what the Bible teaches and theology in general and the way that evangelical culture operates. Yeah. I often use pride as an example of like, if you want to, it's totally socially, it's like the worst thing in the Bible, but it's like, if you're in a Bible study and like, hey,

we're going to have a confession time, everybody gets all nervous, right? And then everybody kind of defaults. I'm really struggling with pride recently. Can you pray for me? You know, but the next guy says, you know what? I slept with another guy last night and i just don't want to do that or or even like you can say i struggle with porn and in most kind like in a lot of church it's kind of like oh okay we got a group for that but if you

say i struggle with gay porn or something it's like yeah it's a bible study stopper you know yeah totally totally and i i mean i'd find it hard to imagine that someone would even say that, you know, in a semi-public context because it is so heavily loaded with shame tax, you know. But yeah, I say that in the book, that pride is the most biblical sin. And it's sort of, you could argue it's the fundamental sin that actually, and especially it's interesting if you look at the way Jesus interacts with people, you know, those who've sinned in sexual ways, he's gracious and kind, and, you know, he forgives them their sins, and he doesn't rub their nose in it. But those, especially religious leaders who are full of pride and don't want to hear and want to hold themselves up, he doesn't have kind words for them. He's actually pretty condemning of them.

And so I actually argue in the book that if you're proud, then repentance and belief are not possible. And that's the key to Jesus' message, repent and believe the good news. possible, and that's the key to Jesus' message, repent and believe the good news. The kingdom of God is near. You can't repent if you are full of pride, because repentance is turning around. It's acknowledging you're wrong. It's going back the other way. And faith is, repenting and believing is putting your confidence in someone else and your allegiance in someone else.

And that is very difficult from a posture of pride as well. someone else and your allegiance is someone else. And that is very difficult from a posture of pride as well. So I sort of argue that every sin can be forgiven, but if you remain proud, you actually cut yourself off from forgiveness. Like pride prevents you from repentance, you're saying. You need to- Yeah, correct. Yeah.

Repent from pride before you can repent from everything else, kind of. Yeah, exactly. pride before you can repent from everything else, kind of. Yeah, exactly. So you've spent five and a half plus years in the American evangelical context, majority of time in Australia. What would be some key differences between the evangelicalism that exists in Australia versus America? Because you've been on both sides of that pond.

Yeah, I think Australian evangelicalism primarily derives from British evangelicalism, which is heavily influenced by the likes of John Stott. So Stott's influence is big in Australia, although I would say it's waning these days. And Australian evangelicalism is being increasingly influenced by American evangelicalism. But historically, it's much more British thing. I mean, you know, the first fleet came out with an evangelical chaplain, Richard Johnson. So from the very first time the British were here in Australia, there was an evangelical chaplain with the first fleet and Australian evangelicalism sort of has followed in that trajectory where the emphasis is really on the text of the Bible. And the way the Bible's handled is typically through expository preaching. So you open up the letter to the Ephesians, and one week you work through chapter two,

the next week you work through chapter three, and so on. You just sort of unpack it. American evangelicalism, of course, it's very diverse, and it's difficult to generalize. But there is a sort of a generalised culture in some sense. And the most obvious difference today is how politicised it is, and not only politicised but partisan. very strong expectation among evangelicals that a real Christian will vote Republican because that's the Christian and no party's perfect. And, you know, and sometimes you've got a bit of a mug leading the party or whatever, but, you know, we'll put all that aside because, you know, this is the party that's anti-abortion and anti the things we're anti and pro the things we're pro. Whereas in

Australia, of course, there is a political element, I think, and people are concerned about politics in Australian evangelicalism, but it's nowhere near partisan to the same degree. Like, there isn't a sort of Christians vote this way or that way. In fact, I think in general, there's an understanding that there is no Christian way to vote. You need to weigh up the options and vote according to your conscience. But there's no sort of like, we vote this way and we're going to get our guy in sort of thing. You don't have a two-party system, right? Isn't America one of the few Western countries that have this kind of two-party system?

I wonder if that's part of the problem. Yeah, we have more than two parties. But in effect effect we have two parties because there are two major options and the only like likely candidates to be, to be elected. But the, the smaller parties, uh, exert influence by which way they choose to, you know, support. Um, so it's not as though they're irrelevant. They, they exist in parliament. parliament. So it's a Westminster system, basically. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential two-party system. Well, let's get into divorce. I would love to –

Sure. Well, I guess we should start maybe what sparked your interest in studying what the Bible says about divorce. And then we'll dig in. I've got a bunch of questions. I mean, I don't, I have kind of a, I guess, basic vanilla understanding of, you know, divorce that it's not something God wants, but there's, you know, you know, a few exceptions for, or a few exceptions to the prohibition, namely sexual immorality. That's kind of a broad term, but also departure from an unbelieving spouse. And then's a question i guess of remarriage like i've got a friend who says no i do believe in those exceptions to divorce but i i don't think there's ever a case of remarriage being being legitimate

and i was like oh i haven't thought about that um so yeah anyway that that's kind of the basic vanilla understanding that i'm coming with not committed to that at all that's just kind of what i have assumed coming in this question so, I'd love to learn from you. Well, I think you sort of articulated the sort of classic evangelical view. And it's the one that I held for a long time, that there are only two sort of legitimate reasons for divorce. And well, remarriage, there's a variety of views around that, but the most conservative one is that there's no scope for remarriage. A more moderate view would be that if the divorce is legitimate, i.e. according to one of those two reasons for

divorce, then remarriage is legitimate. Like many people who are sort of forced to rethink that, it comes out of personal experience. So I was divorced a number of years ago and remarried more recently. But to be honest, my thinking about this was shifting before that time because, again, people I had known had gone through divorce. And one friend in particular who was quite a very accomplished scholar, New Testament scholar, and someone who thought this through as well, and starting to rattle my cage a little bit. It's like, well, you know, I haven't really given this a lot of thought. Well, you know, I haven't really given this a lot of thought and wanted to dig a little more deeply both into the texts, the relevant texts, but also the generally theological approach to the question. But when I went through my own situation, that sort of brought it to the boil, I feel like, and I really had to think carefully through that stuff, both just for my own conscience and what do I really think the Bible says about this, but also because I've become more aware of others who've gone through this. And I do think that divorce, especially about divorce and remarriage, has sort of become one of these taboo things within evangelical churches that you sort of discuss with hushed tones,

that it's quite scandalous, this sort of thing. And that really, on the one hand, really dramatically affects the way churches are able to care for people who go through this crisis and tragedy, because it is both a crisis and a tragedy. But also, it means that, both a crisis and a tragedy. But also it means that, you know, are we able to have robust conversation about these issues? Because I think in evangelicalism what tends to happen is if you start taking a different approach to the accepted orthodoxy, people label you. You know, they say, I's gone liberal or gone woke or something like that. And it's kind of a tribal way of controlling the conversation.

It's sort of like you've got to be in the tribe, and the most comfortable place in the tribe is in the centre of the tribe. That's where you feel like you're affirmed and you have some influence. If you're on the edge of the tribe or maybe you've been pushed out of the tribe, no one wants that. And so this is one of those issues where when you start to question it, I feel like, or when you start to, yeah, I guess, look at the text more closely and question the received orthodoxy, it's risky. But to be honest, I felt that because I'd been divorced, I was sort of already pushed out in a way.

And in some ways, that's why the book exists in the first place. Because it's like, well, I've already been burnt down. You know, what are you going to do? Throw me out of the tribe? I already have been, I feel like. So you experienced being kind of pushed to the edges or thrown out of like a local church or just evangelicalism as a whole? And did this happen like from your Australian context or more from your American friends or both? Yeah, I don't want to over-exaggerate it, but I feel like yes, both US and Australian,

and not in any sort of harsh way or formal way, like you're out, you know, but you feel it, like you feel it relationally. You know, I have a lot of friends who are sort of in the center of seats of evangelical influence or whatever, and you feel their cold shoulder or you stop being invited to things or you be you're uninvited to things, speaking events or things like that. events or things like that. And then you have just friends, evangelical friends, who just stop talking to me or more overtly kind of harass me. And it also affects employment stuff. I don't want to get into all that. But I did feel like I've got nothing to lose to say what's on my mind. And I think it's on the mind of many others who feel like maybe they can't say it. So that's why the book exists. And so Divorce, Re-Marriage is maybe at the pointy end of that. It's personal. It's traumatic for me and for many others, but that's why I felt like we need to be able to talk about it and we need to be able to talk about it in a way that's characterized by grace and humility

and compassion. That sort of frames the whole thing. But basically what the chapter does is I talk about, okay, what do evangelicals generally think, and acknowledging there's a diversity of views, but what does the culture generally say about marriage, about divorce, about remarriage? Then what does evangelical culture in effect do, And what does evangelical culture in effect do? And the way that people who are heading to divorce or have become divorced or divorced and remarried, how are they treated? And what is the culture around that stuff? and sort of question whether we're reading them correctly and whether the result is actually the most biblical and God-honoring way to think about these issues. Okay, okay.

Can we start with the text, actually? Or do you want to go in order of your... Yeah, let's do it. Okay, yeah, yeah. No, let's do that. Yeah, sure. So what are the main texts? How have they traditionally been understood?

And maybe what are some other ways to understand these relevant texts? We don't need to go through all of them, I guess, but maybe some of the big ones. Yeah, I think the two big ones are Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7, where in Matthew 19, Jesus appears to say, you know, if you divorce for any reason apart from adultery, you're committing adultery. And if you get married again, you're committing adultery. So that's a really strong text that I think sounds very clear, sounds very black and white. But then if you look at 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says, you know, keep your marriages together, don't get divorced. But if you happen to get married when, you know, because the situation in the early church was people would get married. One of them might become a Christian with this new Christian faith that's spreading around the Mediterranean region.

And that seemed to have happened in Corinth. What do you do in that situation? Paul says stay married. But, you know, if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave because they're not happy about you becoming this kooky Christian or whatever, let it go and you're not bound in that situation and God calls you to live in peace. So Paul seems to be saying, stay married, but if you have an unbelieving spouse who wants out, then you can't force someone to stay married against their will sort of thing. And he actually says they're not bound, which most commentators agree means, you know, you're both free to be divorced and free to be remarried. Now, if that's true, what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7, then immediately you have to say, well, hang on, doesn't that actually contradict what Jesus said in Matthew 19?

Because he said there's no reason for a legitimate divorce and remarriage apart from the grounds of adultery. But Paul's introduced this second reason, which is like, well, you know, if you're abandoned by an unbelieving spouse, well, then that's okay too. So what do we do with that? Because Jesus makes such a strong, apparently such a strong claim in Matthew 19, and Paul's like, oh, yeah, okay, but there's also this. What do we do with that? And so what I want to say is to look more closely into both those texts and maybe start with 1 Corinthians 7. It's interesting, you know, Paul says, in such circumstances, the believing spouse is not bound.

And that, in such circumstances, or however it's translated, that's an interpretive key because actually conservative evangelical Wayne Grudem. Yeah, I saw this recently. Yeah, yeah. His whole career is taught there are only two legitimate reasons for divorce, right, as we've articulated. But he actually dug into that phrase and looked up all the uses of that phrase in ancient Greek literature. In such cases, they are open to other examples of whatever it is beyond what's explicitly mentioned in the text. So what he does then, he goes back to 1 Corinthians 7 and says, when Paul says in such circumstances or in such situations, the believer is not bound, he's saying most likely there are other circumstances where this applies beyond the one mentioned explicitly in the text, i.e., an unbelieving spouse abandons you. This is verse 15, by the way, 1 Corinthians 7. Yeah, that's right.

Yeah, thank you. respect Grudem for this, he corrected the view that he had taught and championed his whole career and said, no, there are other reasons where a divorce might be legitimate, such as in the case of abuse or that sort of thing. So I think that does open up 1 Corinthians 7 and talk a little bit more about, well, let's also think about what does it mean when God calls us to peace? At the end of that passage, what does that mean? Are there other reasons why not only an unbelieving spouse, but maybe even a believing spouse might need a marriage to end? What do we do about that? And we have to remember that Paul is addressing a specific situation that is being written to about from the church in Corinth, not every possible situation. So we need to then, what principles are being applied by Paul to come to this conclusion?

And I think some of the principles are God has called us to live in peace. So if you have an acrimonious marriage that cannot be resolved, that's actually bad for each other's health and maybe mutually abusive, not just the classic one person's abusing the other, but actually maybe mutually abusive, or maybe a situation where there are other reasons why covenant can be compromised between two people, not only adultery and not only abandonment, but there are other kinds of ways to break that covenant and what happens in that situation. Is there a situation where a covenant between two people can be so broken or deteriorate to such an extent

that it can't actually be restored? I'm just sort of raising these sort of questions and thinking more broadly about what principles Paul is applying in that passage and trying to apply them to other situations. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. No, that's helpful. Yeah, somebody sent me that article that Grudem wrote a while back. I mean, I think that's pretty...

Is that from a couple of years ago or something? Yeah. So I'd imagine there's been... He's not the first one to discover that is is he excited he's not the first one to argue that but i think he's the first one to show as far as i know he's the first one to show um that that reading has it actually makes perfect sense of the way that phrase is used elsewhere in ancient greek literature so he's the classic grudem style i'm just gonna i'm gonna search this up and look at every use of it and then see what happens and you know i think the results are compelling huh because are you familiar with um david instone brewer the british uh yes yeah because he wrote a book a while back i think 15 years ago or maybe even longer on the the divorce question and took a much more expansive view of what's biblically legitimate.

That's right. I have not read it. I remember meeting him at Tyndall House. I'm sure you're familiar with Tyndall House in Cambridge. And he kind of gave me the elevator pitch of the book. I mean, this might have been like more than 15 years ago. And I've always been intrigued because that was the first time I was like, here's a solid evangelical Bible-believing Christian who says, no,

there's biblical evidence for other reasons for divorce. So I'm curious if he touched on this passage or not. Are you familiar with his work? Have you read his book? Yes, I cite the book a few times in my chapter on the book. Yeah. So his insights are very helpful. And I think his approach is very helpful too.

And what I'm trying to do here is trying to put these texts in context, and especially historical context, to show, well, you know, when this phrase is used, you need to understand how it was heard in that day. And that's actually a good way, maybe a good segue to the other major text, Matthew 19, because so Matthew 19, Pharisees want to try to trap Jesus by raising the issue of whether it's lawful to divorce one's wife on any grounds. In verse 3, on any grounds. grounds," in verse 3, on any grounds. Enstone Brewer and others have shown that that phrase, on any grounds, is actually a catchphrase in a contemporary debate on how to apply Moses' words in Deuteronomy 24, verse

1, which are, if a wife becomes displeasing to a husband because he finds something indecent about her, he may write her a certificate of divorce. So the Pharisees come to Jesus and say, okay, we've got this debate going on. How do we apply Deuteronomy 24 verse 1, Moses' words, is it okay to divorce your wife on any grounds? And the way Jesus responds, depending on the translation, makes it sound like if a man divorces his wife for any reason, as it can be translated, he's committing adultery. So we sound, without understanding the context or understanding that catchphrase, we think Jesus is saying there's no legitimate reason for divorce except adultery. Whereas actually what they're asking is, is it okay to divorce on any grounds? And you know that phrase is slippery because you can take it to mean,

are there any grounds or are any grounds okay? Do you see the difference? Kind of. Yeah. It's basically saying, is there any reason for divorce or can any reason be a reason for divorce? Do you see what I'm saying? And so there are two schools of thought at the time led by two rabbis, Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai. And Rabbi Hillel took a really liberal reading of Deuteronomy 24, and he said, on any grounds means anything that displeases you. So if she breaks a plate, you can divorce her. If she smiles at a man,

you can divorce her, right? Whereas Rabbi Shammai took the conservative approach, which was on any grounds means, or if you find something indecent about her, he focused on the indecency. if you find something indecent about her, he focused on the indecency. So if she committed some act of indecency, that was grounds for divorce. But it's interesting that I think it's in Stone Brewer who points out, but that kind of meant adultery because it was assumed that if someone committed adultery, that was grounds for divorce. So that's an assumption that everyone in that day held already. So when Moses was saying something indecent, he means something beyond adultery, like maybe dressing inappropriately in public or something like that, something indecent that would bring shame to a husband. But even that is a more open view than

the contemporary evangelical view, which says there's only adultery or abandonment, if you include Paul. So basically, all that context means that what Jesus is saying in Matthew 19 is responding to that debate. And what I think he's saying, first of all, no, it's absolutely wrong to divorce for any reason, like she broke a plate, or I don't like her nose, you know, for any reason at all. He's saying absolutely not. And he appeals back to Genesis 2, and this is the ideal that God created man and woman to live together in marriage. This is the ideal of God's creation, marriage and God's creation. But he also acknowledges that Moses gave you that divorce concession in Deuteronomy 24 because of the hardness of your hearts. Now, we would read that to say, oh, well, so he's not saying it's okay to divorce.

He's saying if you get divorced, you're sinful, right, because of the hardness of your hearts. Now, we would read that to say, oh, well, so he's not saying it's okay to divorce. He's saying, if you get divorced, you're sinful, right? Because of the hardness of your hearts. But actually, I think what he's saying is, he's affirmed Genesis 2, he's the ideal. But now he's affirming Genesis 3, which is like, but where everyone else has fallen into sin. You know, humanity's fallen to sin. Genesis 3 means there's the ideal, and then we have to have a concession to the ideal. So when Jesus says, Moses gave you the certificate of divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, he's actually acknowledging something true about all of us, that we are all fallen, that we are sinful, that marriages sometimes don't work, even when we try really hard to make them

work, even when both might be Christians. And so my reading of what Jesus says in Matthew 19 is, uphold marriage, don't get divorced for any willy-nilly reason. But there is in Scripture, and Moses has given a certificate of divorce that acknowledges that we often fail to meet the ideal. given a certificate of divorce that acknowledges that we often fail to meet the ideal um so it's kind of like a genesis 2 genesis 3 sort of play you know it's like this is the way it should be but this is the reality so why does jesus then mention except for parnea sexual immorality because if that's just like if he said like it's was so assumed and why does he feel the need to mention that? Yeah, because I think he's saying because it's already adultery. So if sexual immorality has already occurred,

then you're not turning a divorce into adultery. It already is. It's already happened for that reason. So you're not making your spouse an adulterer or becoming an adulterer for that reason. So you're not making your spouse an adulterer or becoming an adulterer for that reason. It's already assumed that that's happened. So it's really qualifying, and marries another, they commit adultery. The remarriage isn't adultery if there's already been sexual immorality, because that's already dissolved the marriage. Yeah, that's already dissolved the marriage yeah that's correct yeah

so pornea the greek word that's translated sexual immorality is that that's that is that limited to adultery or is that go beyond that i know it's kind of a debate it's not is it yeah yeah no i mean it's not the um the standard word for adultery. It's a more broad term, isn't it? So, yeah, it can include a range of sexual activities. But I think probably the most defining is sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage. At least that would be a sort of theological way to understand the word. I always heard a buddy of mine said, it's sex with somebody who's not your spouse. It's kind of his most tourist way of putting it.

This episode is sponsored by Biola University. Biola is consistently ranked as one of the nation's leading Christian universities. Biola has over 300 academic programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, which are available both in Southern California and online. universities. Biola has over 300 academic programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, which are available both in Southern California and online. With leading academic programs like business, film, science, and more, Biola's biblically integrated curriculum helps students grow closer to God and gain a deeper understanding of scripture. In fact, I was just at the Biola

campus a few weeks ago. I toured the campus and talked to several deans and professors, and every single one I talked to was so passionate about making Christ first in all things. I mean, Biola's quality of academics is well-documented. There's no doubt about that. But I was most impressed with how utterly Christ-centered the school is. So at Biola, students become equipped for a thriving life and career. They'll learn how to articulate their Christian beliefs,

and most of all, they'll be prepared to serve as God's instrument in their community and around the world. Now through June 1st, 2023, you can use the promo code Preston to waive the application fee for any Biola program. Okay. The deadline used to be May 1st. They actually extended it for our audience to June 1st. So get your application in before June 1st, put in the code Preston and get your application fee waived. Some restrictions may apply. Just visit www.biola.edu for more information. Is there a reason why in other passages, I think in Mark and others and Luke, I think he doesn't give the exception clause.

Like it's just don't get divorced, period. You know, or is that, I mean, is that just kind of part of the synoptic problem where you have one passage that gives a briefer version and another is more expansive? Or is there anything we should bring into this discussion by looking at those passages, except for sexual immorality isn't even mentioned? Yeah, it's tricky, isn't it? Because the synoptic problem, I think, is part of it. And you do get more truncated things,

but also, Mark, you get longer things sometimes, but often truncated. But it does remind me of the difference, say, between Colossians and Ephesians with the household code in Ephesians is much more expansive than the household code in Colossians. Like in Ephesians, Paul says, husband, love your wives, wives, submit your husbands, because Christ is the church and he does this whole thing about it. But then in Colossians 3, he just says, husbands love your wives, wives submit your husbands. Moving on. You know, and it's like, well, wait a sec. Like, there's no reasoning there.

Whereas in Ephesians, he gives you the reasoning. It's hard to answer that except to say, you know, maybe Paul doesn't feel he needs to give the reasoning because maybe he's taught these things before or because, you know, it's understood or because just take it on face value. So it's hard to know, like, if you've got a more truncated statement in Mark, what that means. If you've got less information, it's harder to make a more solid case on less information, if that makes sense. I think you want to deal with the more information text, because you've got more to work with rather than silence. So if you were to say, well, Jesus doesn't give an exception clause, so therefore, dot, dot, dot. That's an argument

from silence. Maybe he did. Maybe he talked about it for half an hour, but no one wrote it down. No one passed it on, or Mark chose not to include it. Who knows? You know what I mean? So it makes bad case law to argue from silence at that point. What about – that makes sense. What about the more theological – so if it's okay just to – Yeah, please. People sometimes misinterpret pushback as like, oh, he doesn't agree. I'm like, no, I'm testing an idea.

So I'm not asking from every angle. So what about the theological – I guess it's more of a theological argument that, you know, marriage reflects God's covenant with his people. And, you know, Ezekiel 16 is people are messed up and wayward or whatever. And like the whole point is like God is committed to somebody who doesn't deserve commitment, who is messed up, who keeps cheating on him over and over and over, you know, or Hosea or other passages, you know. How have you, not how do you, how have you had to respond to that? I'm sure you've had to wrestle with that. Yeah. Yeah.

I think, um, uh, probably my chief point in that is, yeah, obviously like Ezekiel 16, Ephesians five, um, when it's translated to Christ in the church, you do have this, this image of, well, in the old Testament, God's marriage to Israel and the new Testament, Christ's marriage to the church, you do have this image of, well, in the Old Testament, God's marriage to Israel and in the New Testament, Christ's marriage to the church. What I think that does from experience, from my experience, is it raises the stakes significantly. And what we tend to do is we tend to conflate our marriage with that marriage. And I even have said this when I've preached on that passage before years ago, say, you know, the reason that marriage is so important in God's view is because it reflects this relationship between Christ and the church. And so it must be honored and it must be upheld.

But actually, on the other side, and I believe that to a certain extent, but on the other side, it puts a huge pressure on a human marriage between two sinful people. Because basically what's being implied is if you screw this up, you are screwing up Christ and the church. You are actually defaming Jesus' marriage with the church, that sort of thing. And it's like, how dare, you know, or even more extreme is to say you don't have a covenant with each other alone. You have a covenant with God as well in marriage. And that one, I think, is, I think, not only incorrect, but very dangerous because then

if someone has, say someone has a divorce thrust upon them, right, they didn't choose it, but it happens to them, they would feel like, oh, has my covenant with God been broken now? You know, my covenant with my spouse has been broken, but has my relationship, my covenant with God been affected or broken? And I want to say we make a covenant. When a married couple gets married, they make a covenant to each other before God, but they're not making a covenant with God. There's no language to support that in the New Testament.

It's a covenant with each other, and it's before God, and you want to honor your relationship before God for sure. But it's not a covenant with God, which means if your marriage does break down, and of course this is a last case. Don't mishear me. break down and of course this is a last case you know don't you see me I'm not saying I everyone who's a little unhappy or it doesn't like the shape of their wife's notice they should get divorced you know not at all like it's absolute last resort right but if it does happen to someone can they still be a Christian right this is something I had to wrestle with because I really felt a man I felt I felt my marriage might have been

coming to that point for years. And I prayed against it like every day and got help and tried to, you know, we worked hard on it. But I really felt like what happens to me as a Christian if the marriage ends? Like, is God going to accept me? Can I still have a relationship with God? Can I still call myself a Christian? And unteasing this was really important for me because it's like, you know what? There's a covenant between two people, but that is not also a covenant with God. And if I really believe what Paul says in Romans 8, that nothing, not a famine, hardship, nakedness, sword, insert divorce,

nothing in all of creation can separate you from the love of God in Christ. Do I believe that as a divorced person? Do I believe that my divorce does not prevent me from receiving God's love? And I think, no, I believe nothing can get in the way, not even divorce. And I've experienced that myself in really profound ways, experiencing God's love and mercy and forgiveness post-divorce that actually made those things even more profound in my experience than they had been before. I'm hearing you almost say that allowances for human divorce kind of are a reminder that any human attempt to reflect God's perfect love will always kind of come short. Yeah, I think that's a great segue to another thing.

Yeah, go on. I was going to say, not therefore, let's do it all the time. Kind of like, shall we sin? It's like, yeah, it's shall we sin that grace may abound? Heck no, you know. But when we sin, it is a reminder that this side of the new creation, we're always going to fall short of. going to fall short of. So all that they say, I could see where the sanctity and otherworldliness of God's literal unconditional love for humanity has a mirror reflection in human marriage, but that mirror is always going to be cracked and distorted and always fall short of the real

thing. Yeah. And the analogy I use in the book is to look at fatherhood, right? So because if you're a dad, you know, you really want to reflect God's fatherly love to his people and be a dad like that to your children, right? But the reality is we're all imperfect dads. And maybe some people have a horrible dad or horrible parents, but you don't then say, oh, now God's fatherhood is compromised. Oh, no, now we can never accept God as father. No, instead we say, okay, you God's fatherhood is compromised. Oh, no, now we can never accept God as father. No, instead we say, okay, you had a crap dad, but your father in heaven will never let you down. So you actually, it becomes a negative witness to the fatherhood of God.

And so the same thing, like if you've got a beautiful marriage that really is wonderful and respectful and and and all those things that a marriage should be well what a what a lovely signpost you know to to jesus marriage to the church but if you've got a terrible marriage then it's also a signpost just not a lovely signpost right it's like a okay well that's a bad marriage, but this marriage is amazing in these ways. So even though it's a wonderful image in the Bible of God's marriage to Israel and Jesus' marriage to the church, in evangelical culture, in a sort of, I want to say, slightly simplistic way or maybe read unthinking way, maybe read unthinking way, it can be used to leverage the importance of human marriage to a point where it actually downplays our humanity and undersells the depth of our failure.

And I do think it is a reflection of what some people have called evangelical perfectionism. And this is where culture differs from theology, because theologically we say we're all sinners. You know, Genesis 3, we're all like corrupt right down, you know, and we desperately need God's forgiveness. And yet we expect people, even with the Spirit, though, we say, well, we have got the Spirit now, but it doesn't change the fact that we don't wrestle with the flesh and it doesn't change the fact that we don't wrestle with the flesh and it doesn't change the fact that we still fail. Um, but evangelical culture expects this perfectionism

like, unless you're doing it like this, then you're really like shame on you, you know? And, um, that sort of thing. Um, and, and marriage is just a very prominent example of that. Interesting. Yeah. What would you say, I mean, have you worked out like what would be legitimate grounds for divorce and what wouldn't like of that phrase in first Corinthians, like in such cases or whatever, like it, cause, cause I feel like all of a sudden, now we're wandering in a bit of subjective realm, which is, you know, we always accuse subjective interpretations whatever but i

mean every human interpretation has a subjectivity built into it but yeah i mean where would you draw the line and why because you would hear people that we just kind of fell out of love or i'd just be kind of a mistake you know kind of some low kind of seemingly more superficial versus something more significant where this just is there's been covenant breaches made all over the place and it's just not it's yeah beyond my hair i don't know um yeah do you have a list like no i don't and and far be it from me to create such a list um i think you know i think there's the text and there's theology and then there's application. One of the things I want to avoid and one of the things I would love the evangelical church to do more of is to realize that those things are different. So we want the text and we want theology to inform application.

education in today in the 21st century and every every single case of you know marriage failure or whatever has its own dynamics has different things going on that the biblical text does not anticipate you know the biblical text does not anticipate internet gay porn it doesn't anticipate that right you need to think about the problems of today and and how to apply theology and how to apply the text to that specific problem. And that's why it's it's foolish, I think, to have a list, you know, because that list is going to is going to maybe work for six months. But then in five years, it's it's not going to feel or it's going to work for 95 percent of couples, but not for the, you know, the others. And that's really like, like application is sort of a kind of wisdom, you know, because wisdom is flexy like that. It's sort of like, okay, let's think about the specifics here and let's apply something here to that.

So I'd much rather proceed in that sort of way. But, you know, I mentioned before that what I was trying to do with the text is to try to figure out what principles are at work, what theological principles are at work, and then sort of extrapolate from that. I think with Jesus, the theological principles are Genesis 2, there's an ideal for marriage, and uphold it, you know, like it's important. You don't get divorced for just any reason, right? That violates the sanctity of Genesis 2 sort of marriage, but also the principle at work there is Genesis 3. So those two principles, there's the ideal and then there's the concession to the ideal. Certainly, I don't think divorce should happen for a haphazard, flippant reason, whatever that might be. But also, I think the reality of human failure, the reality of our

brokenness means there will be marriage failure. And God knows that. And one friend of mine said, and this is a bit cheeky, and maybe it can be interpreted a certain way, but God invented divorce too. God invented marriage, but he also invented divorce. And that's a bit of a shocking thing to say, but I do believe it's true because it's a concession to our sinfulness. And it's actually, when it's properly used, it's a mercy. It's mercy. Because sometimes there will be a situation, and this is where I'm answering your question, I guess, a bit more clearly. There will be situations where staying together is going to lead to someone dying or someone being kind of deconstructed as a person. And for people with good marriages, some of this stuff can be hard to imagine, right?

And for people with good marriages, some of this stuff can be hard to imagine, right? But maybe with abuse, there's more acceptance around that. And some Christian pastors famously, infamously saying, even with abuse, you've got to go back. Even if he hits you around, you've got to go back. But I say no. Again, if you look at Genesis 2, it's meant for the good. It's not good for man to be alone. The word good's important. Marriage is meant to meant for the good. It's not good for man to be alone. The word good's important.

Marriage is meant to be for our good, okay? And a really chronically dysfunctional or destructive marriage or abusive, and this can be mutually abusive as well, is actually, if it's doing harm, ongoing harm, then it's not for your good. And it's actually stopped being what marriage is meant to be in God's purposes. And that's why divorce can be a mercy, one taken, not taken lightly at all. A mercy for the person or both people for whom that marriage is actually destroying them. That's some principles derived from Jesus. From Paul, he says, let there be peace. All marriages experience some degree of conflict or some degree of tension,

but some marriages have those things to such a degree that there cannot be peace. There's only acrimony all the time. And that's a terrible situation to be in. And it's terrible for children to experience. You can get counseling and you can try to make it work. And a lot of the time, that can work. And you can figure out how to relate more peaceably or how, you know. But sometimes that's not possible. That could be because of the way the two people relate to each other. It could be because of one person and, you know, one person can't relate in a healthy way. But whatever it is, I guess my bottom line is if it's destroying you, this is not what marriage is meant to be. And I've even said, and this is extreme, but divorce is better than death.

Meaning if your marriage is going to kill you, you're actually, it's better for everyone, not just you, but everyone who cares about you, your children, if children are involved, it's better that you're alive and divorced than stayed married, but dead. I, here's the one, I guess, I do have other questions. I, well, I've got questions about the remarriage piece too. Let me just go there quickly. Because again, a good friend of mine would agree with the standard evangelical exceptions to divorce, but then he says remarriage, he says throughout church history, even in those cases, okay, you can get divorced, but remarriage is still off the table because

as long as your spouse is still alive, even if they are, say, abusive, like opportunity for repentance and no more abuse and then getting back together or something like that. I don't know if he would argue that case in particular. But would you say everything you're saying about divorce would apply to remarriage as well? That if it is a legitimate biblical allowance for divorce, then remarriage isn't sinful in that case? Yeah, I would say that. And with that, I'm sort of leaning on Craig Keener and David Instenbreuer, who point out that in the ancient world, there really was no question that, I mean, they didn't necessarily

ask, was it a legitimate divorce? But if there's a divorce, remarriage is permissible. That's a given in their culture and an assumption. I think it's implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. He says, in such circumstances, the believer is not bound. The not bound language, I think, pretty clearly means not only free to be divorced, but free to be remarried. And yep, Christians do disagree on that. But also I think the historical, like in church history, that record is a little more nuanced than just it never happened. I don't

think that's true. But I'm not an historian and probably shouldn't wade into that. But certainly as far as the text goes and the way the text would have been heard in that culture, where there's a divorce, there can be remarriage. Or to put it in Christian terms, if there's a legitimate divorce, then I think you can legitimately remarry. So that's my view and others have argued the same. Yeah. So going back to one of the questions, slash, I don't want to say concerns, but let's just keep it at a question right now. Well, in the work I do in sexuality conversations, the divorce question typically comes up not because people are concerned about divorce, but it comes up as a yeah, but kind of response. Like, okay, you Christians, you out Christians, you, you, you outlaw, you know, same sex marriage, but then you run around getting divorced. And it's funny

because the argument's actually opposite of what the experience you've had instead of like, um, Christians shun people who get divorced. It's kind of like, no, you Christians don't seem to care about divorce at all. Like you have all these divorced pastors and whatever in your churches. So I'm not sure maybe they're referring to a different evangelical context than you've experienced, or maybe it's just an argument, not reality. I don't know. But it's typically like you're so lenient on divorce, but you're, you know,

come down super strong against same-sex marriage. And I've even, you know, one of the, one argument is yes, marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's the ideal. That's the Genesis 2. It's almost a word for word what you said, but we live in a fallen world. For some people, they just can't bear singleness.

It's not good for them to be alone. In fact, there's even studies that could be cited like certain people might even have increased suicidality if they're same-sex attracted and that's not going away. And then they're told you must either marry somebody of the opposite sex or be single. And both those options seem like death and suicidality is increased. Therefore, let's just make an allowance of letting them get married to the same sex. And I don't know. I've always had problems with that line of reasoning for various reasons but um i i know there's probably a decent i would say a small percentage of still a decent percentage of people listening to

everything you're saying saying see that's why we need to embrace same-sex marriage in the church or at least even if it's like okay this isn't ideal we shouldn't say it's categorically wrong in um have you thought through that side and i don't think i didn't bring you on to talk about same-sex sexuality so i don't i don't expect't expect you to have a – that's just where my mind keeps going. I know some people listening are wanting me to at least bring that up. I do address it a little bit in a different chapter of the book, in Chapter 2, which is called Exclusion Zones. But it's more about the way evangelicals exclude people who don't fit. And so I talk about race, and I talk about sexuality, and I talk about gender.

And I think what I'd want to say is, I think those questions are really complicated. And first of all, I really hate the slippery slope argument. Well, if you accept this, then, you know, you sort of have to figure these things out on their own terms. And, yeah, there might be some sort of parallel between what I'm saying and accepting same-sex marriage. But it's also a different animal as well. And there are whole different principles at work, theologically anyway, I think. But having said that, there's a way that the culture can respond to things. So again, there's the theology and then there's the culture. So I sort of raise, like, why are evangelicals so afraid of same-sex marriage? Like, okay, even if theologically,

you don't think that should be called marriage or whatever fine that's fine what are we really afraid of like like i think the rhetoric that i was hearing was oh it's gonna compromise what marriage is and and i'll have to live that for a while but i'm like does it though you know like first of all same-sex marriage is so rare like you know point something of one percent or whatever it is um is it really going to overturn um conventional marriage like on a societal or even in the culture yeah yeah and i'm like no and are people really going to end up marrying their cats and stuff okay there was a woman a woman in Italy who married her two cats. This one example, you know, is that the argument people say that was a slippery slope? Yeah. Yeah. Slippery slope. You're going to marry two cats and you're going to,

um, but I'm like, even when that happens, it's like, come on, everyone just goes, oh, that's just crazy. It's not like everyone is going to all of a sudden go out and marry their cat. Like, you know, like kind of get real. And, you know, we also say like one of the purposes of marriage is to bear children. But there are infertile couples. There are couples that don't have children for whatever reason. We don't then say, oh, no, that's compromising the institution of marriage. No, we just say, okay, well, you know, it actually doesn't overturn what we think marriage is or what marriage is for. It's just that there are situations where, again, I guess the ideal is not met. But we maybe don't

need to panic about this so much. It's not going to change the meaning of marriage. Okay, so what if two guys down the street get married? Is that threatening to you? Does that mean your marriage all of a sudden is up for grabs? Like, no. Like, it doesn't affect you. But actually, the way you approach the issue and the way you talk about the issue is going to really affect your relationship with that neighbor or those neighbors. And that's more where I want to focus.

your relationship with that neighbor or those neighbors. And that's more where I want to focus. It's like regardless of what you think theologically, also think that God is love, that God does love that gay couple down the street, and you need to love them too. And so maybe like don't shove down their throat, yours isn't a real marriage, you know, and I'm really threatened by your marriage because I don't think that's what we're called, called to do. Um, and I don't think it's going to get anywhere with them, you know? So it's, it's more of a, like a reality check, like how we relating to people and the culture. Um, and, and also like how dangerous are these things really in reality? And I argue that it's really not that dangerous. Yeah, I don't hear it so much on the – that's interesting.

I do remember people really more concerned about the societal impact than there are about more specifically speaking about marriage and sexual ethics like in the church. And to me, that's always been kind of a bizarre thing, especially, I mean, we live in Babylon. Like, I don't – what do you expect? If you weren't a Christian, why would you Babylon. Like I don't, what do you expect? If you weren't a Christian, why would you really reject same sex marriage? Like, why would you? I mean, what's your ethical standard for saying that, you know, apart from the Bible. So for me,

the analogies, it's kind of breaks down because, I mean, because of the very issues you pointed out that you do have, everybody would acknowledge you do have some of these exception clauses. And the question isn't whether there's exceptions to no divorce, but what are they and how extensive are they? Whereas you don't have the same complexity when the Bible talks specifically about sex difference in marriage like that, whenever marriage is talked about, there are no kind of exceptions to sex difference in marriage.

Even people say, what about polygamy? I'm like, well, even polygamy was sex difference. Like it, I'm not saying it's, it's an embrace or whatever, but I was still a man and all these women, the women were, as far as we can tell, you know, having sex with each other. It was still a distorted form of male-female marriage.

And you really don't have any exceptions to to that um whereas divorce you do so it is comparing two different things yeah that's right and and the other thing i want to say too is we're talking about like acceptable reasons for divorce and stuff like that but like here's the other thing even if there's a divorce for unacceptable reasons, whatever we might, you know, however we make that judgment, like there's still forgiveness, right? There's still repentance and forgiveness, and you can still love people, right? You don't have to.

Why do you have to demonize them? Like if we, to the example of porn again, like someone admits to internet porn and repents of it, you don't keep punishing them, do you? You don't say, oh, yeah, but you're a porn viewer. And you've got this cross on you for the rest of your life. It's like, no, I mean, what are we really talking about here? That's what makes me really nervous about the acceptable and unacceptable reasons. Yeah, yeah.

And also I want to say, even with acceptable divorce, there's still sin involved. Like, there's still sin involved. The reason there's divorce is because of human sin. And it might not be one guilty party and an innocent party. And this is what I say in the book, most likely, there are two guilty parties. So a friend of mine who got divorced, not a Christian couple, but she cheated on him. She had an affair and they got divorced, but he was getting counseling post-divorce. And the counselor, think very wisely said the adultery is on her but

the marriage that led to that is on both of you um and so sort of saying like okay she did she she cheated and that's wrong and let's let's not minimize that but at the same time your marriage was in a situation where she wanted to do that. And there's both of you involved in that. And I think this is actually, especially from a theological point of view, a much more realistic view about divorce, that there are two guilty parties in every divorce, ordinarily. And sure, sometimes there'll be like a really clear guilty party, but sometimes there isn't. And that's just reality. You know, that's just humanity.

That's just another piece I wanted to throw in there. Well, Constantine, thank you so much for coming on the podcast yet again. Tell us again, name of the book and where can people find you in your work? Yeah. Jesus v. Evangelicals, a biblical critique of a wayward movement published by Zondervan Reflective. You can get it at Barnes & Noble. You can get it on Amazon.

You can get it all over the place. And you can find me on my website, constantinecampbell.info. But thanks so much for having me, man. Great to see you again. Good to see you too. Always fun. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.