Book Plunge: Divorce and Remarriage — Four Christian Views Part 3

What do I think of Thomas R. Edgar’s chapter? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Edgar holds to a view of divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery and desertion. To clarify on this, I would include in my own view a couple of other possibilities as legitimate divorces such as a spouse who is being abusive to a member of the family. I don’t know if Edgar holds that position, though it wouldn’t surprise me, but I am stating it here.

So what do we have in Edgar’s chapter?

The opinion that marriage is indissoluble may be held dogmatically, as in the Roman Catholic tradition, or may be derived from an alleged teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of marriage. No verse in Scripture explicitly teaches that marriage is indissoluble. However, those who are convinced of this tend to interpret every passage on divorce and remarriage with this assumption rather than following normal procedures for interpretation and the most natural meaning of the biblical passages involved.

Thomas R. Edgar, “Chapter 3: Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 152.

This is certainly true. Nothing in Scripture does say that marriage cannot be undone in any way. If there is divorce in even the Old Testament and remarriage there, it would seem that the answer is indeed that marriage can be undone. Whether it should be undone is a different question.

The view which allows for no divorce, even because of adultery, may seem to be more ethical. However, it could also be considered quite the opposite—as a more tolerant view of adultery—in that it treats adultery no differently than numerous other marriage problems.

Thomas R. Edgar, “Chapter 3: Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 152.

This is an interesting point. As it stands, with someone who is an adulterer, or even in our day and age, a porn addict, such a stance could be enabling. I am sure Laney and Heth would agree that adultery is bigger than many other marriage problems, but does Laney’s view in particular lead to this conclusion? Heth at least does allow for divorce so he doesn’t have as much of a problem.

Edgar’s main exegesis in his chapter is on Matthew 19’s section on divorce. I am not at all condemning exegeting that, but as one responder points out, there are other passages. There is little if no interaction with the Old Testament on this matter. That should at least be consulted.

That being said, Edgar’s exegesis of the passage is intense, if not at times seemingly tedious. I do think he spent too much time on weaker objections. I also agree with one responder who said that he spends a lot of time telling us what the passage is not saying and too little saying what it is saying.

While I agree with Edgar’s position, I do get concerned when he says this, and one of his responders will as well.

Many conservatives, perhaps unaware, seem to hold a similar position. For example, those who insist that the exception is not “understood” in Mark 10:2–12 or that Mark 10:2–12 disallows any exception since it is determinative of Jesus’ teaching on divorce have implicitly surrendered the inerrancy of Scripture. It must be kept in mind that both Matthew 19:3–12 and Mark 10:2–12 are recording the same historical incident and the same statements of Jesus. Neither is attempting to give his own view, nor the church’s view on divorce; rather, both are reporting the very same conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees. Matthew explicitly states that, not only on a previous occasion (Mt 5:31–32), but in this very conversation, which is also described in Mark 10:2–12, Jesus specifically stated the exception. Unless Matthew 19:9 is inaccurate, in the conversation recorded in Mark 10:2–12 Jesus did state the exception. Therefore, it must be understood in Mark’s account even though he does not record it Mark, as often happens in other passages, merely omitted a detail which Matthew included.

Thomas R. Edgar, “Chapter 3: Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 166.

I would say instead that they are having an inconsistent hermeneutic. If Mark has no exceptions and Matthew does, and you don’t want to throw out inerrancy, then to be consistent, you have to say that Mark most likely took the adultery one as a given. This is what I find consistent with other writers on the topic. Saying that there is a denial of inerrancy leads to outcomes I have seen before, namely in the inerrancy wars starting in around 2010.

Overall, Edgar’s argument in Matthew 19 is highly complex and I don’t think I can summarize it here. I do think it is the way most Protestants do understand the passage, however. For now, let’s also look at 1 Cor. 7.

The crux of the issue is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:15. The arguments against interpreting this verse as referring to a divorce and allowing remarriage are few. It is argued that the verse only refers to allowing the partner to leave and says nothing about remarriage. If such an approach were followed elsewhere, many doctrines, including the doctrine of the Trinity, would be lost. The situation Paul refers to either allows remarriage or it does not This is what needs to be determined.

Thomas R. Edgar, “Chapter 3: Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 189.

I look at this claim repeatedly and while Edgar could be right, he doesn’t explain it at all which leaves me wondering just how it could be that this leads to a denial of a doctrine of the Trinity. This is a serious danger. Edgar needs to do more than just throw it out there.

Some argue that the deserted believer is not permitted to remarry, because the entire context of 1 Corinthians 7:17–24 urges the believer to remain as he or she is and not to change his or her status. This opinion ignores the details of the context The preference for remaining as is refers also to those never married and to widows and widowers. If this aspect of the context prohibits remarriage, it prohibits all marriage. The passage actually teaches the preference of staying single, but if you desire to marry it is not sin. Although this statement may not specifically allow remarriage of divorced persons, on the other hand, the context does not specifically deny it unless it denies all marriage. Paul implies in 1 Corinthians 7:10–12 that he has something to say that was not specifically covered by the Lord. Since Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:9 is true for all, including believers and unbelievers, Paul must be doing more than repeating the same teaching for application to a mixed marriage. If he merely repeats in verse 15 what he said in verses 10–11, that divorce and remarriage are prohibited (except for adultery) and that separated people should remain unmarried, then he has stated nothing that the Lord did not already say. If verse 15 is mere repetition, why then would Paul state that the Lord did not speak regarding this matter?

Thomas R. Edgar, “Chapter 3: Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 191.

I do agree with this. If the argument is that this is why these people shouldn’t remarry, then it proves too much. It is an argument why no one should marry, even the man who is engaged to the virgin he wishes to marry. I also think it is concerning a famine that was going on in Corinth at the time and that needs to be considered in the context.

Many approach the subject of divorce and remarriage as a policeman would who is not primarily interested in stopping robberies, but more interested that the criminals not enjoy the benefits of their crime. They seem less interested in avoiding marriage failures and more interested in keeping the divorced from remarriage

Thomas R. Edgar, “Chapter 3: Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 192.

Thankfully, I have not encountered this in my path through divorce, but I do understand the legalism. The pastoral side must be remembered. In a book like this, there are real people and I would that every contributor had remembered this more. We’ll see that more in part 4.

Laney’s response comes first where he says this at the start:

Edgar writes, “The Bible specifically states that God intended for marriage to be maintained” (p. 191). He also states, “We should not sever that which God has joined” (p. 191). It is surprising that Edgar can make such strong statements regarding God’s design for marriage and then take the entirety of his article to argue the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage.

J. Carl Laney et al., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 197.

But what is surprising about this? I agree with this as a divorced man. Marriage should be maintained. We should not sever what God has joined. The problem is, if one person doesn’t want to maintain a marriage, they won’t. What God joins does get severed. I hold that divorce can be a necessity sometimes, but in all cases, it is a tragedy. Someone broke their promise on the wedding day, a tragedy.

A major difficulty with Edgar’s viewpoint is the absence of an exception in Mark 10:1–12 and Luke 16:18. According to Edgar, Mark “merely omitted a detail which Matthew included” (p. 166). I would have to say that Mark’s omission of an exception to the permanence of marriage is more than a detail! Eusebius records that Mark carefully recorded the teaching of Peter for the church at Rome after Peter’s death. The church at Rome was apparently not taught by Peter that there was an exception to the permanence of marriage. Peter’s preaching contained no exception. Neither did Mark’s Gospel. Neither were the gentile readers of the Gospel of Luke informed as to an exception. This is not a minor historical detail. This omission would have a significant impact on the lives and marriages of Mark’s readers.

J. Carl Laney et al., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 199.

Yet this assumes that everything Peter was teaching is found in Mark. If Edgar’s case is correct, the exception is understood. It is a problem to say Mark’s Jesus said no exceptions and Matthew says an exception and both are true. The most likely scenario is Mark’s is understood.

Laney also says that Edgar’s view seems to have no place for forgiveness or promise-keeping. In response, I can say I have always held the door open for the forgiveness of my ex-wife. It doesn’t mean I will trust her again, but I can forgive her.  You can forgive someone for doing something, but you don’t have to trust them again. If the babysitter you hire abuses your children, you can forgive them, but it doesn’t mean you let them sit your kids again.

As for promise-keeping, you can hold Edgar’s position and still believe in promise-keeping. I do. If she did not want to keep her promise, how is that being unfaithful to mine? People around me can tell you I still don’t speak ill of her.

I really had a problem when Laney said this:

Instead of presenting a thorough biblical study of the subject, Edgar continually appeals to logic and states that the arguments of the opposing viewpoint are illogical (compare, pp. 173, 179, 180, 186, 192). I would hasten to point out that many biblical doctrines—such as election and free will—do not fit our categories of logic. How is the doctrine of the Trinity—three equal persons in one godhead-logical? Frankly, I would rather be biblical than logical if a choice is demanded.

J. Carl Laney et al., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 201.

If the Trinity is illogical, then that means it is impossible and should not be believed. I do not for a moment think the Trinity contradicts logic. Does the doctrine go beyond our understanding? Absolutely, but to say it is illogical is a dangerous path. I suspect Laney doesn’t really understand what is meant by logical, but I wish he would for he has opened a dangerous door with this statement.

There is nothing in Heth that I didn’t find in Laney worth commenting on, but in Richard’s response we read:

It may be correct for us to advise the injured party that he or she “can” divorce. But it is not for us to advise that he or she should. Instead we need to work toward the healing first of the persons involved, and then of the marriage.

J. Carl Laney et al., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 211.

This is a great point. We often forget that when the bride and groom come together on a wedding day, it’s not just them making a promise. The congregation is also to promise to support and help the couple. We don’t spend enough time doing this. We should all be working to help marriages in our community. I have told couples where I am that if they have a marriage problem and want to talk, my door is open.

Next time, we will look at Larry Richards’s position.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Divorce and Remarriage Four Views — Part 2

What do I think of William Heth’s view? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this volume, Heth defends the position that divorce is allowed, but not remarriage. This is an older work as since then, Heth has changed his position to allow for remarriage after adultery and desertion. Therefore, we can say that eventually he came to abandon his arguments here, but he still has his arguments and we need to address them.

To begin with, I do agree with parts where Heth speaks highly of marriage. I also think ideally that marriage should be permanent, but the problem is that it is too often not. This is even the case with God essentially sending a divorce certificate to Israel and Judah when He allows them to go into exile. There have been some who have said the same thing happens again in Revelation. Hosea 2 has God explicitly saying to Israel “I am not your husband.”

Heth says marriage happens when a man and a woman announce their covenant love for one another and consummate that love together. He says one is not sufficient in itself, pointing to 1 Cor. 6:16. The problem is, as was said yesterday, that 1 Cor. 6:16, quotes Genesis 2:24, which is said to be the foundational passage on marriage. Nothing in Genesis 2:24 speaks about announcing covenant love, for instance.

I do agree with Heth in that the purpose of marriage is not companionship. That is a purpose, but it is not the purpose. After all, men and women have plenty of sources for companionship. They’re called friends. We even consider our pets our companions. That being said, being divorced and single is quite lonely and so yes, that companionship is definitely missed.

I am unconvinced by his point on Deuteronomy 24 considering it does not allow for remarriage of the first husband. The purpose is that it still allows for remarriage. My thinking on this is that a back and forth exchange gives the impression that this is a case of men working together to have the same woman and claim to do so legally. It creates a love triangle scenario.

He speaks on Ezra with the marriages to other tribes at the end and says

As early as 1890, George Rawlinson observed:

It is quite clear that [Ezra] read the Law as absolutely prohibitive of mixed marriages (Ezra 9:10–14)—i.e., as not only forbidding their inception, but their continuance. Strictly speaking, he probably looked upon them as unreal marriages, and so as no better than ordinary illicit connections. For the evils which flow from such unions, those who make them, and not those who break them, are responsible.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 89.

I find this extremely flimsy. Are we to say that pagan nations had no “real marriages” since evils could flow from such unions? If all that is required for a real marriage is a public testimony and a consummation, then these were real marriages. If these were real marriages, then these were real divorces.

Heth goes on to say that

Yet the most serious cases of unlawful unions could be punished by the death of both parties, just like adulterers (Lev 20:10). Numbers 25:6–15 records the case of an Israelite who took a foreign wife and was summarily executed. It could be a significant act of kindness that Ezra only demanded the “divorce” of the foreigners, not their execution.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 90.

This also strikes me as problematic. In this case, we have no indication that the two were husband and wife. What is going on is a judgment has come to Israel and right after a public statement denouncing this, a man and a woman brazenly go in public so everyone can see them and then go into a tent and start doing the deed together. Phinehas says that that is enough and takes a spear and runs through both of them in one blow.

Thus, I hardly see this as a parallel. Add in also that Deuteronomy had standards for marrying a woman who was a captive and Rahab and Ruth were foreign women who we see in the genealogy of Jesus. Are we to think that those were illicit marriages?

As we move on, we see a quotation from Tony Lane, a lecturer on Christian doctrine at London Bible College.

If Jesus did allow remarriage, presumably it happened. How did it then cease to happen, despite the fact that his teaching was known, leaving no trace either of a period when it happened or of any controversy.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 97.

However, what I want to know is how is this known? For instance, let’s go with the early church having a problem with sex for pleasure. Are we to assume then that nowhere in the early church could we find couples having sex for pleasure? The reality is we just don’t have the marriage statistics on the early church so this is really an argument from silence.

Later when talking about Jesus and divorce, Heth says:

Divorce for marital unfaithfulness may be conceded in view of the prevailing social mores, but there must be no remarriage lest adultery be committed. The disciples then react in unbelief at the thought of a life of singleness apart from marital relations: if a man cannot get out of a marriage so as to marry another, it is probably better not to marry at all (v. 10). Jesus then responds by saying that his standards on divorce and remarriage are indeed difficult to understand and to live by. Nevertheless, God gives true disciples the ability to understand and live by Christ’s teaching. Furthermore, God will give faithful disciples the grace they need if they should face a divorce they cannot prevent (v. 11).

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 106.

First, we don’t know why exactly the disciples reacted the way they did. We just know that they did. However, if someone was stunned at the prospect of a life of singleness without sex, there’s a sure way to get that. Never get married. At least if you get married, you could say you can have sex for some time.

I also don’t deny that God can give grace to those of us who have gone through divorce, but at the same time, He can also give us new spouses who will love us faithfully. There is no doubt God can provide for me regardless. My hope is still that that will be through another companion.

As for Paul, Heth says

Paul’s statement that the believer is “not bound” in such cases has the same function that the exception clause does in Matthew 19:9: it relieves the innocent party of the guilt of violating Christ’s command not to divorce. In the case of Matthew 19:9 the woman who commits adultery is held responsible for the breakup of the marriage, while in 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul exempts the Christian from the responsibility for the divorce which an unbelieving mate brings about. Nothing is said one way or the other about the possibility of remarriage for the believer.

William A Heth, “Chapter 2: Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 112.

This seems like a strange interpretation. Not bound means that the person is not guilty? That doesn’t seem to be the main issue at play here. No one seems to be asking “Who is guilty of the divorce?”

Finally, in looking at the responses, I want to only look at one comment from Thomas Edgar.

Heth’s argument that unless divorce is required it cannot be argued that the one-flesh relationship has been broken due to sexual sin, fails to take into account that although relationship with a prostitute is “one flesh” it is not marriage unless a certain legal ceremony is carried out. In the same way sexual sin breaks the marriage bond, but the marriage is not actually dissolved until a certain legal procedure (divorce) is carried out Does anyone argue that the marriage itself is actually dissolved the instant one enters into sexual unfaithfulness? I think that my discussion of the syntax shows that Heth’s view of Matthew 19:9 is incorrect. It is grammatically impossible to claim that Matthew 19:9 does not allow remarriage in the case of the exception.

J. Carl Laney et al., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (ed. H. Wayne House; Spectrum Multiview Books; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, n.d.), 142.

This is an excellent case. Adultery does not ipso facto destroy the marriage as there can be repentance and it’s not as if the moment a spouse commits adultery, they are a divorced couple and then if the cheater comes home and resumes normal sex with the spouse, that the unaware party is having an affair? Just as the ceremony is part of the marriage, so it is part of the divorce. Adultery doesn’t necessitate divorce, but it is sufficient for it.

Next time, we will look at Thomas Edgar’s essay.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Divorce and Remarriage Part 1

What do I think of J. Carl Laney’s approach? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In looking at the views in this book, I plan on addressing in each part the opinion of the writer as well as the rebuttals by the opposing sides. The first one is going to be Laney. His approach is that the Bible doesn’t allow at all for divorce or remarriage. I should point out that I had a hand copy that I was highlighting, but I seem to have accidentally left it somewhere so I will not be making as many quotations. I am instead using my version Logos. Also, for new readers, I am sadly divorced and seeking remarriage.

So for Laney’s view, I definitely agree with matters upfront that marriage is an institution created by God. We should be doing all that we can to uphold and help marriages. I also do agree that divorce is a great evil in our world. There are times I sadly think it can be necessary, but that is still a tragedy even then. It means somewhere along the way, someone violated the covenant to such a great extent it has to be abandoned. I realize Laney disagrees with me on that last point, but that is fine. I often say if you want to meet someone who hates divorce, look for someone who has been wrongfully divorced.

I also agree that the Bible tells a man to cleave to his new wife, something that can include love but in a sense goes beyond it for something new. A man can love many people in his life, but the only one he should cleave to is his wife. I definitely also agree that sexual faithfulness should be part of the marriage covenant.

I also liked that he said parents should give children roots and wings. Give them roots in the sense that they always have a home that they are welcome at, but also give them wings. They need to leave that home sometime.

I disagree when he says that the marriage bond is indissoluble. For one thing, he points to Genesis 2:24 as the one-flesh union, but just before this has quoted that same verse from 1 Cor. 6:16 where Paul says if a man unites himself with a prostitute he becomes one flesh with her, quoting Genesis 2:24. Are we to think Paul thought a man had entered an indissoluble union with a prostitute? There are plenty of teenagers who are having sex in high school. Are we to think that the moment that they do, that they are automatically married and thus any further marriage is adultery? If so, there are a lot of adulterous people out there, including people who did stay faithful and married someone who wasn’t a virgin on their wedding night.

Laney also says that Deuteronomy 24 doesn’t institute or approve divorce, which is true, but it does treat it as a reality. However, if divorce is a reality, then yes, divorce is possible. If divorce is possible, then it means that it is possible to break apart a marriage covenant.

I also do not see how his claim works when Jesus says that if anyone divorces his wife and marries another, except for porneia, they commit adultery. To me, that is quite clear that in the case of porneia, whatever it is, that divorce and remarriage is allowed. Laney falls back on saying marriage cannot be undone, but that has not been demonstrated and it looks more like saying “Jesus could not mean X because it disagrees with the prior position here.”

Laney says that if porneia just means adultery, then Jesus would just have been siding with the school of Shammai. And the problem? It’s not unthinkable that the Jews actually got some things right in interpreting the Old Testament, including marriage laws. While it is true there is another word that can mean explicit adultery, the word Jesus used is just fine still for conveying the ideas, much like today we can say terms like having sex, making love, intercourse, coitus, hooking up, doing it, etc.

I also think too much is made of Mark and Luke not mentioning the exception in Matthew. It’s more likely that as someone like Instone-Brewer would point out, everyone would know that divorce was allowable for adultery. Matthew made it explicit for his own reasons, but unless the synoptics contradict each other, then they must all agree that adultery is an acceptable reason for divorce.

I will pass over Paul for now and save that for Heth’s position in this book which I highlighted more of and is closely akin to Laney. I also want to say that he and Heth both appeal to the early church and say that the early church did not allow for divorce and remarriage. Not having seen all they said, I will grant that for the sake of argument.

However, many of them also said that sex should be used only for the purpose of procreation. Tertullian referred to it as that dreadful thing. Would Laney and Heth want to embrace that view? I daresay many of your most staunch Catholics and Orthodox would not even take such a position.

They would also likely if they want to be consistent then hold to many of the Marian doctrines. For someone in the RCC or the Orthodox camp, this would not be a problem. For those wanting to be Protestants, it could be. (There are Protestants who do hold to perpetual virginity.) Thus, it’s not sufficient to say the early church believed X. I want to know why they believed it.

I also think that Laney’s position could lead to license of sin. It could mean that if a spouse is committing adultery, well, you can’t divorce so what are you going to do? Well, a spouse is being abusive and/or putting children at risk. Can’t divorce. What are you going to do? I’m sure Laney would have solutions in each of these cases, but I also think that even separation alone would have little effect on someone like that.

Also, when I read cases like this, it seems as if Laney is unaware of those of us who are divorced against our desires. Many of us wanted to celebrate marriage the way that Laney does, and many of us do, but our own experiences of it fell short and it is devastating. I know this is not the intent, but when one reads this, you can come away with the position of “Sucks to be you. Your spouse wronged you and now you have to suffer.”

So in the end, I am not convinced of Laney’s position. Next time, we will explore Heth who allows for divorce, but not remarriage. I will also have more quotations from that one due to highlighting online so expect more interaction.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge For Fun: Rabbi David Small Mysteries

What do I think of this read? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I recently finished reading all twelve of these mysteries by Harry Kemelman who has a Jewish rabbi, David Small, as his sleuth. Clergy as detectives being in the field I’m in are always fun to read and yes, I have read all of Father Brown. The Rabbi Small mysteries follow the adventures of Rabbi Small in his town of Barnard’s Crossing where it seems every few years a strange murder takes place. (Okay. Two times he goes to Israel and yes, a murder takes place on each of his visits.)

In the first one, the new rabbi is himself a suspect, but in this, he winds up using his skills of Talmudic reasoning to solve the case and befriend Hugh Lanigan, the Catholic Police Chief. The two are fast friends and they and their wives get together regularly. There is also no attempt to convert one another. Still, Small is happy to explain Jewish reasoning and customs to Lanigan and anyone else who’s interested.

Unfortunately for Small, his insistence on following the procedures to the letter can often get him in trouble with his congregation who sometimes think it would be better to let go of some practices. Thus, there will regularly be attempts to remove the rabbi from leadership, but somehow, he always overcomes in the end. Also in between keeping his job, solving murders, and doing Talmudic studies, the good rabbi has to work to raise a family.

Rabbi Small is a figure who’s a bit of an aloof detective. He’s the detective who doesn’t know he’s a detective and it seems like often no one else does either. After the first few solves, you start to wonder why Lanigan just doesn’t go to the rabbi every time to get the solution to the case. It’s not uncommon to see the rabbi walk in on a discussion of the case, hear all the reasoning, and explain what has happened. One time at least he solves the case and doesn’t even go straight to the police. He just waits until he’s talking to them again and it’s explained so nonchalantly. Lest you read the series, I don’t want to tell what it is due to spoilers.

Overall, the rabbi is a very likable fellow who sticks to his practice even when it is not favorable. He is also friendly to his Christian counterparts, including Chief Lanigan. That being said, there are a few things that I would have liked to have seen changed.

When the first child was being born in the series, that was a large part of a book, but after he was born, he’s spoken of some, but not that often. It’s like he’s there in the background. Then suddenly at one point, they also have a teenage daughter and lo and behold, in another future book, she’s getting married. Again, the children don’t really seem to matter much to the family.

Finally, sometimes, the set up for the mystery seemed to take too long. It could seem as if you were at the halfway point in the book when now this is where the murder takes place. I would have liked to have seen more time on the murder and solving it.

Still, if you’re like me and you like mysteries, this is a good series to read. I did the reading on Kindle and most of the books are very inexpensive. You can look up the order online and enjoy them all. I also understand that there was briefly a TV series based on the mysteries and I wouldn’t mind seeing what that was like sometime.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Megan Rapinoe Demonstrates God

Does evil disprove God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So apparently there’s this girl named Megan Rapinoe and she apparently plays some kind of sport or something and thinks we should care. She made the headlines on NotTheBee yesterday for a knock-down argument against the existing of God. Obviously, Aquinas and Augustine are being kicked to the curb here as we now have proof positive there is no God. So what is this argument? Let’s take a look.

Now if you can’t see that, her great argument is because she had a non-contact injury in a game where I suppose she tripped or something and had to leave her last game early, there is no God.

I mean, yeah, I went through a divorce where I lost the love of my life and plenty of people have lost children to diseases and horrible accidents and people are starving in Africa and other countries and we could go on and on.

But now, now we have it settled.

Rapinoe hurts herself and can’t finish her last game so yep, atheism is true.

Already, there has been some humor done in light of this. The Free Beacon had a funny tongue-in-cheek op-ed piece written. Nice to know the Almighty has His say in this. Still, I’d like to instead take a serious look at this as I think it demonstrates a flaw in an atheistic argument.

I think even the staunchest atheist is likely to look at what Rapinoe has said and think “Yeah. That doesn’t work.” There is no doubt for me that she is just a narcissistic whiner. I’m not denying that it would be painful to have happen what she has and it would suck to not get to play in your last game like that, but she has had a successful career already. Many people would be thankful.

Some could say that in some ways, this could read like a parody argument. You take something like this and say in light of all the suffering in the world, this is the dealbreaker. God doesn’t exist.

Okay. So we can all see that saying that you had this injury in your own personal life and therefore God doesn’t exist, is ridiculous. You should really take a look at the evidence pro and con a lot more. We can frame it this way.

If a good God existed, He would not allow Megan Rapinoe to get a non-contact injury in her last soccer game.
Megan Rapinoe got a non-contact injury.
Therefore, God does not exist.

If this is weak, and it is, we have to ask, when does it become strong? What is the point? If Rapinoe suffers more and more in her everyday life such that she becomes a Charlie Brown type character, does it ever get us a good argument? Do we ever get to the point in her individual life that we say, “Okay. God doesn’t exist.”?

If we don’t, then does that every happen on a collective scale? If two people suffer greatly, does that mean God doesn’t exist? Ten? 6,000? 5 million? 2 billion? Is there a number along the way?

This is my problem with the problem of evil. It is way too subjective. The person has to decide at some arbitrary point along the line that yes, this evil is too much and now God doesn’t exist.

Compare that to the Thomistic arguments that I use. These are not based on subjective criteria. These are based on philosophical data and the argument is deductive, not inductive. If the premises are true and there is no flaw in the form, the conclusion is certain.

And if one of these arguments works, the problem of evil automatically doesn’t. You can’t have it that this argument is flawless and proves that God exists and this argument is flawless and proves that God doesn’t exist. One is wrong.

And if one is wrong, I think I will reject the one that is not subjective.

Meanwhile, let’s hope Megan’s self-obsession ends soon. In the past, athletes were supposed to be role models for others. Frankly, we need a lot less people like her.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

What’s going on with this punishment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

An atheist in a Facebook group I’m a part of shared this passage from Deuteronomy 25:11-12.

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Well, that seems a bit excessive doesn’t it? Isn’t this a woman just trying to defend her husband? Why would you give such a strong punishment for that? I was also told that defending this is like defending acid being thrown in womens’ faces in Muslim countries.

The good thing about being an internet atheist is when you’re in a discussion, you don’t have to actually interact. You can just have righteous indignation. If you find it offensive, well that’s enough. You don’t need to bother to understand another culture.

However, when we want to study a culture, we need to try to see what was going on and why that law was made.

Let’s start with something first off that’s not in the text explicitly, but is part of the cultural context. The ancient laws were didactic. That means that they were not hard and fast rules but general guidelines. A judge would take into consideration all facets and hopefully, make a wise judgment. If this were not the case, why would they even need judges?

Second, this is not really about defending her husband. A swift kick would be a lot better. This woman is wanting to do a lot more than that. She’s wanting to do long-term permanent damage not just to him, but to his future. He’s destroying his ability to reproduce and thus cutting off his entire family line possibly.

Besides this, generally, if you were wanting to repel someone, bending down and grabbing a man by his testicles is not the best route. You are putting yourself in a vulnerable position after all if you miss. and possibly making it be that you are a barrier to your husband’s attempts to engage with the interlocutor.

Also, something we have to remember about stiff penalties, is that they were meant to be a deterrent to crime. In many cases, they’re successful. Remember a few years ago when that kid went to Singapore and vandalized a car and got caned multiple times as a result? I understand he assaulted his father when he got back to America. I guarantee you he won’t try anything if he returns to Singapore one day.

So what about acid throwing? Well, from my reading into Muslim cultures, and I tried to find pro-Muslim material, it really looks like many times, a woman could get acid thrown in her face for anything, be it going to school or even refusing sex with her husband. These are hardly parallels.

Let’s also remember the Law was never meant to give us a key to a perfect society. It was meant to help curtail a wicked society at the time. It was a schoolmaster until the better law of Christ came along.

You can be offended at this passage. You cannot like it. Neither one counts as an argument though.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Producing Christian Media

Can we make good material? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I recently started going through one of the Assassin’s Creed games because I have heard there is a lot of religious symbolism in there, and indeed there is. I was told to start with the Ezio Collection. Turns out it looks like the game is the second one, but that’s okay. I’m still getting what’s going on.

To explain what is making this appealing, it is set in 1474-1499. When you come across a character, you are allowed to push a button and get a brief synopsis about them and their life. Some of these are people I have never heard of, but I am learning that historians have been studying them.

I also understand the layouts of the towns are made to be remarkably just like the towns that they are in. I was looking up some information on that just now and what do I see but places like Ireland are using Assassin’s Creed to attract tourists. Gamers are wanting to go and see these places that they have played games in so much. Yes. We don’t just want to sit on a couch playing games. We want to do things.

Of course, in this game, there’s some physical activity. You encounter townspeople that want to kill you and you get involved in fisticuffs. Your character is incredibly athletic and can run and jump across roofs and climb buildings practically like Spider-Man. That’s cool, but really, for a game, it’s not really the main draw.

What is fascinating is realizing I’m actually getting to interact with historical figures. I’m playing last night and come across Leonardo Da Vinci and I’m thinking, “Wow. I’m going on a mission for Da Vinci.” Not only that, I read in the game that he was born out of wedlock and he was a horrible procrastinator. I look it up online after and lo and behold, that’s right. That is fascinating and that knowledge is very unlikely to leave me any time soon.

That left me wondering, “What if we could do the same thing for the Bible?” Imagine playing a game where you get to be a soldier in the time of David and Saul. Imagine being a peasant in Judah at the time of Jesus. Imagine being a traveler in the Roman Empire at the time of Paul. There are so many scenarios you could do.

Now I have been told there is a company that is working on making Christian video games. I hope it’s an enjoyable one because I have seen non-Christians on videos about Christians video games saying they would play a Christian game if it met one standard. It’s a really simple one.

The game needs to be fun.

Too often when we make media, we make media that we enjoy and don’t consider if anyone else will. Who goes to see many secular movies, hear secular songs, watch secular shows, and play secular games? Christians and non-Christians. Who goes to see Christian movies, hear Christian songs, watch Christian shows, and play Christian games? Christians. Do you know a non-Christian who has a subscription to Pureflix? I’m not saying Christians can’t make things for Christians, but we also need to make materials that non-Christians will want to interact with that can get them interested in Christianity.

If people are playing an Assassin’s Creed game and wanting to visit Ireland as a result, what if they play a similar game and want to study the Bible as a result? What if they get introduced to historical aspects that they never would have known of? The account doesn’t just become words on a page, but something they see and interact with and they get to see what the world of the Bible is like.

Not only this, but I think this is one of the best ways we learn. We learn by doing, and that includes playing. One benefit I have had in apologetics is I have been on the internet and debating these issues so much so where you have to know them immediately and be ready to share them. We could see a parallel in the Karate Kid with behaviors like painting the fence. Daniel didn’t realize he was learning the motions of karate the whole time.

We live in an age of multimedia and we need to use it. Now I do not know enough about programming to do such. I am still looking for a YouTube expert to help me with my videos! I would be glad to provide historical and theological information for a game though as I’m sure many others would.

I look forward to a day when the best material out there is not made by secularists, but made by Christians. Make it real.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Pilgrim in the Microworld

What do I think of David Sudnow’s book from Boss Fight Books? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This could be the first game ever published about what it’s like playing a video game. In this case, the game is called Breakout.

At this, some younger gamers and readers could be thinking “I haven’t heard of that one. Is that about having to rescue someone trapped in an enemy prison and going behind enemy lines to break them out?”

Well, not exactly.

“Okay. So is it a fighting game where you fight one-on-one with an opponent like Street Fighter and have to break out your best moves?”

No. Not really.

Okay. So what is this game I’ve never heard of?

It’s this:

Yep. That’s Breakout.

Seriously? A guy wrote a book on this?

Yes. Yes, he did.

Sudnow’s experience starts at this place in ancient history known as an arcade. There was a time even when people had home consoles when people would meet at arcades and put quarters or tokens that cost a quarter apiece into a machine and used it to play a game. Many people would come and watch and take turns playing these games. Sometimes, people could play games alongside each other or against each other. You could sit inside models of cars for racing games or hold a gun for a shooting game.

Yours truly actually worked at one of these places once.

So Sudnow sees his son playing a game called Missile Command. He finds himself intrigued by the simplicity of it all and yet also by the dedication his son has to this. He thinks that normally we think of war as something awful, and we should, but Missile Command has a rather simple thesis to it that is much more innocent. You have a number of towns and you have to intercept missiles that are being fired at them to preserve those towns.

Sudnow gets this ancient machine that is even pre-Nintendo, (Which is even pre-such systems as the 64 or the Wii) called an Atari. He is told there is another game fans of Missile Command might like called Breakout. Sudnow starts playing this game and while his forte is playing the piano, before long, he finds himself intrigued by this game.

Sudnow wants to beat this game and studies it intensely. At what angle does the ball shoot out? How fast does it go? What changes from shot to shot? He looks at his TV from different angles and puts tape on the bottom in an effort to measure where the paddle goes to hit the ball. I hope Atari was near where he lived at the time because he even goes to Atari to ask them questions about how to play the game well. (Keep in mind kinds, we didn’t have the internet back then and even growing up, many of us had to read Nintendo Power or actually on some rare days, call the hotline for help and sometimes, we could even do this really archaic practice called writing a letter and putting it in the mail and waiting for a response.)

What this shows really is from the beginning, people have an amazing dedication to games. Think it’s just video games. Think again. Exhibit A? Sports. Even if we go back to Greek and Roman times, the Olympic games were a major deal. Cities could even get tax-exemptions for victorious contenders in the games. Today, we have multiple channels dedicated to games on cable as well as I’m sure many streaming services. How much is spent on sporting events every year and how much do we pay athletes for what they do?

Games matter.

Games seem to pull out in people a drive to succeed like nothing else does. Have people game and they want to be the best that they can. People invest so much work in something that often times won’t even benefit them financially.

We as Christians I fear have been too quick to condemn such. This is part of our reality. This is part of who we are as people. Why? What can we learn about ourselves from this? Can we take this drive and use it for the kingdom?

While the reading is fascinating, there is something absent. We don’t really see much of David’s social interactions while he is gaming. Where was his wife? Where was his son? I would have liked to have read about that. Did Paul think it was cool having a Dad who played video games? Did his friends think the same? Was his wife getting annoyed at her husband so intently studying Breakout and just saying “Could you instead clean the dishes sometime?!”

This is reading I did for my planned PhD research and the best walkaway I get from it is a reminder that this is something that really taps into who we are as people. We are a playing people. We don’t just play out of instinct. We purposely play.

Now it’s up to us to figure out why that is.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Who is the Good Samaritan?

Who is the neighbor? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This morning, I was working through a Gospel Notebook I have to do for a New Testament class where I am pretty much commenting on Scripture. I got to the parable of the Good Samaritan. This is something I have thought about for awhile, but I decided now was a good time to write about it.

Today, we have in some ways lost the impact of the Good Samaritan. The term “Good Samaritan” is actually a compliment to hear. I never cared for the show, but I understand the last episode of Seinfeld was about the breaking of a Good Samaritan Law that said you were supposed to help someone who was in need if you were capable.

If we want to really picture how different it is, what are some ways we could do so?

Here are some I have come up with and I will try to go from position to position.

An evangelical Christian was left for dead and a pastor and a seminary professor passed him by, but an atheist came by and had compassion on him.

A leftist was left for dead and a Marxist professor and a Democrat politician passed him by, but a MAGA supporter came by and had compassion on him.

An Israeli was left for dead and a rabbi and an evangelical Christian passed him by, but a member of Hamas came by and had compassion on him.

A conservative pro-life Christian was left for dead and a conservative politician and a pro-life activist passed him by, but a transgender person came by and had compassion on him.

In every case, we need to think for ourselves about what if we were the person who was beaten and left for dead. Think then about who it is you would expect to stop and help you, and yet they will pass you by. Then think about who you would consider to be your mortal enemy and then realize that if that person came by and had compassion on you, what would you do?

This is also why I included the Israeli and the Hamas member. If it was told today, one would think that the Hamas member would pull out his gun and finish the job. Nope. Instead, he ends up having compassion. You could expect that a fellow Jew could have compassion or an evangelical Christian, especially a dispensational one who talks about the love of Israel, would help him.

It’s a difficult question to think about since you have to really look at yourself and say “Who is it that I would find myself the most opposed to?” Then you have to ask yourself, “Who is it I would find myself most aligned to?” If you can look and realize that that person had compassion on you,

If we do this, we can return to the shock of the parable. We can realize who we disagree with the most and what we can do in how we treat them. It is not saying we should cease to disagree with them, but you can disagree with someone and love them, something our culture seems to forget. It also means that we need to be a neighbor to that person. It doesn’t mean we do everything they want, but it does mean we try to show love the best we can.

Who is your Good Samaritan?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

The Leaked Manifesto

What can we learn about the March shooting? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many of us were quite surprised today to hear that some of the manifesto from the Covenant shooting has been leaked. It’s my understanding that this is not the whole, but what has been leaked has been verified. It’s been told that some of this is being taken out of context, though it’s honestly hard to think of what kind of context would make the sayings, especially about hoping to kill a lot of kids, be understandable.

So what are some take aways?

Well, one of the first that stands out to me is the girl saying that she was surprised she had not been caught, and indicated that she could have been in the summer of 2021? What was going on then? What was the FBI doing? It was a few months later that parents were being targeted at school board meetings by the FBI. Was that in the preliminary stages then?

There’s a reason a lot of people have lost trust in the FBI.

What of the police force? We seem to hear this many times. We heard it after the Parkland shooter. There were plenty of warning signs about the guy who did it, and yet despite numerous red flags, nothing was done. Then after the fact, we start talking about gun control, as if we need new laws when we are not enforcing the laws that we have.

Also, just so everyone knows, I am not naming the shooters in any of these. That is fully intentional.

Second, the shooter at Covenant made a check to make sure there was security. What if there had been? We don’t know, but is it possible that these children could have been saved with security? What we have to ask is if our children are worth it. I am quite certain that a group of people you could go to see if they would like to have security jobs at schools are our veterans. I strongly suspect they would love to have the job of protecting our children.

Now let’s also get into some moral categories. We have often been told about creating a dangerous political environment, but yet let’s compare this shooter to the one who shot up the Congressional baseball game. Both of them were told certain things about their opponents on the other side. Both of them then responded. We could also include the man who tried to attack the Family Research Council.

I also want to be clear on this point. I am not saying the people who speak in this sort of way are responsible. If you want to know who is responsible, it is the people who do the activities. I don’t hold Bernie Sanders responsible for what happened at the baseball game.

That being said, if you go around saying all white people are racist and about white privilege and everything else, don’t be surprised if some people believe you. If you want to say you are opposed to racism, you have to be opposed to all racism. If you are not, then you are really just practicing a reverse form of racism.

Also, as someone on the spectrum, sometimes, what we hear about is mental illness in all of these things. If someone was willing to do that kind of evil, then they must be mentally ill. They could be, but I don’t think it’s best to say mental illness every time. If we do, we miss one key point.

People are evil.

If it weren’t for the grace of God, any of us could do that kind of evil. The reason you haven’t is not because you’re just that incredibly good. It’s because you’ve submitted to some degree to reality be it the moral order you believe exists in the universe somehow or from a Christian perspective, God.

It’s easy to look back today and say, “If we had lived back then, we would not have participated in slavery.” The reality is, a lot of people living today would. That includes the people who say they wouldn’t. Many of us can look back on our own lives and say “I can’t believe I did XYZ” back then. Yes. You did. I did. We all have done things. Hindsight is 20/20 and instead of saying “I wouldn’t have done that!” we need to ask “What can I do to make sure I’m not the kind of person who does that?”

I remember years ago a friend told me something that has stuck with me. We often say that if we were the only one, Jesus would have died for us. He told me also that if we were the only one, we would have killed Him.

It’s easy to look back and say “I wouldn’t be like the Pharisees!” However, as soon as we say that, aren’t we being just like the Pharisees? Aren’t we considering ourselves morally superior? We would love to look back and think we are the heroes in the story of the Gospels. Maybe, just maybe, we could have actually been the villains.

There is a duty to be aware of evil from the other side, but never overlook what could be evil in your own side, more importantly, even in your own heart. People do evil sometimes because of mental illness, yes, but sometimes people do evil because people are just evil. It is a myth to think that if we could just get chemical imbalances all worked out, people would live pristine and pure lives.

That requires the grace of God and 100% sanctification which we will not reach in this life.

What we have of the manifesto should remind us that evil is real and we need to combat it. However, the main place we all need to combat it is ourselves. There but for the grace of God go I.

If you need that grace, it’s always available.

And of course, pray for the families of the victims. While this could be a step of closure for them, it’s also certainly a painful day.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)