FAMILY AS MISSION:
A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE PURPOSE FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
A Thesis
Presented to
Dr. L. Scott Kellum
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Course Number: IND8582 Guided Research Project
Gregory E. Lamb
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
April 01, 2013
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
SECTION
1. “FAMILY” IN CRISIS ....................................................................................................5
Marriage and Family In the Twenty-First Century—Secular Trends ......................7
Marriage and Family in the Twenty-First Century—Ecclesiastical Trends ..........14
2. A VIEW OF FAMILY FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT .............................................18
Teachings from the Torah ......................................................................................21
Teachings from the Nevi’im …...............................................................................23
Teachings from the Ketuvim …..............................................................................24
3. A VIEW OF FAMILY FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT ............................................25
Teachings from the Gospels ..................................................................................25
Teachings from the Pauline Epistles ….................................................................30
Teachings from the Acts, General Epistles, and Revelation …..............................32
4. THE PROBLEM OF DIVORCE IN THE CHURCH ...................................................34
5. THE ISSUE OF SINGLENESS ....................................................................................42
6. THE MISSIO DEI .........................................................................................................46
7. THE “MISSIOLOGICAL FAMILY” ............................................................................52
8. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................58
APPENDIX A: A Historical Survey of Ancient and American Family Models ...............61
APPENDIX B: Matthew 19:9: A Textual Commentary ....................................................76
APPENDIX C: The “Problem” of Fatherless Families .....................................................79
APPENDIX D: Girard’s “Single Victim Mechanism” and America’s Culture of Guilt ...81
BIBLIOGRAPHY ….........................................................................................................84
iv
Family As Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Purpose for Marriage and Family
Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will
open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, Which we have heard and
known, And our fathers have told us. We will not conceal them from their children, But
tell to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His
wondrous works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob And
appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers That they should teach them
to their children, That the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be
born, That they may arise and tell them to their children, That they should put their
confidence in God And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments, And
not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not
prepare its heart And whose spirit was not faithful to God.
— Ps. 78:1–8 (NASB)1
Introduction
Society at its most basic level is dependent on two fundamental elements. First, and most
bedrock, society is dependent on human reproduction. Second, and more systemic, society is
dependent on those children integrating peaceably and productively into the established
structures. As one would suspect, the Bible is not silent on the matter of reproduction and
society. The thesis of this project is that according to the Scriptures, God’s purpose for marriage
and family is not primarily diversity or self-fulfillment, but a vital part of the missio Dei (that is,
mission of God).
From the beginning of humanity, God intended the family to be a vital aspect of bringing
glory to himself and a vehicle of his love towards all humanity (Matt. 22:36–40). God created
humanity in his image and likeness (Gen. 1:26–27) and instituted the covenant of marriage and
family (Gen. 2:24). The purpose of marriage and family is to rule over creation and to be fruitful
and to multiply, thus filling the earth with YHWH worshipers (Gen. 1:28). So the purpose of
family is to bring YHWH worship to the ends of the earth by and through the rearing of godly
1
Unless otherwise noted, scriptural references will be taken from the New American Standard Bible.
1
2
generations of children who will fear the LORD (Deut. 6; Ps. 78:1–8). This concept is elucidated
in Genesis 12:1–3, as in one man, namely Abram, all the families of the earth will be blessed.
Old Testament scholar, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., notes, “Genesis 12:1–3 is foundational to the
missionary vision of the whole Bible and for all the people of God through all the ages.”2 Thus,
in Adam the concept of the missiological family is born (Gen. 1:28), repeated twice in the
postdiluvian Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:1 and 9:7), and realized with the Abrahamic covenant
(Gen. 12:1–3).
The term missiology as defined by Abraham Kuyper is as follows: “The investigation of
the most profitable God ordained methods leading to the conversion of those outside Christ.”3
Johannes Verkuyl agrees, “Missiology is the study of the salvation activities of the Father, Son
and the Holy Spirit throughout the world geared toward bringing the Kingdom of God into
existence.”4 The term missiological family (as argued in this paper) describes the purpose of the
family in three dimensions. First, to exude the glory of God within the covenantal bond of
marriage (Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:14–16). Then, to promulgate God’s glory through the rearing and
teaching5 of godly, missions-minded children (Deut. 6; Ps. 78:1–8; Mal. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:15–17),
who, finally, propagate the gospel—by and through the multiplication of their seed—to future
generations (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7; 12:1–3; Gal. 3:6–9; Eph. 3:10; 5:21–33).” This pattern is reflected
theologically throughout Scripture (as will be seen later in this paper) and lived out historically
—albeit in imperfect fashion—in both Old and New Testaments. Regardless, this theological
2
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Mission In the Old Testament: Israel As a Light to the Nations, 2nd ed., (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 37.
3
J. H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1960), xix.
4
J. Verkuyl, Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 5.
5
It is important to note here that the biblical pattern for instruction of children is soteriological,
eschatological, and generational in nature (cf. Deut. 6) and fathers are to take a leading role (cf. Ps. 78:1–8).
However, there are biblical examples that show the importance of mothers (and grandmothers) also teaching
children the Scriptures (Prov. 1:8; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14, 15).
3
paradigm was not abrogated just because it was not reflected perfectly in the historical lives of
the families in Scripture. As Scripture attests, the ‫ה‬J‫יהו‬N
K ‫ ה ל‬QK‫ת‬N‫ש א‬
T ‫דו‬K‫עם ק‬Z N (“holy people of YHWH”)—
those whom YHWH considers to be his ‫לה‬QK ]‫“( _סג‬treasured possession”)—are those who are
characterized by their obedience to YHWH (Deut. 14:2; 30:1, 2; Matt. 7:21; John 14:23, 24;
Rom. 2:13; 2 John 1:6). While the Bible requires—even commands—YHWH worshippers to
obey his teachings (Jer. 7:23), there seems to be little concensus amongst twenty-first-century
Christians as to what those teachings are. Much debate is centered on what is to be considered
merely descriptive (archaic and superfluous in terms of their cultural and religious importance
for Christians today) and what is prescriptive (paradigmatic, and timeless in their relevance and
ethical/religious demands).6
This lack of a unified, ecumenical consensus has ignited a Kulturkampf (that is, a cultural
“struggle” or “war”) in the United States (and indeed the world) regarding the institution of
marriage and family.7 This ideological tension of competing worldviews stems from an
increasing cultural rebellion and utter rejection of the “traditional” view of family as presented in
its biblical as well as its more modern nuclear forms.8 While once considered utilitarian for the
good of the community, marriage in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries became a
romanticized ideal based largely on emotive feelings and whose goal was autonomous,
individualized self-fulfillment.9 Divorce-on-demand came as a result when marriage failed to live
6
Deirdre Good, Jesus’ Family Values, (New York: Church Publishing, 2006), 17.
7
The biblical paradigm suggests a singular “institution” rather than “institutions” as to be married assumed
family and the expectation of biological children (See passages such as Genesis 1:28; 2:24; Deuteronomy 6; and
Psalm 127:3–5 as exemplary of this fact). Since the aim of this paper is to present a biblical theology of marriage
and family, it is fitting to speak of marriage and family as a singular institution.
8
David Popenoe, Families Without Fathers: Fathers, Marriage and Children in American Society, (New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009), 13–14.
9
Ibid., 44–48.
4
up to this emotionally-centered, Victorian ideal.10 Families also became increasingly smaller with
the birthrate dropping rapidly by the dawn of the twentieth century.
Currently, a new era has dawned regarding marriage and family—an era based on the
anti-foundational ethic that proclaims there is no singular, objective model upon which to build a
view towards marriage and family.11 This worldview promotes diversity above all else in
marriage and family types—be it married same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, matriarchal
extended families, or even single mothers who intentionally choose to raise their children in a
fatherless environment. Given the pervasiveness of these progressive views toward marriage and
family today, could the words of Nietzsche ring true for the biblical view of family today?12 Is
the biblical concept of family dead? Given the recent political declarations and court rulings
regarding diversity in marriage and family, it may seem so. However, the Bible paints a much
different picture. Scripture was/is to be the timeless basis on which humanity lives its life.
This Kulturkampf has made significant inroads into the mindset of the church. Divorceon-demand, serial marriage, and cohabitation has become commonplace in numerous
congregations. “Conservative” evangelical assemblies reflect a higher divorce rate than the
surrounding secular culture13 and these congregations have lost their distinctiveness as being a
holy, separate people.14 It seems that many who claim to be “people of the Bible”—that is,
Christian—have adopted a worldview towards marriage and family that is thoroughly unbiblical.
10
Ibid., 94–95, 115–118.
11
Natalia Sarkisian and Naomi Gerstel, Nuclear Family Values, Extended Family Lives: The Power of Race,
Class and Gender, (New York: Routledge, 2012), ix, 2–4.
12
Freiderich Nietzche, The Gay Science, with a Prelude of Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs, tr. Walter
Kaufmann, (New York: Random House, 1974), Section 125.
13
George Barna, “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released,” The Barna Group, LTD,
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released (accessed
October 24, 2012).
14
See passages such as Lev. 19:2; 20:7, 22–26; John 17:11–16; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 9:19–23; 1 Pet. 1:13–16;
and 1 John 2:15–17).
5
Historically, the family has been the most basic unit of human civilization since its
creation. While a plethora of diverse filial models have indeed surfaced throughout the ages, the
core constituents of family have remained immutable. Since its inception, “family” has been
defined as a husband and wife who are joined together in a one-flesh union whose aim has been
to produce children (Gen. 1:28; 2:24). The current phenomena of redefining an institution that
has remained (until now) unshakable in its basic tenets is the result of a progressive worldview
shift. In order to understand and respond to the recent trends of the deconstruction and
denigration of marriage and family, an investigation is needed to trace the history of the collapse
of family.15 A brief survey of the various secular and ecclesiastical misconceptions should shed
insight into the current crisis of family and it is to this end that this paper now turns.
“Family” in Crisis
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and
female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the
birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth .’
— Gen. 1:27, 28
For Cicero, the household was the fundamental unit of the state (On Duties 53–5).
President Barack Obama recently remarked in his 2008 Father’s Day speech, “Of all the rocks
upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is most important.”16 So
throughout the millennia, the family unit, whether it consisted of an ancient patriarchal Roman
household or the modern American nuclear family model, has been thought of by the general
consensus as the most bedrock institution of society. However, no longer is this ancient
15
Such a cursory investigation may be found in Appendix A of this paper.
16
Barack Obama, “Fathers Day Speech,” The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/
obamas-fathers-day-speech_n_107220.html (accessed March 13, 2013).
6
attestation to be assumed. Andreas Köstenberger, exclaims, “FOR THE FIRST TIME in its
history, Western civilization is confronted with the need to define the meanings of the terms
‘marriage’ and ‘family’.”17 While examining the question, “What is family?” it is important to
concede that there have been a plethora of different family models throughout world history. To
argue from the historical record for a singular familial archetype (e. g., the modern nuclear
family) is an exercise in futility—it simply does not exist. A cursory overview of both ancient
and recent family models is in order and should prove helpful in understanding the current trends
in the Western sitz im leben.18
A historical overview of various ancient and modern family models reveals numerous
factors that have led to the current crisis of “family.” While ancient Mesopotamian and Jewish
families did incur divorce, it was not widespread until the Second Temple era with the collision
of monothestic Judaism with pagan Greco-Roman culture. Family has always served a
utilitarian19 purpose throughout history and this purpose gradually shifted to individualized selffulfillment beginning in the eighteenth century with the dawn of pre-Victorian Enlightenment
philosophy. The radical ideological shifts that permeated pre-Victorian and Victorian culture
paved the way for the age of individualism and modernity. The concept of two individuals
separating themselves from their extended family and the life of the community to go on a
“honeymoon” is a nineteenth-century invention.20
The increasingly lax regard for marriage and family during the early twentieth century
was only temporarily assuaged by the poverty of the Great Depression and thralls of war. These
17
Andreas J. Köstenberger and David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical
Foundation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 25.
18
For a helpful chart outlining the core characteristics of each family type please see Appendix A.
19
By “utilitarian” it is meant that family (historically speaking) existed primarily for the good of the “state”
or community, rather than the somewhat recent innovation of autonomous self-fulfillment.
20
Sarkisian and Gerstel, 42.
7
factors culminated in the temporary revitalization of marriage and family after the Second World
War during the so-called “baby boom.” In the 1960’s, with the increasing rise of postmodernism
and “sexual revolution”, marriage and family began to fall on hard times. Divorce-on-demand
skyrocketed, and stigmas regarding premarital sex, cohabitation and single parenting were
softened and dissipating.
The dawn of the twenty-first century gave birth to the rise of the radical homosexual and
militant feminist movements. The legalization of same-sex marriage in numerous states and state
legislatures adopting increasingly progressive policies regarding marriage and family also
occurred. The popularity of the internet birthed the concept of “virtual community”—an
electronic realm where society is reduced to an online “community” of digital “avatars” and
where human interaction is replaced by electronic simulation. In addition to a plethora of
positive benefits, the internet also afforded one easy access to pornography as well as provided
an instant voice to proponents of progressive views on marriage and family. An explosion of
online chat forums and dating sites was ignited—thus, increasing the temptation and potentiality
for adultery, sexual predators, and divorce.
While popular attitudes regarding divorce, adultery, and alternate family models may
have been reflected in some cultures throughout ancient history, the nuclear family of a husbandwife and children have been the norm in Western civilization up to the most recent times. But
now, the very idea of a “nuclear” family is under attack.
Marriage and Family In the Twenty-First Century—Secular Trends
From a modern, secular standpoint, the concept of the traditional family has been a hotly
debated issue for decades. This fact, perhaps, can be most clearly seen in the popular television
programming over the last fifty years. Prior to 1970, popular television programs seemed to
8
reflect the romantic ideal of the traditional “nuclear” family. Programs such as Leave it to
Beaver, The Waltons, and others, reflected the sentimental “ideal” of the American nuclear
“family.” However, this “ideal” soon became questionable with the creation of shows such as
The Brady Bunch, which depicted and idealized the “blended” family of a widowed man and
seemingly divorced and remarried woman, each with their own children from a previous
marriage. The 1980’s gave birth to shows such as Murphy Brown—a professional single mother
who chooses to raise her son in a fatherless environment. The 1990’s celebrated premarital sex
and cohabitation in shows like Sex and the City, Friends, and Beverly Hills 90210. The late
1990’s and new millennium would bring the celebration of teen sexuality and “homosexual”21
movement to the foreground with shows like Dawson’s Creek, Will and Grace, The Fosters, and
The New Normal. Exemplary of changing attitudes towards marriage and family is the popular
sitcom, Modern Family. In this show, an amalgam of three interrelated “family” models—a
divorced patriarch in an interracial marriage to a much younger Columbian wife, a traditionally
married heterosexual couple with three children, and a same-sex cohabiting couple with an
adopted Vietnamese daughter—are each portrayed as representational of the “normal” modern
family. The message conveyed in such a portrayal of family—family can be whatever one desires
it to be. Family is “plastic” and can be shaped into whichever mold one desires.
In an article entitled, “The Real ‘Modern Family’ in America”, Gary J, Gates offers
insight to America’s changing perceptions toward marriage and family, “As evidenced by their
21
The term “homosexual” will be used in this paper to define a social movement and agenda in a general
sense. This term is not used in this paper in the traditional specific sense of the word as a reference to an individual
person or group of people who share same-sex attraction. It is important to make this distinction because to affix the
label, ‘homosexual’, to a human being is to, therefore, categorize him/her and such a categorization implies that this
term would then define their identity or in some way be biological in nature. Rather, the Bible makes clear that there
are only two categorizations of human beings—those believing the gospel of Christ in faith and those who reject the
gospel of Christ (cf. Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 7:13–28; 25:31–36; Luke 13:3; John 3:5–21; Rom. 1; Eph. 2; Rev. 20:11–15)
—and mankind is created in the imago Dei with the specific commands to glorify God by obeying his Word (Matt.
7:21; John 14:15; 1 Cor. 6:20, 10:31; 1 Pet. 4:11).
9
majority support22 for legalizing marriage for same-sex couples in this country, Americans are
getting to know their LGBT family members and neighbors (and their kids) better every day.
They see that LGBT parents are motivated by many of the same desires as other parents: strong,
happy and healthy families (emphasis added).”23
According to Pew Research Center, within ten years of polling (2003–2013) there has
been a marked shift in attitudes towards homosexuality. In 2003, forty-five percent of Americans
disapproved of societal acceptance of homosexuality and in 2013, only thirty-seven percent
indicated it should be discouraged.24 Furthermore, the main reason (thirty-two percent) indicated
by those who had recently changed their attitudes in favor of same-sex marriage, was that those
individuals who were polled knew someone who was “homosexual.”25 So the fact that someone
was either related to a “homosexual” or perhaps a friend of a “homosexual” changed their view
altogether. This is evidenced by the recent “Portman Effect” as Republican senator (Ohio) and
professed “Christian,” Rob Portman, reversed his stance on same-sex marriage because his own
son had announced that he was “gay.”26 This logic begs the question, “Should one’s epistemology
trump one’s theology?” In other words, does the fact that one may personally “know” a child
molester make child molestation right? Or the fact that one is biologically related to a murderer
22
A recent Pew Research poll conducted March 13–17, 2013 indicates that 49% of Americans “favor”
same-sex marriage and 44% of Americans “oppose” it. It is also interesting to note that the overwhelming majority
of support comes from those born after 1980—with 70% of “Millennials” favoring same-sex marriage. “Growing
Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics,” Pew Research Center,
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changingdemographics/ (accessed March 25, 2013).
23
Gary J. Gates, “The Real ‘Modern Family’ in America,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/24/opinion/
gates-real-modern-family/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 (accessed March 25, 2013).
24
Ibid.
25
“Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics,” Pew Research
Center, http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changingdemographics/ (accessed March 25, 2013).
26
Cable News Network, “CNN Poll: ‘Rob Portman effect’ fuels support for same-sex marriage,” CNN,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/25/cnn-poll-rob-portman-effect-fuels-support-for-same-sex-marriage/
(accessed March 25, 2013).
10
make murder morally justifiable? The alignment of one’s moral compass or methodological
rationale/path one takes in establishing one’s ethics (Epistemolology) does not change the fact of
who God is (Theology Proper) and what God has always said in his Word (Biblical Theology).
Alvin Plantinga agrees and thinks one should base his philosophical method (Epistemology)
upon his theological commitment upon who God is and what God says in his Word.27
Within the last decade, the pervasive views of the militant feminist groups and rise of the
radical “homosexual” movement have sent the United States reeling into a battle of conflicting
worldviews. Perhaps, the most pernicious aspect of this growing trend of worldview change is
the attempt and agenda of these aforementioned groups to redefine what family is. In other
words, at the heart of the militant feminist and radical “homosexual” agenda is the
deconstruction and utter redefinition of the concept of the traditional nuclear family. Regarding
this pervasive trend, ethicist, Daniel Heimbach, states, “America is currently torn by a
Kulturkampf . . . a full scale moral war being waged from the halls of Congress . . . to pews of
our local churches. In this war, the most heated line of battle is . . . the family.”28
Numerous states have adopted the mantra of this movement and changed their
constitutions accordingly. In January, 2012, five states recognized the civil union of same-sex
couples (Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Delaware), while six states (namely,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York) and the District of
Columbia had taken this one step further and granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples.29
On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 with the nomination of Democratic president Barack Obama to
27
James K. Beilby, Epistemology As Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga’s Religious Epistemology,
(Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2005), 3.
28
Daniel R. Heimbach, “Deconstructing the Family,” The Religion & Society Report 22 (October-November
2005): 1.
29
Josh Levs, “Two More States Allow Same-Sex Civil Unions,” CNN, http://articles.cnn.com/2012-0101/us/us_civil-unions_1_civil-unions-marriage-licenses-hawaii-and-delaware?_s=PM:US (accessed November 05,
2012).
11
a second term, a surge of liberal victories over traditional marriage occurred. David Crary reports
for the Huffington Post:
In Tuesday’s [November 06, 2012] voting. . . Maine and Maryland became the first states
ever to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote [Thus adding two more states to the
list of states offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples]. Washington state seemed
poised to follow suit, although slow ballot-counting there continued Wednesday. And in
Minnesota, voters rejected a proposal to place a ban on gay-marriage in the state
constitution, a step taken in past elections in 30 other states.30
This attack on the traditional family is a recent phenomenon with no states having this
sort of liberal legislature prior to 2004 with the landmark case Hillary Goodridge versus
Department of Public Health in Massachussetts, which became the first state to allow same-sex
marriage. As of January 2013, eight other states31—including Washington D.C.—have followed
suit over the last eight years.32 According to this secular view of family, family is no longer seen
from the biblical perspective of one man, one woman, united together in a one-flesh union for
life (Gen. 2:24). Rather, family is defined as two individuals in love with one another—be it man
with man, or woman with woman—who deserve the same inalienable rights and equal tax status
as other U.S. citizens who partake in heterosexual, traditional marriage. According to this view,
these same-sex couples who desire a family can legally adopt children and enjoy full social
acceptance of their lifestyle and even promote these “family values” to their adopted children.
So what is wrong with this secular view of marriage and family? It seems well enough for
same-sex couples who “truly love each other” to have the same opportunities as other
heterosexual couples to express that love in matrimony. Furthermore, it does not seem fair to
30
David Crary, “Gay-Marriage Backers End Losing Streak, Look Ahead,” The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121107/us-gay-marriage-breakthrough (accessed November 11, 2012).
31
As of January 2013, the US has nine states that have legalized same-sex marriage—Connecticut, Iowa,
Maine, Maryland, ,Massachusetts New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington
32
Hillary Goodridge, et al., “Hillary Goodridge and Others vs. Department of Public Health & Another,”
Commonwealth of Massachussets, http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/440mass309.html (accessed November 11,
2012).
12
deny these couples the same rights and tax status afforded to married heterosexual couples, or
does it? First of all, the Bible institutes the foundational paradigm for marriage and family and
this paradigm stands in utter contradistinction to the patterns the secular view sets forth (Gen.
2:24; Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:1–12; 1 Cor. 7:1–16; Eph. 5:21–33). Second, statistics show that samesex marriages simply do not last. Scandinavia has permitted same-sex marriages since the early
1990’s and the legalization of same-sex marriage has not encouraged marriage, but has done
much to destroy it. Stanley Kurtz remarks,
Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline . . . Marriage is now so weak in Scandinavia
that shifts in these rates [i.e., divorce rates] no longer mean what they would in
America . . . Sweden registered the lowest marriage rate in recorded history in 1997 . . .
Scandinavian gay marriage has driven the message that marriage itself is outdated, and
that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.33
Third, the fact that same-sex couples are not getting married reveals a disturbing trend—the
separation of marriage from parenthood. Again Kurtz sheds insight here,
The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing [Sixty percent of first born
children in Denmark had unmarried parents in 2004]; gay marriage has widened the
separation . . . [C]hildren of single parents . . . have more than double the rates of
mortality, severe morbidity, and injury of children (than) in two-parent households].34
Fourth, ethicist, Daniel Heimbach, has argued that the true agenda for the radical “homosexual”
movement’s legalization of same-sex marriage is not merely for same-sex couples’ right to be
legally married, but to change the social mores of “homosexuality” to be seen as a natural norm,
rather than an unnatural exception.35 In other words, what is really driving the militant feminist
and radical “homosexual” movements is not merely equal rights or legal representation. It is not
even social acceptance, per se. The driving force or impetus behind these pervasive movements
is no less than a change of worldview—a worldview that sees “homosexuality” and extreme
33
Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The ‘Conservative Case’ for Same-Sex Marriage
Collapses,” The Weekly Standard 9, no. 20 (2004): 26–28.
34
Ibid., 26–27.
35
Heimbach, 4–11.
13
feminism as right and sees the traditional view of the nuclear family as wrong and indeed
pernicious. Heimbach states, “Gay and lesbian leaders began shifting toward promoting marriage
[In the mid 1990’s], not because they had different goals, but rather because they began seeing
that a radically subjective restructuring of marriage and family would achieve the same ultimate
purpose [i.e., the destruction of marriage and the traditional family].”36
Zimmerman argues that when the stability of the traditional, nuclear family has been
destroyed, so too, will the civilization.37 Zimmerman traces the history of family in his work and
has convincingly shown the truth of the importance of the traditional nuclear family in regards to
the overall health of a civilization.38 Zimmerman pounds his point home in his scholarly study of
the Roman empire and how the most powerful, politically important civilization the world has
ever known utterly crumbled when the idealized nuclear family of the Roman populus was
denigrated in favor of a disposable, atomistic family structure within the upper classes.39
Taken to its logical conclusion, secularization of family would ultimately lead to
legalized incest, statutory rape, child molestation, and even the normalization of bestiality if
culture adopts the secular criterion for marriage and family—that all it takes for one to be a
“family” is an emotive feeling of “love” for the other, be it person or thing. Heimbach notes,
If Americans are persuaded to gamble on family deconstruction to normalize the idea that
sexual differences mean essentially nothing, that lust is the ultimate arbiter of institutions
essential for social survival, that sex and number [Including age] are irrelevant to
marriage, that parenting is essentially unrelated to the meaning of family, that family is
essentially unrelated to the meaning of marriage, and that none of this has any real
importance to public life in American society, then it will be a sucker’s bet in a game that
is impossible to win.40
36
Ibid., 4.
37
Carle C. Zimmerman, Family and Civilization, 2nd ed., ed. James Kurth, (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate
Studies Institute, 2008), 10–11.
38
Ibid., 1–44.
39
Ibid., 45–59.
40
Heimbach, 12.
14
Perhaps, even more pernicious than the recent militant feminist and radical “homosexual”
movements is the matriarchal African-American extended family view as defined by sociologists
such as Gerstel and Sarkisian.41 This view sees marriage and the traditional nuclear family as
superfluous, and indeed, malevolent to the society at-large—especially to minority families
living in abject poverty. Sarkisian and Gerstel boldly claim, “Neither young men nor young
women want traditional families . . . . the decreased stability of marriages make extended kin ties
more enduring and reliable than nuclear family ties.”42 This view is now seen within the church.
Marriage and Family in the Twenty-First Century—Ecclesiastical Trends
Many in ecclesiastical circles are celebrating these recent changes and shifting
worldviews regarding diversity in marriage and family. With approval of same-sex marriage and
ordination of “homosexual” bishops, some mainline Protestant denominations have been major
ecclesiastical proponents of the acceptance of diversity in marriage and family.43
So what does the evangelical church have to say about this growing trend and radically
shifting worldview towards the redefinition of the traditional nuclear family? Not much, actually.
In fact, it might be more accurate to say that the evangelical church speaks out of both sides of its
mouth. While most evangelicals would agree, at least theologically, with the biblical definition of
marriage and family—one man, one woman, united together in a one-flesh union for life (Gen.
2:24)—the evangelical church’s praxis looks much different. The church consists of the
41
Sarkisian and Gerstel, 3–4.
42
Ibid., 11, 45.
43
Recent studies have shown that there has been a 19% increase in favor of societal approval of
homosexuality amongst white mainline Protestants (more than any other group, religious or secular). “Growing
Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics”, Pew Research Center,
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changingdemographics/ (accessed March 25, 2013).
15
ἐκκλησία—that is the called-out people of God.44 The church is to be spotless, that is, it is to be
without blemish (Eph. 5:27; Phil. 2:15). She is to be the pure bride of Christ (Rev. 19:6–8).
However, despite this high and lofty calling, Jesus explains that this fallen world will be
made up of individuals who represent both “wheat” (the people of God) and the unbelieving
“tares” sown in by the evil one—that is Satan (Matt. 13:24–30; 36–40). The field (i. e., the
“world”) will be “sown” with the “seed”—that is the Word of God. Two types of “shoots” will
then take root and sprout out of this “soil”—“wheat” and “tares.” Jesus explains that both the
“wheat” and “tares” are to grow together with little to no distinction between the two until the
time of the harvest at which the “tares” shall be pulled up and thrown into the fiery furnace.
Jesus then warns of the dangers of pulling the “tares” up prematurely. Jesus also clarifies in this
passage that if the “tares” were to be pulled up prematurely, then the “wheat” may be
accidentally uprooted along with the “tares” (Matt. 13:28, 29). Blomberg notes, “Just as the
wheat and weeds were superficially similar in appearance and if sown too close to each other
were too intermingled in their root systems to be pulled up separately, so too God’s people are
sometimes outwardly hard to distinguish from his enemies.”45 New Testament scholar, R. T.
France adds further insight:
The weeds (zizania) are more specifically darnel (Lolium temulentum [see, J. Jeremias,
Parables, 224–25]) a weed related to rye grass which in the early stages of growth
resembles wheat though with narrower leaves, but which produces a smaller ear. Its
grains are poisonous, so that to have mixed it in with wheat renders the crop
commercially useless as well as potentially harmful (emphasis added).46
Perhaps, the fact that in the context of the local church “wheat” and “tares” exist together with
44
Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, “ἐκκλησία,” in A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000), 303–4.
45
Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman Press,
1992), 219.
46
R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 526–27.
16
little to no distinction between the two is a major contributor to the fact that the divorce rate
among those claiming to be evangelical, “born again” Christians is higher than those who are of
one’s secular society. In 2008, according to prolific pollster, George Barna, those claiming to be
atheist/agnostic have a lower divorce rate (30%) than those professing Christianity (32%).47
Barna’s article goes on to state:
George Barna, who directed the study, noted that Americans have grown comfortable
with divorce as a natural part of life . . . There is also evidence that many young people
are moving toward embracing the idea of serial marriage, in which a person gets married
two or three times, seeking a different partner for each phase of their adult life.48
Unsurprisingly, in a more recent study by Wright and Zozula, the divorce rate in
ecclesiastical circles has significantly increased since the 2008 Barna study, with their data
showing “Evangelicals” having a 46% divorce rate, “Mainline Protestants” having a 41%
divorce rate, and “Black Protestants” having a 54% divorce rate.49 There is no biblical support
for a church that condones and promotes such an apathetic response to such an evil dilemma.
Obviously, the Western Church must address the mismatch between what the Scriptures say and
what the members actually practice.
This section has attempted to show a survey of some of the historical factors that have
contributed to the radical redefinition of marriage and family in secular culture and the
ecumenical response. However, the primary aim of this thesis is not historical in nature. Neither
is the focus of this thesis biblical history (as has been normative for the majority of scholars
writing on the theme of marriage/family). Rather, the focus of this thesis is theological in nature
and this paper assumes a “Grand Narrative” hermeneutic that sees the individual parts in light of
47
George Barna, “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released,” The Barna Group, LTD,
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released (accessed
October 24, 2012).
48
Ibid.
49
Bradley R. E. Wright and Christina Zozula, “Bad News about the Good News: The Construction of the
Christian-Failure Narrative,” Journal of Religion and Society 14 (2012): 9.
17
the whole. This approach is in contradistinction to scholars, like Deirdre Good, who purport,
“The witness of scripture [sic] is not unitary; it is diverse and often self-contradictory, and within
the books of scripture [sic] themselves there are interpretations of scripture [sic].”50 A “Grand
Narrative” hermeneutic interprets Scripture in relation to the five-fold drama of Creation, Fall,
Promise, Redemption, and Restoration. Such a hermeneutic sees Scripture as one Story, one
Book, and one cohesive Whole. This hermeneutic views Scripture as being written ultimately by
One divine Author51 (despite the numerous human writers who penned the words of the
autographs under the inspiration, direction, and illumination of the Holy Spirit—Exo. 24:4; John
5:46, 47; 2 Thess. 3:17; 2 Tim. 3:15–17), with one overarching theological τέλος (i. e., purpose)
—that the entire created order, including fallen humanity, worship YHWH. Such a “Grand
Narrative” hermeneutic sees “symphonic” unity in the diversity of Scripture and not a
“cacophony of disparate voices.”52 This monotheistic, cosmic YHWH worship will occur by and
through the reconciliation of the created order under the headship of Jesus the Christ (Gen.1:28;
12:1–3; 22:18; John 3:16, 17; Eph. 1:10; Phil. 2:5–11).
So what exactly do the Scriptures say in regards to building a biblical theology of
marriage and family? While space does not allow in this paper to develop an exhaustive biblical
theology or technical discussion regarding the numerous text critical issues involved in
translation, a cursory glance of some of the key texts in both Old and New Testaments should be
beneficial in understanding God’s heart in regards to marriage and family. The four Appendices
at the end of this paper should also prove useful as helpful handmaidens to the Scriptures in
understanding the missional and theological aspects of marriage and family.
50
Good, 64.
51
YHWH literally etched the Decalogue with his own finger (Exo. 31:18; Deut. 9:10) and writes his law,
figuratively speaking, on human hearts (2 Cor. 3:3).
52
Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott. Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the
Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: B&H Academic, 2009), 893.
18
A View of Family from the Old Testament
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called
Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father
and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man
and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
— Gen. 2:23–25
Recent scholarship has done much to challenge the idea that the Old Testament passages
that deal with marriage and family (chiefly, Genesis 2:24) are paradigmatic for humanity living
in the twenty-first century. Many scholars think that at best what Genesis 2:24 depicts is a
romanticized “ideal” that is not to be taken as normative or foundational, as even the history of
the biblical record attests. Daniel Block agrees with this hermeneutic, “Although the Old
Testament appears to present monogamy (one husband, one wife) as the marital ideal (Gen. 2:24,
25), it contains no clear and unequivocal prescription for this marital pattern to the population
in general (emphasis added).”53 After all, some might point out that there are in the historical
record of the Old Testament numerous instances of polygamy (e. g., Abraham, Jacob, and
David), seemingly scriptural approval and even prescription for divorce of “foreign wives” in
Ezra chapters nine and ten, and that the patricentric extended families that lived in the ‫אב‬
x y ‫~ }בית‬
(“father’s house”) seem to usurp YHWH’s command in Genesis 2:24 for the husband to “leave
his father” and “cleave to his wife” (emphasis added).
While one must concede the validity of the above statements concerning the historical
record of the Jewish people, rather than disprove the foundational aspects of Genesis 2:24 and
similar passages, what the historical record actually shows is the Israelites’ inability to live up to
the ethical and theological measure YHWH has set forth in his Word. In other words, the ethical
requirements set forth to humanity (potentiality) in Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2:14–16, and similar
53
Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World,
ed. Ken M. Campbell, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 69.
19
passages are born out of the theological reality of who YHWH is—his character is defined as
‫דוש‬K‫ק‬
€ (that is, holy—Isa. 6:3).
One might argue that God’s allowance of divorce at Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the
existence of polygamy in the Old Testament undermines the thesis suggested in this paper.
However, one should note that Jesus interprets it that divorce (under strict guidelines) was
allowed because of the hardness of their hearts, but in the beginning it was not the design (Matt.
19:1–12). In other words, no matter how one suggests the exception goes, the truth is that it is a
limited exception to the norm because humans are sinful. Furthermore, polygamy is never
advocated in the Old Testament and one cannot infer silence as approval. It is this exceptional
nature that helps us to interpret the problematic passage of Ezra chapters nine and ten. They are
extraordinary and exceptional measures taken at a specific time and within a specific context,
rather than an abrogation of YHWH’s timeless teachings on marriage and family (1 Tim. 3:2).
Furthermore, it is important to note that the Mosaic allowance for divorce in
Deuteronomy 24:1–4 differs from the context of Ezra chapters nine and ten in that Deuteronomy
24:1–4 presupposes ethnically Jewish marriages, rather than ethnically mixed marriages. YHWH
had already given the prohibition in Deuteronomy 7:3 against monotheistic Jews marrying
Gentiles (who were likely to be polytheists, thus breaking the first command of the Decalogue).
Fensham notes, “In Deut. 24 the element of the foreign woman is not present. There the legal
grounds for divorce are mentioned in normal circumstances. Here in Ezra we have a totally
different situation. Foreign women were married contrary to the law of God. The marriages were
illegal from the outset (emphasis added).”54 Williamson adds in reference to Ezra 10:2 and the
qal perfect 1st person common plural verb ‫על_נו‬K} N ‫“( מ‬to be unfaithful” or “act against one’s duty”),
“The expression for ‘to marry’ used in this chapter and in Neh. 13 (but nowhere else in the OT)
54
F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 135.
20
is the hiph of ‫ישב‬, literally, ‘to cause to dwell,’ i. e., ‘to give a home to.’ It applies only to mixed
marriages (emphasis added).”55 T. Witton Davies, in seeing the connection to the term ‫ ות‬J„y…_†K‫נ‬
(“foreign”) in Ezra 10:2b with the term’s typical usage for harlots in Proverbs, suggests that its
usage in Ezra 10:2b connotes, “that the union in question was not true marriage . . . ; the women
whom they had living with them were harlots, not wives.”56 If, in fact, these relationships with
“foreign women” were not marriages, then, surely, the Jews could not be commanded to divorce
whom they were not married to.
So perhaps, the best explanation for the prescription for the “divorce” of Jews’ foreign
wives in Ezra 10:3 is best understood as the severing of an illegal relationship (that was not
considered a “legal” marriage in the eyes of YHWH and not “divorce” in the modern technical
sense at all). These illegal relationships threatened the Jewish returnees’ allegiance and
monotheistic worship towards YHWH and would likely lead to Jewish syncretism and breaking
of the primary prohibition of the Decalogue—“no other gods.” Such an abandonment of God’s
commands undermined the Jewish witness to the surrounding nations (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; Isa.
43:10–13), which was predicated on the Jews’ being a holy, separate people (Exo. 19:5, 6; Lev.
19:2; 20:7, 26). YHWH does not contradict himself, he is immutable. The God of the Bible is not
some capricious “Jeckyl and Hyde” deity whose character and ethics sway like a reed blown in
the wind. The immutability of YHWH demands a deeper understanding to passages that on the
surface seem to be an antinomy, but can be reconciled by careful exegesis and understanding of
the surrounding context in light of the whole of Scripture. One should note well Paul’s parting
words to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15 to be “accurately handling the word of truth (The OT).”
55
H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 16 (Dallas: Word, Inc. 1985),
150.
56
T. Witton Davies, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah, The New-Century Bible, (New York: Henry Frowde,
1912), 144.
21
Teachings from the Torah
Theologically, the Hebrew Tanakh, does in fact contain paradigmatic passages that define
God’s view of marriage and family. In the Torah (that is, “Teaching”), the first three chapters of
Genesis are paramount in understanding the heart of YHWH regarding marriage and family and
offer a foundation upon which the remainder of the Old and New Testament writers build upon.
In these foundational passages of Scripture, one finds the creation of the cosmos and humanity.
God exists in perfect unity and harmony within himself as the Triune God of Scripture. The fact
of creation shows God’s great love for the cosmos and for humanity as God did not need to
create, but created out of his immeasurable love and grace. Indeed, God created mankind not for
man’s own benefit, but for God’s own glory.
All things were inherently created and established as good by a loving, graciously good
Creator God. When humanity is formed, God declares the cosmos very good in the fact that
humanity is God’s special creation—special in the fact that human beings were created with
God’s image and likeness (Gen. 1:26–31). Furthermore, God created the cosmos and
“humanity/mankind” (‫ ‡ם‬K‫ )אד‬with order, complexity, and purpose to bring glory to himself. Yet
God knew man could not fulfill his ultimate purpose by himself and it was not good for man to
be alone (Gen. 2:18). Thus, God created woman (‫שה‬y
x K ‫ )א‬from the “side”57 (‫ע‬K‫)צ~ל‬58 of the man (Gen.
2:22, 23). Woman is declared by man to be “bone of my bone,” and “flesh of my flesh,” thus,
reflecting the oneness with man even prior to the one-flesh marital bond depicted in Genesis
57
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫ע‬K‫ ~צל‬,” in The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, vol. 2, Trans. M. E. J. Richardson, (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1030.
58
While most every English translation renders ‫ע‬K‫ צ~ל‬as “rib” (see NASB, ESV, NIV, KJV, for example), the
semantic range does allow at least the possibility (see note 57 above) of the English translation “side.” The
implications of this interpretation are pertinent to the discussion of marriage and family because if woman was more
than a mere “rib” of man and a literal “half” of him as being taken from his side, it would give further insight and
significance to the concept of the synergistic “one-flesh” union of Gen. 2:24. In other words, the Genesis creation
concept of ‫ ‡ם‬K‫“(אד‬mankind/humanity/Adam/ground,” could suggest more than just the “formal” name of man
—“Adam.” ‫ ‡ם‬K‫ אד‬is the product of the one-flesh union between ‫יש‬y‫“( א‬Man/Husband”) and ‫ה‬QK‫ש‬y‫“( א‬Woman/Wife”) in
Gen. 2:22, 23. In this sense, divorce would be the literal “sawing” in half of this synergistic union of ‫ ‡ם‬K‫אד‬.
22
2:24. ‫שה‬y‫א‬
x K (“woman/wife”)59 is to be a “helper” (…Š ‫)עז‬
J ~ 60 suitable for the man and YHWH instituted
the “covenant” (‫_…ית‬y ‫)ב‬61 of marriage and family between the man and woman whom YHWH
fashioned from the man (Gen. 2:18–25; Mal. 2:14). This covenant bond exists in both horizontal
and vertical dimensions. Horizontally, marriage is a lifelong, indissoluble bond between a man
and a woman. Vertically, marriage represents a covenant between that same couple and YHWH.
Marriage was designed by God to be a covenantal bond through the synergistic union of husband
and wife into one new “flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:14–16).
Progressive scholar, Robert Williams, disagrees. Williams states, “Most marriages in
scripture, [sic] of course, were not based on covenants. Since, throughout most of biblical
history, a woman was treated as a form of property, marriage was primarily a contract between a
man and his wife’s father, concerned more with exchange of property (including the woman)
than mutuality (emphasis added).”62 This historical hypothesis (while true for ancient
Mesopotamian families as noted in the survey above and more clearly in Appendix A) does not
carry much weight as ancient, First, and Second Temple Jewish families did not denigrate the
status of women as many sociologists would like one to believe. Andreas Köstenberger, in
arguing against a contractual view of marriage, agrees:
[T]he biblical concept of marriage is best described as a covenant . . . Rather than being
merely a contract that is made for a limited period of time, conditional upon the
continued performance of contractual obligations by the other partner, and entered into
primarily or even exclusively for one’s own benefit, marriage is a sacred bond that is
characterized by permanence, sacredness, intimacy, mutuality, and exclusiveness.63
59
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, “‫שה‬y‫א‬,”
in The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
xK
Testament, vol. 1, Trans. M. E. J. Richardson, (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 93.
60
Ibid., “…Š‫ ז‬J ~‫ע‬,”G811–12.
61
Ibid., “‫_…ית‬y ‫ב‬,”G157–59.
62
Robert Williams, “Toward a Theology for Lesbian and Gay Marriage,” Anglican Theological Review 72
(1990): 155.
63
Köstenberger and Jones, 91.
23
The purpose of God’s institution of marriage was that godly families would be fruitful and
multiply the earth with worshipers of YHWH (Gen. 1:28). Yet, man disobeyed the singular
prohibition YHWH gave to the first humans in not eating of the fruit of “the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17).” The Fall of man brought sin, death, and improper
worship to the Creator God (Gen. 2:17; 3–5). Despite, the sinfulness of the first family, YHWH
demonstrated his love, grace, and desire to reconcile fallen humanity with himself in the promise
of a Seed from the line of woman—who is the Messiah, Jesus the Christ (Gen. 3:15).
Teachings from the Nevi’im
In the Nevi’im (that is, “Prophets”), there seems to be an eschatological and soteriological
expectation in which the writers are pointing forward in eager expectation of this coming Seed
from Eve promised in Genesis 3:15 and alluded to in YHWH’s promise to Abram in Genesis
12:3 who will be called “Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14), “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal
Father, Prince of Peace,” (Isa. 9:6) and would become the Suffering Servant for the sins of
humanity (Isa. 52:13–53:12). The marital language of Isaiah chapters fifty-two and sixty-two
find ultimate eschatological fulfillment at the end of the New Testament canon of Revelation
21:2—“And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made
ready as a bride adorned for her husband.” Despite the sinful attitudes of the rebellious Jews,
whose hearts were turned away from their families by spitting on God’s covenant of marriage
through the frequency of divorce (Mal. 2:14–16), YHWH would once again, through “Elijah,”
“restore the hearts of the fathers to their children (Mal. 4:6).” This later becomes a Lukan theme
in the New Testament as Luke 1:17 parallels this truth in regards to the ministry of the one like
“Elijah” (i. e., John the Baptist). Children were seen as as God’s gift and childlessness was seen
as YHWH’s curse as evidenced by Hannah’s plight (1 Sam. 1:10, 11).
24
Teachings from the Ketuvim
In the Ketuvim (that is, “Writings”) there seems to be much pragmatic, instructional, and
theological teaching regarding marriage and family. So much of the ethical teachings in Scripture
(including OT narrative) are devoted to the family unit that it seems fair to say, “the profoundest
conception underlying the ethical teaching of both testaments is that of the family.”64 The book of
Proverbs has much to say on marriage and family life. Monogamy is assumed (despite the
various pragmatic instances of polygamy throughout the historical record of the OT) in the
Tankah and exemplary of this fact is the celebration of the wife par excellence in Proverbs 31.
Proverbs 31:10–31 “celebrates a mature and lasting marriage relationship in which each partner
makes a lasting contribution.”65
Children are portrayed in the Ketuvim as “a blessing and heritage from the Lord” (Ps.
127:3) not as burdensome as many view today. Children are seen as spiritual weapons (Ps. 127:4,
5) linking back to the Abrahamic “Great Commission” in Genesis 12:3; 22:18, thus lending
further credence to the missiological aspect of family. Families had a utilitarian focus and from
an early age children assisted their parents. The book of Proverbs offers keen insight into the
education of children and the “fear of the LORD” is to be the basis of education (Prov. 1:7; 22:6).
The erroneous assumption that the Old Testament “patriarchal” system was devoid of any
romantic notion regarding marriage and family is soundly shattered by reading texts such as
Proverbs 31 and especially the Song of Solomon. Scobie boldly states, “The most complete
celebration of human sexuality in the OT (and indeed the Bible!) is found in the Song of
Songs . . .”66
64
F. C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought, (New York: Abingdon, 1950), 314.
65
Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003), 807.
66
Ibid., 803.
25
A View of Family from the New Testament
Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of
the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the
body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their
husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church
and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the
washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her
glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and
blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who
loves his own wife loves himself;
— Eph. 5:22–28
So what does the New Testament say about “family values”? Nothing, at least not in the
“technical” sense. The word “family” does not exist in the Greek New Testament. Its closest
equivalent is the term οἶκός/οἰκίᾳ (literally, household”). Scholars, like Deirdre Good, suggest
that because of this fact, one should not see in the Bible any notion of “family values” that are
pertinent or archetypal for living in the twentieth century. Good remarks, “There is no Greek or
Hebrew that exactly corresponds to the modern word “family” . . . we can’t find “family values”
anywhere in the Bible (emphasis added).”67 While from a strictly “technical” sense, Good is
correct—there is no exact, one-to-one correspondence between the οἶκός in first-century
Christianity and the modern “nuclear” family. However, (contra Good) the New Testament has
much to say on ethics dealing with marriage and family, even if the New Testament does not
couch these teachings in the “technical” sense of “family values.”
Teachings from the Gospels
The Old Testament begins in Genesis with the creation of the first family who were to fill
the earth with YHWH worshipers (Gen. 1:28) and the New Testament begins with the Βίβλος
67
Good, 14–15.
26
γενέσεως (literally, “book of the genesis”) of Jesus the Christ (Matt. 1:1). Yet many in recent
New Testament scholarship see the biological nuclear family as superfluous in light of Jesus’
teachings.68 According to this view, Jesus “redefines” family in terms of the “fictive family” or
spiritual “surrogate group” of biologically unrelated Jesus followers. Biological family ties such
as marriage and family, therefore, become “plastic” and disposable. What really matters is not
one’s spouse, parents, or siblings per se, but the spiritual surrogate group—that is the “fictive
family.” Jesus left his earthly family behind and encouraged his disciples to do the same.
If one espouses the historicity of Genesis chapters one and two, then one must concede
that all of humanity are at least somewhat biologically related. The opening chapters of Genesis
suggest that every human being can literally trace their lineage back to the original humans (i. e.,
Adam and Eve). So in a very real sense, to suggest the concept of a “fictive family” is based on
the a priori assumption that the beginning chapters of Genesis (the Creation and Flood accounts)
is fictional myth and not the very words of God. However, Luke suggests in his genealogy of
Jesus Christ the accurate and truthful historicity of the Genesis account (Luke 1:1–4; 3:21–38).
The foundational and paradigmatic teachings on marriage and family throughout the Old
Testament69 find fulfillment in the New Testament through the Person of Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:10;
5:21–33). In the New Testament, the promised Seed to Eve in Genesis 3:15 and to Abraham in
Genesis 22:18 would become incarnational reality, and he would be known as “Jesus the
Christ”—the promised One who would “[S]ave his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21).” In the
canonical Gospels, Jesus’ life and ministry echoes the Old Testament teachings regarding
marriage and family. Progressive scholars, Lawler and Risch disagree, “There is no suggestion
68
Representational of this view are scholars such as Deirdre Good (cf. Jesus’ Family Values, 37, 41, 49), and
Lisa Sowle Cahill’s Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics. While some scholars argue for a via media [Carolyn Osiek
and David Balch (Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches, 1)], their view is still a
departure from viewing the Old Testament teachings (especially, Gen. 2:24) as foundational and merely descriptive
for modern application.
69
cf. Gen. 1:26–28; 2:18, 24; 12:1–3; 22:18; Deut. 6; Ps. 78; for example.
27
that family [In the traditional biological sense of the nuclear family], as understood either in firstcentury Palestine or twentieth-century America, is anywhere close to a divine institution.”70
Deirdre Good, echoes this sentiment:
The Canaanite woman [Matt. 15:21–28] induced Jesus to revise his own operating
principles in the light of new experience and understanding. This story provides a prime
example for the use of scripture [sic] in life. First it is a story about redrawing the
boundaries of inclusion . . . Jesus, the ultimate paradigm for the believing community,
revisited and revised an assessment of who gets included in the kingdom [of God].71
In response to these progressive claims, R. T. France writes regarding this pericope:
So is it true to say that her [the Canaanite woman] has changed Jesus’ mind . . . is this a
substantive U-turn by Jesus resulting in a new and hitherto unforeseen redirection in his
ministry? If this pericope stood alone, that might well be a valid conclusion. But the
reader who has remembered the encounter, and especially the prophetic words of 8:11–
12, knows that Jesus has already envisaged a multiracial people of God . . . A good
teacher may sometimes aim to draw out a pupil’s best insight by a deliberate challenge
which does not necessarily represent the teacher’s own view.72
In Matthew 19:5, 6, Jesus supported the foundational Old Testament teachings on sex,
marriage, and family in the paradigmatic passage of Genesis 2:24. Old Testament scholar,
Gordon Wenham concurs: “[H]e (Jesus) quotes Genesis 1.27 and 2.24 as proof that God created
man and wife to be life-long partners (vv. 4–6).”73
While subsequent sections (especially, Appendix B) deal with the topic of divorce more
fully, a few important aspects are worth noting/repeating. First of all, Jesus never abrogates, but
upholds the foundational teachings of the Old Testament regarding marriage in Genesis 2:24 (cf.
Matt. 19:5, 6). Second, Jesus does not side with the popular traditions of his day (e. g., the Hillel
and Shammai rabbinical debate). Rather, Jesus reminds them of the immutability of YHWH’s
70
Michael G. Lawler and Gail S. Risch, “Covenant Generativity: Toward a Theology of Christian Family,”
Horizons 26 (1999): 16.
71
Good, 143–44.
72
France, 590–91.
73
Gordon J. Wenham, “Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 22 (1984): 97–98.
28
character of holiness—divorce was permitted by Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 because of the
“hardness of their hearts,” not a change in YHWH’s commands (Gen. 1:28) or ethical character
(Lev. 19:2). Jesus’ focus in Matthew 19:9 is not on the “exception clause,” but the permanence of
marriage. That Jesus would take such a strict (perhaps, “archaic”) attitude that was contrary to
popular opinion was shocking even to his disciples (Matt. 19:10). Third, in the teachings of the
Gospels on divorce—Matt. 5:31, 32; Matt 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12; Luke 16:18—as well as the
Pauline epistles, only Matthew includes the “so-called” exception clause. If one espouses the
authenticity of the Matthean “exception clause” (as the overwhelming majority of scholars do as
Matthew 5 seems indisputable given the widespread MSS evidence), then divorce is only
permitted for one reason—πορνείᾳ (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)74. Lastly, the terseness of the Lukan
teachings (Luke 16:18) regarding divorce and remarriage is on the one hand shocking, given the
voluminous size of Luke’s Gospel and its second volume, the Acts. On the other hand, it seems
that Luke is making a theological point by the brevity of his writing on the topic. It seems that
Luke assumes that his readership shares his opinion, so it is really not worth his spending much
time on. Interesting to note is what immediately precedes it, “But it is easier for heaven and earth
to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law (Torah) to fail (Luke 16:17).”
Children hold a very special place in Jesus’ heart.75 The modern concept of intentionally
“fatherless families” are absent from the New Testament. This fact is evidenced in the Greek
74
1 Corinthians 7:15, 16 is thought by many to permit divorce and remarriage in that if the unbelieving
spouse leaves, then the believing spouse is not longer “bound” (cf. NIV, RSV, and HCSB translations of
δεδούλωται). The ESV renders the Greek verb more accurately and captures the essence of its intention in its
translation of “enslaved.” If this were the case (i. e., Paul’s permission of divorce in 1 Cor. 7:15), then Paul would
seemingly be contradicting what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:31, 32 and 19:9, not to mention what he, himself, is
about to teach in 1 Cor. 7:39 (i. e., that, for a believer, only death of one’s spouse nullifies the one-flesh bond/union
of matrimony and, therefore, allows the possibility of remarriage). The Greek term that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 7:39
(δέδεται) is not the same term he uses in 7:15, despite what the NIV, RSV, and HCSB translations of both passages
suggest. They are not synonymous terms.
75
cf. Matt. 18:1–10; 19:14; Mark 5:35–42; 10:14; Luke 18:16; and John 6:9 for example.
29
term γονεύς (“parent”).76 This term is never singular in the Greek New Testament—as in a
singular, human “parent.” It is always, without exception, rendered in the plural—“parents.” This
is a far cry from the current situation of “fatherless families.” The character of children is seen as
exemplary of those who will enter the kingdom of heaven.77 In making such a paradoxical claim
Jesus is once again shattering the “Jewish assumption” that one’s salvation is based upon
ethnicity—being a biological son of Abraham—rather than one’s being spiritually born again.
While the Gospels do not deal with the issue of “homosexuality” directly, there is
certainly no doubt that “homosexuality” was practiced during Jesus’ day in the surrounding
Greco-Roman culture. Given the “Jewishness” of Matthew’s Gospel, one may deduce that the
absence of terminology dealing with homosexuality in Matthew is due to the Jewish abjuration
of the practice found in the Torah (cf. Lev. 18:22; 20:13). In other words, Jesus did not directly
address this topic possibly because the Torah condemned its practice a priori and it was not an
important debate to Second Temple Judaism. Another possibility for this topical void in the
Gospels would be that out of the New Testament corpus, the Gospels are thought to have been
written at earliest 50–70 A. D. and could have been preceded by the Pauline epistles (i. e.,1
Corinthians and Romans) that explicitly condemn as sinful the practice of male/female
“homosexuality” and the blurring of gender identity as taught in the Old Testament (Gen. 2:24;
Rom. 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 11:1–16; 16:13; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10). One should note, that Jesus does
refer to Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15; 11:23, 24; Luke 10:12) in terms of κρίσις
—“judgment.”78
76
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “γονεύς,” 205.
77
cf. Matt. 18:1–4. This is certainly not a “blanket statement,” as some children have wills contrary to God.
What is meant here is, in general, “childlike” attitude of humility, unconditional love, and obedience.
78
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “ κρίσις,” 569.
30
Teachings from the Pauline Epistles
In the Pauline Epistles, the birth, life, death, and glorious resurrection of this promised
Seed—that is the Christ—gave birth to the church, that is the adopted family of God (Gal. 4:1–7;
Eph. 5:22–33). The biological families that make up the church—that is, the “family” of
“families”— are tasked with the responsibility of filling the earth with YHWH worshipers. This
began with YHWH’s command to Adam (Gen. 1:28), Noah (Gen. 9:1, 17), and Abram (Gen.
12:3) and continued with Christ’s “Great Commission” to the Christian church (Matt. 28:18–20;
Mark 16:14–20; Luke 24:44–53; John 20:19–23; Acts 1:8; Eph. 3:9, 10).
Like Jesus, the Apostle Paul confirms the foundational aspect of the Old Testament
paradigm of marriage and family in Genesis 2:24. Paul coincides with Christ’s teachings in
Matthew 19:4 and further expands on the foundational Old Testament teachings on marriage in
Ephesians chapter five. In Ephesians 5:22–33, Paul (contra Deirdre Good)79 explains human
marriage in terms of being a metaphor to a spiritual union between Christ and his glorious Bride
(i. e., the church).
Hoehner notes that Paul:
[C]oncludes by quoting Gen. 2:24 to demonstrate that in marriage man and woman are
one flesh . . . Paul utilized Gen. 2:24 in Eph. 5:31 as a fitting conclusion to 5:28–30. This
reinforces the concept that the husband is compelled to love his wife because they are one
flesh and no one hates his own flesh but rather nurtures and takes tender care of it in the
same way that Christ loves his body, the church.80
New Testament scholar Andrew Lincoln adds, “This (the terms of marriage being a one-flesh
union) leads the writer to assert that basing his paraenesis about marriage on the relationship
between Christ and the Church is entirely appropriate, because he interprets Gen. 2:24 as a
reference to the profound mystery of the union between Christ and the Church.”81
79
Deirdre Good does not attribute Pauline authorship to Ephesians (cf. Jesus’ Family Values, 117.)
80
Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 772.
81
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 42 (Dallas: Word, Inc., 1990), 354.
31
Of much benefit to this study is Paul’s ecclesiology in the Pastoral Epistles. Paul
indicates in 1 Timothy 3:1–4 that an ἐπισκοπῆς (“overseer”)82 is to be μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (“A
one woman man”), a διδακτικόν (“skillfull in teaching”),83 and is one who τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς
προϊστάμενον (“heads/manages his own family/home well” [Author’s translation]). Titus 1:5, 6
indicates a πρεσβύτερος (“elder”)84 is to be one who is also a μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (“one woman
man”) and a parent of τέκνα ἔχων πιστά (“children continuously having faith/belief” [Author’s
translation)]). Interestingly, Paul switches in Titus 1:7 to the term ἐπίσκοπον (“overseer”) and
repeats many of the same characteristics found in 1 Timothy 3. Of importance to this paper is the
relationship to what Paul says here in the Pastoral Epistles and what Paul has said regarding
family relations elsewhere in Ephesians 5.
It should not be presupposed that the litany of praiseworthy characteristics Paul gives in
the pastorals towards the “overseers,” “elders,” and “deacons,” are limited only to those serving
in particular offices within the local church. In other words, these characteristics are not merely
associated with those in vocational ministry today—the bar is not lowered for those not serving
in one of these ecclesiastical offices. In fact, many of these same characteristics are said of
husbands in Ephesians chapters five and six. Ephesians 5:23, 28 states, ὅτι ⸂ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ⸃
τῆς γυναικὸς (“because the man/husband is the head/manager of the woman/wife” and that
husbands ought to ἀγαπᾷν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα
(“unconditionally/selflessly love their wives just as (they love) their (own) bodies” [Author’s
translation]). Ephesians chapter six goes on to describe the relationship husbands/fathers should
have with their children τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν [ἐν κυρίῳ] (“children, you(pl)
obey (present active imperative) your parents in (the) Lord” and children are to τίμα τὸν πατέρα
82
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “ἐπισκοπῆς,” 379.
83
Ibid., “διδακτικός,” 240.
84
Ibid., “πρεσβύτερος,” 862.
32
σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα (“honor your father and mother” [Author’s translation]). In Ephesians 6:4,
husbands/fathers are commanded, μὴ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφετε αὐτὰ ἐν
παιδείᾳ καὶ νουθεσίᾳ κυρίου (“do not exasperate85 your children, but feed/nourish/rear them in
(the) training/discipline and admonition/instruction/warning of (the) Lord” [Author’s
translation]). This stands in utter contrast to the anti-filial polemic of the “disposable” family.
So it seems from a cursory survey that Paul’s intention for church “leaders” is no
different than for average husbands/fathers. Both are called to exude the love of Christ in their
own hearts, then to promulgate love/nurture/feed/teach their family (be it in a local church
setting or at home) the things of God, so that through their children (be they biological or
spiritual) the gospel of Christ will be propagated. This is the missiological family.
Teachings from the Acts, General Epistles, and Revelation
For Luke, the early church was a family of families. YHWH/Christ86 worship as
presented in Acts consisted of numerous biological families coming together as one spiritual
family body to learn, live, and laud the gospel in song and praise to each other and everyone else
around them. The modern concept of “going to church” was foreign to the early church of Acts.
One’s home was the “church” with church “leaders” typically being the father/husband
(paterfamilias) of the home where believers were gathered together for worship. In the
General/Catholic Epistles, teachings on marriage and family are rare. The author of Hebrews
85
This present active imperative verb, παροργίζετε, seems to suggest the idea of egging a child on, abusing
one’s authority over children (1 Pet. 5:3) in such a way as to force their sinful response of anger or to break their
spirit. In any sense, this is parenting done wrongly and in such a pernicious way to do great emotional and spiritual
harm to a child.
86
The orthodox Pauline focus on Christ in the worship and teachings of the early church has been perverted
by some into creating a confusing, pernicious dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) and the
God of the New Testament (Jesus the Christ). The “modalism” or “dualism” created as a result creates a superfluous
distinction that the New Testament writers never intended and the denigration and rejection of the Tanakh. What this
really amounts to is a pantheon of deities that are incompatible and heresies that are untenable.
33
lauds and warns in Hebrews 13:4, Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος, πόρνους γὰρ
καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός (“Marriage (is) honorable among all and the marriage bed
undefiled/pure, for (the) sexually immoral/fornicators and adulterers God will judge” [Author’s
translation]).87 However, the General Epistles are replete (especially, the epistles of John) with
language of one’s spiritual family. 1 Peter 1:14 commends believers to become τέκνα ὑπακοῆς
(“obedient children”) and not be be conformed or tripped up by their former lusts. 1 Peter 3:6
both reminds and echoes to its readers the missiological mandate of Genesis 12:3—that believers
in Christ become the spiritual children of Abraham and Sarah. Remarkable is the use of the
vocative diminutive Τεκνία (“little children”).88 This phrase is repeated in the Johannine epistles
a total of seven times. The theological import in Johannine thought is that John considers to those
whom he shepherds his spiritual “children” and ultimately brothers and sisters in the family of
God. Marshall comments in reference to 1 John 2:1,
At this point there is a brief pause in the thought, indicated by the writer’s address to his
readers as “my dear children” . . . it is interesting that although the disciples were
commanded not to call one another “father” (Mt. 23:9), the relation of the pastor to his
congregation is often likened to that of a father to his children, and the pastors had no
compunctions about addressing their congregations as “children” (e. g., 1 Cor. 4:14, 17;
Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:2; Phm. 10; 3 Jn. 4).89
In the Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, (Apocalypse/Revelation of Jesus Christ), all the Old
Testament allusions and New Testament metaphors of marriage find their ultimate fulfillment.
The promised Seed (Gen. 3:15) from the line of woman, Noah, Abraham, and David—the Christ
—would become the eschatological Lamb of God who was slain (13:8). The marriage feast is
now fulfilled as the eschatological wedding supper of the Lamb (19:6–9). The earthly “bride of
87
While this author subscribes to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, this is still a hotly debated issue in
current New Testament scholarship—hence, its placement in this paper.
88
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “τεκνίον,” 994.
89
I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 115.
34
one’s youth” is now seen as the heavenly, Bride of Christ (19:7, 8).90 The biological, one-flesh
families consisting of husband-wife-children are now seen as the one-spirit family—adopted
believers that are the Bride of Christ, the children of God. The marital imagery of the prophetic
Old Testament texts in Isaiah 52, 62, and others find their ultimate fulfillment in Revelation 21:2
that the people of God are “made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.”91
If the families that make up local churches are in essence one “Bride” to be made ready
for her husband (i. e., Christ), then what of the problem of divorce in the church? How can the
church with such a high divorce rate reflect the characteristics of Christ’s Bride—namely, pure,
spotless, and eternal, when the mindset towards marriage for many rank-and-file “Christians” is
one of divorce, adultery, and temporality (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 3:10, 11, 21; 5:3, 25–27; Rev. 17:9;
22:5)? Is such a radical “catharsis” of marriage to be assumed a priori since the mandate
reported in Genesis 2:24 was given pre-Fall as some suggest? Has the bar on marriage and
family been so dramatically lowered post-Fall only to be redeemed by some radical “catharsis”
that is yet future? No, not at all. Paul explains in Ephesians 5:21–33 that human marriage is a
metaphor of the spiritual marriage believers have with Christ. Such a radical “catharsis” of
marriage was not in the mind of Paul or Jesus—both uphold YHWH’s foundational teachings in
Genesis 2:24. The idea that such a future “catharsis” towards marriage and family is necessary
shows not a flaw in the mission of Christ, but a problem from within the church.
The Problem of Divorce in the Church
This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping
and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor
from your hand. Yet you say, “For what reason?’”Because the LORD has been a witness
90
G. K. Beale, A New Testament Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2011), 677.
91
Ibid., 676–77.
35
between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously,
though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who
has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly
offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the
wife of your youth. For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who
covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that
you do not deal treacherously.”
— Mal. 2:13–16 (emphasis added)
Divorce is an ancient (perhaps, the chiefest) tool in the arsenal of Satan to disarm and
destroy YHWH’s missiological weapon of the family (Ps. 127:3–5). Satan often uses the
misdirected, evil desires—patterned after himself92—in the hearts of spouses to turn one against
the other. Satan does so to infect their hearts with what René Girard has termed, “Single Victim
Mechanism.”93 In other words, these incorrectly ordered desires that reject God’s good gift of a
spouse aim to turn the fractured “family group” (spouse, children, and extended family) against
the one (the other spouse) whom is the target of these evil desires (e. g., jealousy, rage, and
anger). In essence, these evil desires turn one’s spouse into a “Scapegoat.”94 This “Scapegoat”
mentality or “Single Victim Mechanism” can only be appeased when the despised “Scapegoat”
(in this case, the other spouse) is removed from the group.95 The removal of the “Scapegoat”
seemingly brings about an immediate “happiness” and “euphoria,” however, Girard argues that
the reverse is true.96 Any “joy” or “euphoria” experienced is merely temporary and quickly
replaced by some other improper desire, thus repeating the “Scapegoat” cycle.97
92
For René Girard the only action keeping fallen humanity from destroying itself (i. e., Satan “expelling”
Satan—Matt. 12:26) in the war of “all against all” is the concept of the “Scapegoat”, also known as Girard’s “Single
Victim Mechanism”. Satan as “prince of darkness” uses his own ethos of darkness and deception to insulate fallen
humans from the knowledge that they are in actuality participatory in his “Scapegoating” process.
93
René Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, 3rd ed., (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 8–11.
94
Ibid., 150–60.
95
Ibid., 157.
96
Ibid., 148–53.
97
Ibid. 79, 84–85.
36
In regards to Girard’s “Scapegoat” or “Single Victim Mechanism” concept, it is important
to note that in regards to marriage, that there is no true singular “victim.” While some writers
argue for an “innocent party” when it comes to divorce,98 biblically, there is no such thing.
Genesis 2:24 states that the two (husband and wife) become one flesh. Jesus reinforces this
concept in Matthew 19:5, 6. What divorce actually does is rip asunder and divide this synergistic,
one-flesh union of husband and wife, thus killing a beautiful new creation in the eyes of YHWH.
So in using Girard’s “Scapegoating” scenario, the evil, misdirected desires towards one’s spouse
are actually aimed at themselves as the two are in essence one. To cause the destruction of one’s
spouse is in reality to cause one’s own self-destruction. To hate one’s spouse is to hate one’s self
(Eph. 5:28–30). Husband and wife are not considered by YHWH to be two autonomous
individuals, but one beautifully new creature. This new creature (the family) has as its goal the
filling of the earth with YHWH worshipers (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7). These generational YHWH
worshipers make up Christ’s Bride—the church.
The church consists of numerous biological families who make up one spiritual family of
redeemed sinners (Rom. 12:3–5; 1 Cor. 12:22–26; Gal. 4:1–7; Eph. 1:4–5; 2:19–22; 5:25–32). As
redeemed sinners, the people of God have not always obeyed the commands of YHWH as
evidenced on numerous occasions throughout Scripture. It is also important to note that not all
who affiliate themselves with the church are, in fact, redeemed (Matt. 13:24–43). Matthew 7:21
makes this clear as Jesus explains, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter (emphasis
added).” Jesus’ words here offer a contrast between two groups of people—those who refer to
Jesus as “Lord” and those who reverence Jesus as “Lord” by doing the will of his Father,
YHWH. Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:1 are also conditional in nature—if one aspires entrance into
98
Köstenberger and Jones, 258.
37
the kingdom of heaven, then one must be doing the will of YHWH. The present active participle
in Matthew 7:21 (ποιῶν) denotes a continual, ongoing, incessant action. This is not to say that
everyone who has ever experienced the pain of a divorce is merely a “tare” amongst the “wheat”
as Scripture99 indicates there is one biblical allowance for divorce (Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:9100).
Marriage and family were at the heart of the ancient Israelites’ religious life for better or
worse. Jeremiah 7:23 makes clear that when one obeys YHWH’s commands, at least from a
spiritual sense, it will go well for him. YHWH forbids the Israelites to make covenants
(including marriage covenants) with pagan nations (Exo. 23:31–33; Deut. 17:17; 1 Kings 11:1–
13; Ezra 9:1–10:44). Implication: taking a foreign wife will most likely lead to the adoption of
foreign worship practices—as it did for Solomon (1 Kings 11:1–13)—and lead the families of
Israel (that is, the chosen people of YHWH) away from monotheistic YHWH worship. In the
Decalogue, YHWH explicitly states, “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God . . .” (Exo. 20:5;
Deut. 5:9) and YHWH is unwilling to take a second seat to any foreign god. The New Testament
repeats this command—“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14, ESV).”
While YHWH’s command (strictly speaking) to the wandering Israelites concerned
marriage from an ethnocentric stance, Paul’s prohibition strictly concerned a spiritual stance.
Paul warns the Corinthian Christians, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what
partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? ” (2
Cor. 6:14). In other words, the type of marriage promoted by the Apostle Paul was one between
two “followers of the Way” or Christians (1 Cor. 7:39). While one may argue semantics
(ethnocentric versus spiritual) in contrasting these prohibitions on marriage from two different
99
For a text critical analysis of Matthew 19:9, please see Appendix B.
100
While most New Testament scholars adhere to the authenticity of the so-called “exception clause” of
Matt. 19:9 and the assumption of remarriage as a result, it is important to note that there is an important, early MSS
—P25, circa fourth century A. D.—that does not contain it, as well neither of the other Synoptics (or Paul) allow for
this exception.
38
time periods and from two different covenants, the outcome is ultimately the same—YHWH
wants families to worship him alone and the best way to ensure this outcome is for marriages to
be between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24) who both fear YHWH and walk in his paths.
For the New Testament believer, this means approaching YHWH by and through the gift of grace
through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8, 9) as John 14:6 reveals, “I am the way, and the
truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” In fact, Paul immediately begins
“pearl stringing” three quotes from the Tanakh in 2 Corinthians 6:16–18 (Exo. 29:45; Isa. 52:11;
and 2 Sam. 7:14, respectively) from two different genres—Torah (“Teaching”) and Nevi’im
(“Prophets”), thus indicating the bedrock of Paul’s New Testament teaching and solidifying the
unity of this paradigmatic teaching on marriage between the Old and New Testaments.
It appears, that at the core of a biblical theology of marriage and family in both Old and
New Testaments is YHWH’s desire for family to consist of YHWH worshipers (Ezra 9–10; 1
Kings 11:1–13; 2 Cor. 6:14). Paul even encourages those who are “unequally yoked” to
unbelieving spouses to stay within the marriage as long as the unbelieving spouse wishes to
remain peacefully bound to them (1 Cor. 7:14, 15). In this sense, it is as if marriage can even take
on an evangelistic purpose. Paul explains to the Corinthian Christians, “For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her
believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy(1 Cor. 7:14).”
While Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:14 does offer evangelistic hope for those Christians
who find themselves married to unbelieving spouses, this is certainly not the ideal as Paul later
remarks, “How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know,
husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Cor. 7:16). Clearly, Paul is not admonishing
Corinthian believers to marry non-Christians, and warns through his Corinthian correspondence
against thinking someone can “save” their unbelieving spouse just because they happen to be a
39
Christian. This is important to note as husband and wife are no longer two separate, autonomous
individuals, but are bound together in a synergistic, spiritual union and become “one-flesh” for
better or worse (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5). For better if they are both YHWH worshipers, for worse if
they are “unequally yoked” as the unbelieving spouse may sway the believing spouse to adopt
their god(s).
Similar to the juxtapositioning of first-century Jews and Christians within the
surrounding pagan culture of the Roman Empire, is the milieu of the church today. Barry
Hankins, in a pun on Rufus Spain’s seminal work, At Ease in Zion, exclaims that for far too long
the Southern Baptist Convention has sat comfortably “[A]t ease in Zion” when now it is living in
the Kulturkampf with the surrounding postmodern/post-Christian secular culture and is now
“[U]neasy in Baylon.”101 As the author of Hebrews states, the saintly witnesses who have gone on
before are watching and waiting to see how the church will react to the world in which Christ has
situated his Bride (Heb. 12:1). Similar to a chameleon blending into its surroundings, it seems
numerous congregations have intentionally become “inconspicuous.” This “Christian
camouflage” has come at a great price—the loss of their uniqueness and distinctiveness that were
radically different and ultimately beautiful to the lost culture surrounding them.
In Matthew 5:13, Jesus explains to his disciples, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the
salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except
to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” Salt is an agent of preservation. Among other uses,
families in the first century salted meat to prevent it from rotting. So, too, is the church an agent
of preservation. The church is to preserve God’s standards of holiness and the story of salvation
contained in the Scriptures (Deut. 6; Ps. 78). In other words, the church is supposed to add
flavor, preservation, and ultimately make this fallen world a better place. France concurs, “The
101
Barry Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture (Religion and
American Culture), (Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press, 2003), 2–13.
40
world cannot endure without salt . . . disciples [of Christ] are no less essential to the well being
of the earth . . . the disciples are to provide flavor to the world they live in . . . to help prevent its
corruption . . . to make the world a better place . . . Unsalty salt is a contradiction in terms . . .”102
So just how pervasive is this secularized view of divorce in the church? One pastor remarks:
Recently, I was asked not to speak on the subject of divorce and re-marriage when invited
to speak at a church Bible conference. The pastor explained, ‘We who are in the pastoral
ministry have a different perspective on this subject than those who teach in seminary.’
The implication: no one can determine God’s truth on this matter by a study of Scripture
alone. Interpretation must be tempered or modified by personal experience with those
who are divorced or re-married.103
To espouse this view is to say that the Bible is somehow insufficient to be normative and
useful to one’s postmodern society. It is to say that one’s emotions, one’s experience (the
hallmarks of postmodernism) should in a sense usurp and trump the plain teachings of Scripture.
This viewpoint is similar to the writings of Jose Cardosa, a divorced pastor, who in December,
1984 was still active in pastoral ministry and wrote as part of his Doctor of Ministry project104
that a divorced minister unjustly incurs, “Loss of honor and self-esteem . . . his ecclesiastical
position, his standing in the community, his family, intimate female companionship, his home,
his prestige, his income, his friends and his self-esteem [sic].” Notice in both of these
aforementioned examples that the focus was anthropocentric (self-centered) and not theocentric.
In other words, feelings, emotions, and self-esteem (repeated twice in Cardosa’s statement!) were
placed on a much grander scale than the transgression of God’s holiness through their
disobedience to the commands of Scripture. The a priori assumption was, “I have been
wronged,” (anthropocentric) rather than, “I have wronged God,” (theocentric).
102
France, 173–74.
103
H. Wayne House, ed. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1990),
16.
104
Jose A. Cardosa, “Ministering to the Divorced Minister,” (D.Min. Project, Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1984), 4–6.
41
Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. makes an astute observation on the pervasiveness of sin as he
compares it to the disruption of shalom (peace) in the universe. Plantinga states, “Shalom, in
other words, is the way things ought to be . . . Sin is not only the breaking of the law but also a
covenant with one’s Savior. Sin is the smearing of a relationship, the grieving of one’s divine
parent and benefactor, a betrayal of the partner to whom one is joined by a holy bond.”105 This is
the evil of divorce. Divorce takes the holy bond of matrimony and severs it, utterly destroying
this new family or “one-flesh” union God has created. In other words, divorce is not what the
fruits of marriage ought to be.
Christopher Wright explains the gospel of Christ in terms of a “new redeemed humanity”
a “single family of God.”106 The Bible is the story of one biological family (All of humanity are
biologically related as sons and daughters of Eve if one subscribes to the historicity of the first
two chapters of Genesis) that was created to become one new spiritual family (cf. Paul’s concept
of “one new humanity” in Eph. 2:11–22) as adopted spiritual sons and daughters of YHWH (Gal.
4:1–7). Thus, the institutions of marriage and family were founded and ordained by YHWH for
his glory and for his missiological purpose in filling the earth with YHWH worshipers. However,
since the Fall of man, family has progressively lost its compass bearings as evidenced by the
postmodern deconstruction and redefinition of marriage and family. This disruption of shalom
due to the Fall was cosmic in scope (Rom. 5:12) and has caused humans to be blinded by their
own sinful behavior just as the prodigal son was blinded and had to ultimately “come to his
senses” in order to be restored (Luke 15:11–32). Living in a fallen world, which is groaning in
anticipation for the return of the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rom. 8:19–22), has fostered a
105
Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, A Breviary of Sin, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1995), 10–12.
106
Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 191–92.
42
pervasive skepticism in humanity towards the permanence of any material thing or institution.
According to Daniel Bagby:
Our disposable society has made almost everything non-durable and designed with a
calculated obsolescence. We do not expect our cars, our homes or our appliances to last;
We do not expect our marriages to last either. Trained by our generation to expect novelty
and entertainment, we demand the same from all our experiences, including friendship,
marriage, and family living. Sexual intimacy, like its complex counterparts, familial
intimacy, fidelity, and covenantal love, are sought after with impatience and ignorance.
We have taught ourselves to want things immediately and we will not wait to be
satisfied.107
Today’s culture is a materialistic culture of haves and have-nots. If one does not expect
his material “things” to last, then the logical conclusion is that one’s marriage is “disposable” just
like his razor or air freshener. Those who recognize the paucity of lifelong marriage and the
implications, thereof, may adopt the same mindset as the disciples, “[I]t is better not to marry
(Matt. 19:10b).” This begs the question, for Christians, “Is singleness superior in a culture of
widespread divorce?” While many Pauline scholars have for centuries made such a case, a study
of the issue of singleness arrives at a much different conclusion.
The Issue of Singleness
Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one
who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the
present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
1 Cor. 7:25, 26
A biblical theology of marriage and family contributes greatly even to those whom are
“single.” To understand this fact, it is important first of all—to immediately distinguish between
two types of “singleness”—those virgins who have never married (ascetics) and those who are
divorced and choose to remain single and celibate (voluntary “eunuchs”). Since family for the
107
Daniel G. Bagby, The Church: The Power to Help and the Power to Hurt, (Nashville: Broadman Press,
1989), 78.
43
ancient Jews assumed marriage with the goal of procreation (Gen. 1:28; 2:24) the idea of living
an ascetic lifestyle was untenable to most monotheistic Jews. While there is a dearth of Old
Testament teachings on asceticism, the concept is realized abundantly in Second Temple
literature (in the lives of the Essenes and the Theraputae) and also explicitly found in the New
Testament.
In the New Testament, Jesus addresses voluntary celibacy in the concept of the “eunuch”
in Matthew 19:12. καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν
οὐρανῶν (“[A]nd (there) are certain eunuchs [who] emasculated themselves because/for the
kingdom of heaven” [Author’s translation]). The implications regarding the immediate context in
the placement of this teaching being juxtaposed within Jesus’ ethical teachings regarding
marriage and divorce have been mentioned previously, but is worth a brief mention again. Either
Jesus has taken a point of departure from within the immediate context of the ethical teachings
on divorce and remarriage and is now offering a new teaching regarding the relationship of
eunuchs with the kingdom of God or, and most likely, Jesus is linking this teaching on eunuchs
with what he has already said regarding marriage and divorce. If Jesus is intending this verse to
be taken in regards to the prohibition of divorce and so-called “exception clause” of Matthew
19:9, then this verse seems to suggest that there were some divorcees who were practicing a
celibate lifestyle—having made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God. This is further
suggested by the disciples’ startling response in 19:10, Εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι (“If such is the relationship of the man with the woman
[i. e., the potential adultery of remarriage—except in cases involving πορνείᾳ], (then) it is not
good to marry” [Author’s translation]).
Despite the fact that Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 on singleness (celibacy) are much
more voluminous than the Lord’s of Matthew 19:1–12, they are equally thorny! Paul’s teachings
44
on singleness (implying celibacy) come in two sections of 1 Corinthians 7—verses seven and
eight, and a much longer segment covering verses twenty-five through thirty-six. In these
sections, the following three themes emerge: First, that singleness (celibacy) is a special gift
from God and marriage is assumed for the status quo because of the dangers of sexual
immorality (7:2, 7); Second, that it is better for a person to be happy in the situation that they are
presently in (e. g., in a case of divorce, remarriage can be adulterous; in the case of singleness,
celibacy is good, but beware of burning with lustful desire—7:1, 9—11, 17, 20, 24, 26); and
third, that those who are unmarried have less distractions (7:28, 32–35) in their focus on the
kingdom of God. Because the eschaton is quickly approaching (7:26, 29, 31) Christians must
increase their focus on the kingdom of God and the things of the Lord (7:34). Paul’s statements
in 1 Corinthains 7:1, 7, 26–38 have caused much consternation and vicissitudes of hermeneutical
theories over the centuries. Roman Catholicism based its medieval ecclesiology of viri probati —
mandating celibacy for members of its clergy—upon Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings. Does Paul
teach in 1 Corinthians 7 that singleness (celibacy) is superior to the institution of marriage as
outlined in Genesis 2:24 and supported by Jesus, himself, in Matthew 19:5, 6? To argue in the
affirmative would justify Good’s thesis of the Bible being an amalgam of self-contradictory,
disjointed texts, rather than the inspired and infallible Word of God. Perhaps, if Paul were alive
today to respond to such an accusation, he would likely reply, Μὴ γένοιτο—“May it never be!”
Will Deming suggests a theory that stands in contradistinction to the Catholic invention
of viri probati as well as Good’s supposed antinomy of texts. Deming sees 1 Corinthians 7
through the lens of Stoicism (which sees marriage/family as utilitarian in nature and salvation
for the “state”) and Cynicism (in contrast to Stoicism, Cynics see all institutions such as “state”
and “marriage” as pernicious).108 According to the Cynics, single life afforded one uninterrupted
108
Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellinistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7,
(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1995), 2–3.
45
educational opportunities in philosophy, virtue, and overall well-being.109 Deming is suggesting
that Paul (like the Stoics and Cynics) sees marriage/family/singleness not through the lens of
mere sexual activity (or the lack thereof), but through the lens of service, of utilitarianism to a
higher good. For Paul, this higher good was in essence—Christ.110 Deming clarifies,
[W]hat I am suggesting is that the understanding of 1 Corinthian 7 held by most scholars
and church leaders today (i. e., Paul’s advocacy of celibate singleness) derives from an
early Christian reinterpretation of Paul, and that this text has been misunderstood almost
since its composition . . . No longer will it be possible to see Paul as one of Christianity’s
first champions of sexual asceticism.
Deming has shown that to categorize Paul as one who vehemently advocated celibacy is
to misunderstand Pauline thought and the Greco-Roman milieu in which Paul lived. If one holds
to the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, one must concede that Paul reaffirms the foundational
teachings on marriage in Genesis 2:24 (cf. Eph. 5:31). If one does not hold to the Pauline
authorship of Ephesians, then one must still concede that Paul reaffirms the Lord’s teachings on
marriage and family (including Jesus’ quotation of Gen. 2:24 in Matt. 19:5) in 1 Corinthians
7:10, 11 as well Paul cites Genesis 2:24 directly in 1 Corinthians 6:16, thus indicating the
foundational and paradigmatic import of this Old Testament verse.
In sum, singleness is a unique gift of God given to some to have undivided focus on the
“things of the Lord.” Lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the assumption for most
adults and has been since the inception of humanity according to both Scripture and the historical
record. Singleness is not superior to marriage spiritually or ethically. Marriage is a good gift
from God and when a man has found a wife, he truly has found a blessed and good thing (Prov.
18:22). In Pauline thought, singleness did carry certain advantages and chief of which is in the
amount of undivided attention one can spend on the work of the Lord that is sometimes hindered
109
Ibid., 3.
110
Ibid.
46
by family life. A single person is never truly “single.” Paul is not advocating the hallmarks of the
Victorian innovation of the “individual” and “autonomy.” Rather, a single, celibate person has an
extended family, and more importantly, as a Christian, they are in the family of God—that is the
church. Thus, the single participate in the missio Dei, which will now be briefly explored.
The Missio Dei
He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of
Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the
nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’
— Isa. 49:6
The God of the Bible (YHWH) is a God of mission. The missio Dei can be succinctly
defined as, “[T]he missionary activity of God as recorded in the Bible.”111 The first eleven
chapters of Genesis document the reason why the missio Dei exists—the utter wickedness of
humanity and the pervasiveness of sin that resulted from the Fall. The Westminster Shorter
Catechism of 1647 asks, “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and
to enjoy Him forever.” Sin disrupted humanity’s ability to worship God rightly, and thus
prohibited man from bringing glory to the Creator God. The missio Dei is God’s solution to the
problem of the Fall. The missio Dei makes necessary and undergirds the missions of the church
—that is the called-out people of God.112 In other words, the missio Dei exists because of God’s
glory. The glory of God is at the heart of the missio Dei. The missions of the church exist
because the missio Dei exists. To echo the famous line from John Piper, “Missions (of the
church) exists because worship doesn’t [sic].”113
111
John Mark Terry, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson, eds., Missiology: An Introduction to the
Foundations, History, and Strategy of World Missions, (Nashville: B&H, 1998), 10.
112
Ibid., 10.
113
John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad!: the Supremacy of God in Missions, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2003), 17.
47
The missio Dei (Mission of God) has been oft misunderstood over the years since the
phrase was originally coined by German missiologist, Karl Hartenstein,114 in an attempt to
synthesize and condense the teachings of Karl Barth and in its original semantic meaning,
denoted the “sending of God.”115 One may summarize the phrase missio Dei as “God is working
his purpose out,” and this occurs over generations of time and geography. It is important to note
that first and foremost the missio Dei is God’s mission, not ours.116 As biblical scholar and
missiologist, Christopher Wright, states, “Mission was not made for the church; the church was
made for mission—God’s mission.”117 Therefore, God intends his called-out people, his
ἐκκλησία—that is the church—to join him in his mission, the missio Dei.
The Apostle Paul understood the eschatological Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 49:6 to be
referring to the ultimate work of the Messiah—that is Jesus the Christ—but also understood it as
a command to himself and anyone else who would claim the name “Christian.” Paul explains,
“For so the Lord has commanded us,118 ‘I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT
YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH’” (Acts 13:47, emphasis added). In other
words, Paul sees himself and every other Christian as commanded by God to follow the example
of Jesus Christ in taking the light of salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa. 49:6; John 1:4, 5;
8:12). New Testament scholar, Darrell Bock, adds:
What is surprising [In regards to Acts 13:47] is that Paul and Barnabas are now cast in the
role of the servant of Israel . . . The servant was normally an image tied to Jesus in the NT
. . . So Paul and Barnabas are now seen as an extension of the work of the Servant of the
114
Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, (Downers Grove:
IVP, 2006), 62–63.
115
Ibid., 63.
116
Ibid., 62–63.
117
Ibid., 62.
118
The Greek word Paul uses is not the third person singular pronoun (“him,” i. e., Christ), which one would
expect in interpreting Isaiah 49:6. Rather, Paul gives Isaiah 49:6 a fuller meaning when he uses the first person
plural pronoun ἡμῖν (we/us).
48
Lord [Isa. 49:6], who was Jesus . . . The hermeneutic used here is the “one in the many,”
[cf. Richard Bauckham’s work, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness In A Postmodern
World] which is a basic way of connecting themes between the testaments. One can
compare the use of “servant” in Luke-Acts to the use of “seed” in Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3,
where it is about both Jesus and those incorporated into him. The task of Jesus continues
in his commissioned servants. Their call is to be a light to the Gentiles and go to the end
of the earth.119
The same mission that God the Father gave his only-begotten Son (Luke 19:10; John
1:18; 3:16) in blessing all of the families of the earth (Gen. 12:1–3; 22:18) is the same mission
Christ has given the church in the mind of Luke and of Paul. This mission is now entrusted to the
called-out children of God—that is the church—to fulfill YHWH’s command in bringing
salvation, “to the ends of the earth (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8, NIV).” In fact, all human missions
can be thought of in regards to both a participation in and extension of God’s divine sending of
his Son.120 Jesus, himself, echoes this theological point in John 17:18, “As you [God the Father]
sent me [only begotten Son] into the world, I have sent them [people of God that are the families
that make up the church] into the world (emphasis added).”121
So what is the God-intended role of family in the missio Dei? The role of family in terms
of the missio Dei can actually be traced back to the first family, Adam and Eve. Adam’s role as
husband and father would have not only been to teach his family about God, but how to worship
God rightly. The fact that Adam taught Eve about God pre-Fall seems to be evident in the fact
that Eve gives additional information to the serpent—that is Satan—in reciting YHWH’s
prohibition to her husband, Adam. Eve explains to Satan in Genesis 3:3, “God has said, ‘You
shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.” Eve seems to have been given an additional
119
Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2007), 464.
120
Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, 63.
121
This concept of Jesus “sending” or “commissioning” the disciples is repeated again in John 20:19–23 and
interesting to note is the accompaniment of Jesus’ breathing on the disciples giving them his Holy Spirit prior to
Pentecost in Acts 2.
49
command by her husband (not to even touch the fruit) in further strengthening and protecting her
from YHWH’s judgment of death (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:3). The fact that Adam must have shown his
two sons something of how to worship YHWH is evidenced in the fact that both Cain and Able
saw fit to bring “offerings” to YHWH. Abel chose to worship YHWH rightly in his blood
offering for sins against YHWH (Gen. 3:21; 8:20, 21; Lev. 4:35; 5:10; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:22). Cain
chose to offer wrong worship to YHWH and approached YHWH on his terms rather than the
terms that YHWH had set forth in clothing Adam and Eve with the skins of the sacrificed
animals (Gen. 3:21). Genesis is a type or metaphor of God’s grace in showing the first humans
that there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). Indeed, God is
offering a foreshadow in Genesis of this promised Seed from the line of woman (Gen. 3:15), the
Christ, who would make atonement for the totality of sin through his substitutionary, atoning
sacrifice on the cross of Calvary (Isa. 53; Eph. 1:7).
Girard coined a phrase that is helpful in terms of understanding the role of family in
regards to the missio Dei. Girard draws upon the Platonic concept of “Forms” or “Exemplars” in
regards to his novel concept of the mimetic desire.122 Girard states in regards to the Tenth
Commandment in the Decalogue:
We assume that desire is objective or subjective, but in reality it rests on a third party who
gives value to the objects. This third party is usually the one who is closest, the neighbor.
To maintain peace between human beings, it is essential to define prohibitions in light of
this extremely significant fact: our neighbor is the model of our desires. This is what I
call mimetic desire (emphasis added).123
This concept of “mimetic desire” is central to Girard’s thought process and can be summarized
as imitation of some “Exemplar” or “Form”, or perhaps as “imitative desire” of those closest to
an individual, namely, one’s own parent(s). If Girard is correct in stating that this subliminal,
122
Girard, 8–11.
123
Ibid., 10.
50
“mimetic desire” is formed at early stages in life by modeling/imitating those “Exemplars”
closest to an individual—one’s own parent(s)—this has immense missiological implications for
the family. Given the aforementioned declining state of marriage and family within both secular
and ecclesiastical circles alike today, from whom will children draw from for this “mimetic
desire?” Will their source of “mimetic desire” be drawn from godly parents teaching their
children the fear of the LORD (Deut. 6; Psa. 34:11; 111:10; Prov. 9:10)? Or will these “mimetic
desires” find fulfillment elsewhere in secular television, violent video games, daycare workers,
or teachers of Darwinism and atheism?
Biblically, it is the man (as previously shown in this paper with the case of Adam) who is
to be the primary teacher in his family about God and to remind his family of the good things
YHWH has done throughout history, both in a general and personal sense (Deut. 6:20–25).
Moses intended in the Shema that the job of parents—primarily the fathers (cf. Ps. 78)—is to
teach their children diligently the fear of the LORD, and even more importantly, to model the
God-centered life in front of them at all times and in all phases in life (Deut. 6:4–9). Goheen
adds that there are two threats present in Deuteronomy to the people of God: “[I]dolatry and the
failure to pass along the faith to the next generation. The alarming statistics that indicate the
rapid exodus of the younger generation from the Western church highlights these warnings.”124
The book of Proverbs clearly highlights the importance of parents teaching their children
godly wisdom, “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s
teaching (Prov. 1:8).” Psalm 78, a maskil of Asaph, in its seventy-two verse recital of YHWH’s
Heilsgeschichte (that is salvation history), elucidates the invaluable role that fathers have in
teaching their families about God:
Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will
124
Michael W. Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story, (Grand Rapids;
Baker Academic, 2011), 221.
51
open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, Which we have heard and
known, And our fathers have told us. We will not conceal them from their children, But
tell to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wondrous
works that He has done (Ps. 78:1–4, emphasis added).
This concept of parental instruction in the ways of God is not abrogated in the New Testament as
Paul reminds Timothy, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become
convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have
known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through
faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14, 15, emphasis added). Paul gives further insight into
the power of the “mimetic desire” so prevalent in young Timothy’s formative years, “For I am
mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your
mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well (2 Tim. 1:5, emphasis added).”
As a general rule, what little boy does not aspire to be like his father? Or little girl who
does not aspire to be like her mother? Typically, it is the child who does not know his parents or
has a negative view of them (or both). Indeed, Girard in his concept of “mimetic desire” taps into
understanding the momentous correlation of behaviors and desires found in the “Exemplars” of
one’s own parents during the formative years of childhood. Today, children are not often taught
nor reared by parents, but by secular daycare workers, teachers, television personalities, and
video games. These “mimetic desires” of imitation are not likely imitating God or promoting the
worship of God in these deconstructed families. Scripture patterns for its readers the concept of
the missiological family in promulgating God’s glory through the rearing and orthodox gospel
teaching of godly, missions-minded children who will therefore propagate the gospel by and
through the multiplication of their seed passing the gospel to future generations. In this way, the
missio Dei of filling the earth with YHWH worshipers will be fulfilled. The “Exemplars” of
children’s “mimetic desires” are to be godly parents teaching their children the fear of the LORD.
52
The “Missiological Family”
Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the
land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And
make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless
you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will
be blessed.”
— Gen. 12:1–3
Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel
beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” So then those
who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer (emphasis added).
—Gal. 3:6–9
In the introduction of this thesis was proposed a three-dimensional description of the
concept of “missiological family.” The first dimension is to exude the glory of God within the
covenantal bond of marriage. God’s glory must first of all be recognized in the lives of the
husband and wife before the preservative aspect of “salt” and transformational aspect of “light”
can be experienced in family (Matt. 5:13–16). If the glory of God is not present within one’s own
heart, then to undertake any form of missional activity inside or outside the walls of one’s home
will in essence mimic the caricaturization of, “the blind leading the blind (Matt. 15:14).” Second,
to promulgate God’s glory within one’s home, means a continual teaching and declaring of God’s
glorious works of salvation to one’s spouse and children (Deut. 6; Ps. 78; Luke 8:36–39). The
goal of which is to plant and grow a godly seed of children who fear the LORD (Mal. 2:14-16). If
the gaining of wisdom is of primary importance in one’s educational upbringing and the “fear of
the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,” (Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10, emphasis added), then this
promulgation of religious teaching is vital to the spiritual formation of one’s family. This
promulgation is the logical outflow of a spouse and/or parent who seeks to exude the glory of
God. Lastly, the gospel of Jesus Christ is therefore propagated by and through one’s children
53
repeating this process. In other words, the “mimetic desires” of fearing, loving, and worshiping
rightly the Creator God will be passed on to the next generation. The earth will be filled with
YHWH worshipers as generation after generation of families will fear the LORD (Gen. 1:28;
12:3; 22:18; Eph. 1:10; 3:10).
This was God’s plan from the beginning (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7; 12:3; 22:18) despite the
ethical shortcomings of families throughout biblical history. The historical failures of God’s
people did not abrogate God’s foundational theological, missiological, and indeed eschatological
principle. The concept of a “missiological family” flies in the face of modern arguments against
marriage and family. If biological family is plastic, “disposable”, and rendered superfluous by
the New Testament teachings, then how could it be a vital part of the missio Dei? What the New
Testament actually shows is that Jesus did not abrogate the importance of the biological family.
Surprisingly, Jesus presupposed the strength and importance of biological family to do his
missionary work.
Perhaps the Gospel of Luke125 shows most clearly the missionary import of the biological
family in the Heilsgeschichte of YHWH. In the pericope of Luke 8:26–39, Jesus confronts a
demon possessed man whose name is “Legion” and whose own biological family feared him,
rejected him, probably thought of him in terms of being demonic rather than human, and
apparently, left him for dead. However, this is a story of great reversal.
Upon getting out of the boat and stepping onto land, Luke explains that Jesus was met by,
“a certain man from the city who was possessed with demons; and who had not put on any
clothing for a long time, and was not living in a house, but in the tomb.” This is a shocking
description of this man who would have been seen clearly as unclean to a devout Jew. One
125
While perhaps most apparent in Luke’s Gospel, space in this paper does not allow to show the plethora of
examples throughout the rest of the canonical Gospels (e. g., the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4), and
indeed, the rest of the New Testament (e. g., the ecclesiological and missiological implications of the house churches
of Acts).
54
scholar suggests that this is not only the most stupendous of Jesus’ miracles, but also the most
scandalous.126 The phrase ἔχων δαιμόνια (“having demons”) is rendered as a present active
participle in the Greek—indicating that this man was continuously demon-possessed and this
was not a mere one-time occurrence. The phrase χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ (“a long time”) helps reinforce the
fact that this man had a history of a long time, continual, demonic possession. This man did not
live with his family in the οἶκός anymore, but among the dead. This man lived a life of isolation,
pain, suffering, and had an interest or preoccupation with death. This can be seen by the fact that
he lived among the tombs, but also because of what the parallel passage in Mark 5:5, “And
constantly night and day, among the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out and gashing
himself with stones.” What this demoniac desperately needed was a reversal of his situation.
The pinnacle of this demoniac’s great reversal can be seen in full vivid display in Luke
8:36 by Luke’s use of the term ἐσώθη—an aorist passive indicative meaning that it is a
completed passive action that cannot be achieved by oneself. In other words, an outside force
must intervene and act on behalf of another (Eph 2:8, 9). ἐσώθη comes from the Greek root
σῴζω, which can mean, “to save” or “rescue physically,” but is imbued here by Luke with a
deeper meaning. This term can also mean, “to save or preserve from eternal death,” “be saved,”
or “attain salvation.”127 This expression of “healing” or “making one whole” is Luke’s favorite
way to describe the eternal salvation that only Jesus Christ can bring.128 What one can see from
the great reversal in the life of this man who was once known as Legion is a five-fold
progression of change: 1) He is no longer possessed, but has been freed from the evil spirits; 2)
he is no longer restless, but is sitting at the feet of Jesus; 3) he is no longer naked, but clothed; 4)
126
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1994), 769.
127
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “σῴζω,” 982.
128
John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 35A (Dallas: Word, Inc., 1989), 412.
55
he is no longer cutting himself being driven into the wastelands, but in his right mind, and
finally, 5) he is restored completely both internally and externally.129
The last of the three great reversals occur in Luke 8:38, 39. The now restored man
continuously “begs” (ἐδεῖτο—Luke uses the imperfect indicative tense to denote continuous
action) Jesus to go with Him on His journeys, which would seem to fit Good’s thesis of rejecting
one’s biological family in favor of the “fictive family.” In other words, if Good’s thesis is correct,
one would expect the former demoniac to soundly reject his former, disposable, “biological”
family—those who seemingly turned a blind eye to his horrible sitz im leben—and align himself
with the so-called spiritual “fictive family.” However, just the opposite is true. Startlingly, Jesus
denies his repeated request, and commanded him to Ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (“Return to
your household/home [Author’s Translation],”130 thus, indicating that his first ministry was to his
family and then to the rest of the community that had maligned him.
In missiological fashion, this restored man’s first ministry was to his own family and then
projected out to the rest of the community reflecting the pattern one finds in Matthew 28:19, 20
and Acts 1:8. The ministry of the “missiological family” starts where one is (the family/home)
and projects out from there (the surrounding community/culture). This pericope reveals the
gospel truth that the “missiological family” can start afresh with one to affect the many.
The concept of the “missiological family” may also be seen in the eschatological passage
of Luke 14:15–24—Jesus’ great reversal concept of “Anti-Symposium.” The symposium was a
standard and expected practice in the Greco-Roman οἶκός performed for mostly ulterior reasons
—usually for political and social advancement. The symposium usually consisted of an elaborate
banquet or feast with its guests reclining (not sitting as we see portrayed in da Vinci’s fifteenth129
Norvall Geldenhuys, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 259.
130
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “οἶκός,” 698–99.
56
century depiction entitled, The Last Supper) while eating and listening to a philosophical lecture
or other rhetorical discourse.
One would never invite someone beneath one’s own class to symposium as the
overarching purpose was advancement, not regression. Much like modern times, the concept of
symposium also entailed the concept of reciprocity. In other words, one would usually return the
favor if invited to an extravagantly expensive symposium. However, in our pericope at hand,
Jesus turns the expected norms and rules of the Roman symposium on their head by inviting all
peoples (not just those that are in one’s same socio-economic status or those whom are critical
for social and political advancement). In other words, the concept of “Anti-Symposium,” as
presented in the Gospels and Acts (cf passages such as Acts 2:42–47), depicts a great reversal—
those who had financial means invited those who had none. The general notion of reciprocity so
common in ancient Greco-Roman culture (and still prevalent to this day) is abrogated in Jesus’
and the early church’s missiological strategy of “Anti-Symposium.” Carolyn Osiek adds,
[S]everal significant stories in the Gospel tradition participate in an anti-symposium
tradition best reflected in the satirist Lucian. Luke 14 is a chreia in which the story of the
great banquet persuasively argues for the nontraditional practice of inviting poor brothers
and sisters to eat, which may well have generated social ostracism from the host’s
wealthy peers. In Mark 10:41–45 Jesus is a table servant, a model for church leaders.131
Tim Chester agrees with this missiological connection of table fellowship, “What’s new
in the story of the great banquet (Luke 14:15–24) is the exhortation to invite outsiders to our
meals (missiological family) . . . The table fellowship of Jesus, with its ethic of grace rather than
reciprocity, was creating a new countercultural society in the midst of the (Roman) Empire.”132
Green echoes this sentiment, “The behaviors Jesus demands (Luke 14:15–24 and Jesus’ concept
131
Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House
Churches, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 206.
132
Tim Chester, A Meal with Jesus: Discovering Grace, Community, and Mission around the Table,
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 81.
57
of “Anti-Symposium”) would collapse the distance between rich and poor, insider and
outsider.”133 One must not miss the missiological import of shared meals, especially for those
whom an invitation to such a dinner would be a startling, unexpected act of benevolence. This
concept of bringing those outside, close to God is a thoroughly biblical principle portrayed in the
biblical concept of worship (John 4) and indeed the very architecture of the Jewish tabernacle
and Temple. Robert Karris concurs, “In Luke’s Gospel Jesus is either going to a meal, at a meal,
or coming from a meal.”134 The sharing of meals is missiological in that it builds bridges with
people—all kinds of people. Inviting another family or individual into one’s home who is of a
different ethnicity or in a different socio-economic status to enjoy table fellowship shows them
the love of Christ—a love that cares more for people than about breaking the expected norms of
society. Luke 7:34 exclaims, “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking . . .” and in so
doing, Christ was using the missiological tool of the meal—something basic, ordinary, and
required for human life—to help fulfill his mission in seeking and saving that which is lost (Luke
19:10). This is an easily reproducible ministry, which could be replicated within most any budget
and would do much to shatter socio-economic and ethnic barriers to the gospel.
In sum, the concept of “missiological family” is first initiated in the home—in the hearts
of the parents, in the hearts of the children through spiritual formation and the “marination” of
their minds and hearts in the Word of God (Deut. 6; Ps. 19; 119). The “missiological family”
then in utilitarian fashion, reaches out to its extended family, estranged members of one’s
church, and surrounding culture. This may be done through a variety of ways including Jesus’
concept of “Anti-Symposium”—a meal ministry where a family opens their home and their
hearts to hurting, broken people who need to hear the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
133
Joel E. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 553.
134
Robert J. Karris, Eating Your Way through Luke’s Gospel, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2006), 14.
58
Conclusion
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL
LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR
MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law
and the Prophets.
— Matt. 22:36–40
Families inside and outside the church are fractured. This fracture has not happened
overnight, but over centuries of systematized, gradual desensitization to the problems at hand.
Rather than “love for God and love for one’s neighbor” (Matt. 22:36-40), the mantra of many
evangelicals is love for “God” and love for one’s self—many times this happens to be one and
the same. Lawler and Risch note:
[A]pproximately half of all children under the age of eighteen will spend at least part of
their childhood in a single-parent family, some 90 percent of those families headed by
single mothers . . . Research also documents the consequences for children of being
raised by only one parent and suggests that the erosion of the cultural norm that mothers
and fathers live with, support, and nurture their children has serious negative implications
for the whole of society.135
Given the evidence, what is one to make of the overwhelming number of divorced, cohabiting, or
single parent homes even among those who claim to be “evangelical Christians”? How can
divorced parents effectively teach the fear of the LORD in their children when they only see them
once or twice a month? How does one respond and reconcile these startling statistics with the
clear teachings of Scripture? How does one make sense of the seemingly contradictory lifestyles
of those church members claiming to be “Christians” and to whom pastors are called to shepherd
and give an account for their souls (Heb. 13:17)? Working through these tough pastoral and
societal problems, Kittel writes:
The theological implication [of divorce, cohabitation, or singularity in general] is
enormous. A man alone cannot reflect the image of God; nor can a woman by herself.
135
Michael G. Lawler and Gail S. Risch, “Covenant Generativity: Toward a Theology of Christian Family,”
Horizons 26, no. 1 (1999): 8.
59
Only together can they even have the potential to reflect God’s nature. The word
“potential” is used here because it depends on the nature of the relationship. Indeed, it is
precisely the relationship between a man and woman that determines whether they can
actually reflect God’s nature. What sort of relationship enables a man and woman to
mirror God’s image? Can a “one night stand” reflect God’s nature? Is being married
enough? How long should they be together? How about a man and woman living together
for ten, twenty or even a hundred years—is time the key element? What exactly is the
nature of the relationship that fuses a man and woman together, that they might reflect the
image of God? To answer this, we need to know the nature of our Creator.136
In response to Kittel’s article above, God’s nature is one of both lovingkindness and
holiness (John 3:16–20; Lev. 19:2). God is seen as both loving Father and as Righteous Judge (1
John 3:1; Ps. 7:11) or, as illustrated in Deuteronomy 11:26–28, God is both a divine Blesser and
divine Curser depending on the obedience, or lack thereof, of His children.
These pernicious and pervasive trends in deconstructing marriage and family have negatively
impacted the “mimetic desires” of children and generations to come. By separating marriage
from parenthood, single-parent households are increasingly becoming the norm. Floods of
“fatherless” families are becoming increasingly unchurched, and children have no godly source
of teaching or instruction to imitate or to draw from. No longer do children see before them the
God-ordained portrait of a husband and wife joined in a lifelong, one-flesh union (Gen. 2:24),
which is a metaphor for Christ’s relationship to his Bride (Eph. 5:21–33). Many (if not most)
children see today a revolving door of broken relationships, pain, and suffering with little to no
positive moral teachings about God to imitate or pull from.
While both the traditional, biblical view of family and the health of the church may have
both fallen on hard times, there is still hope. One could succinctly summarize the major theme in
The Revelation of Jesus Christ with two words, “Jesus wins!” As Richard Bauckham suggests in
his paradigmatic work, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World, throughout
Scripture, God uses the one to affect the many. Bauckham writes:
136
Robert S. Kittel, “They Shall Be One Flesh: Fulfilling The Ideal Of Creation Through The Family,”
Journal Of Unification Studies 6 (2004-2005): 46.
60
The Bible is a kind of project aimed at the kingdom of God, that is, towards the
achievement of God’s purposes of good in the whole of God’s creation. This is a
universal direction that takes the particular with the utmost seriousness. Christian
communities or individuals are always setting off from the particular as both the Bible
and our own situation defines it and following the biblical direction towards the universal
that is to be found not apart from but within other particulars. This is mission (emphasis
added).137
If Bauckham’s thesis holds true, God could work through one godly family, to affect one
congregation, who would affect their surrounding communities, who would impact other bodies
of believers, regions, states, nations, and indeed, the very ends of the earth. This is the
missiological aspect of family and its importance in working together with God in his mission to
fill the earth with his worshipers. This is why family is important and why Jesus did not redefine
or supplant the Old Testament institution of family and its linkage to the missio Dei, but rather,
Jesus fulfilled it. Jesus did so by reminding families of their missiological purpose (Gen. 12:3;
22:18; Luke 8:26–39; 10:25–37; 14:15–24; John 4). Jesus’ concept in Luke 14 of “AntiSymposium” displays a practical evangelistic strategy of table fellowship in which families can
recover their missiological and utilitarian roots.
The Bible is a message of hope and at the center of the Christian hope is the realization of
being a part of God’s eternal family. The eschatological realization of the missio Dei can be
viewed in passages such as Matthew 25:32–40, Revelation 7:9–10 and Revelation 21–22 with
the advent of a new heavens and a new earth where all nations shall be gathered together
worshiping YHWH; where pain, suffering, death, and the effects of sin are abrogated once and
for all; and where the radiance of YHWH’s holy glory will alone be their light. YHWH intends to
use the conduit of missiological families who make up the ἐκκλησία to fulfill his mission in
filling the earth with YHWH worshipers (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 17; Eph. 3:9, 10).
137
Richard Bauckham, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World, (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2003), 11.
61
Appendix A
A Historical Survey of Ancient and American Family Models
Ancient Family Models
The Ancient Mesopotamian Family Model
For the ancient Mesopotamian families of the Near East, marriage was contractual and
women were viewed as living “commodities.” Women were commercialized “objects” purchased
from their fathers by their husbands through a bride-price (terhatum).138 Males were the
dominant ruling sex of the society and patriarchal lineage and inheritance systems were the
norm. Polygamy (more specifically, polygyny, as polyandry would have been nearly unthinkable
in this male-centered culture) was rare and betrothal formed the beginnings of the expected
monogamous marriage.139 While marriage was considered the normative for the overwhelming
majority, asceticism was indeed practiced by a certain few with virgin daughters being dedicated
for a life of celibate service to the temple cultus. Families were generationally-focused and
children were taught to pass on the traditions of their ancestors.140 Children had high mortality
rates due to natural and unnatural causes as unwanted children were aborted or exposed.
Unlike modern nuclear families, marriage was primarily utilitarian in purpose (that is,
marriage existed primarily for the well-being of the community as a whole). Divorce was rare as
evidenced by the fear of social stigmas and enforcement of severe financial penalties in the legal
codes. Homosexuality is known to have existed, but was seen in the most negative light by the
Near Eastern culture being “despised and legislated against.”141
138
Victor H. Matthews, “Marriage and Family in the Ancient Near East,” in Marriage and Family in the
Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 8.
139
Ibid., 6–9, 14–15.
140
Ibid., 16.
141
Ibid., 30–31.
62
The Ancient Jewish (Creation Through First Temple) Family Model
Although there was no absolute uniformity in ancient Israelite families, the Torah was the
moral compass for the majority of Jewish society regarding marriage and family life. Marriage
for monotheistic Jewish families was ethnocentric—that is, the Tanakh instructed the Jews to be
a holy, separate people (Lev. 19:2; 20:7, 22–27; Exo. 34:16; Deut. 7:3) and offered strict
prohibitions against mixed marriages with “foreign wives” (Exo. 34:16; Deut. 7:3; Ezra 10:10)
for fear that the Jews would adopt their “foreign gods” (cf. Solomon’s disobedience—1 Kings
11:1–10). Jewish families lived in the ‫אב‬
x y ‫( ~ }בית‬literally, the “father’s house”)—complexes of
several small homes containing many related “nuclear families.” Israelite family units consisted
of the whole nation (‫ ם‬Z K‫)ע‬, tribes (‫ט‬Š‫שב‬
~ ), clans (‫חות‬KÌ ‫שפ‬
_ ‫מ‬y ), generations (‫_דות‬€ ‫)תול‬, households (‫ים‬Qy‫ת‬K‫)ב‬,
and nuclear families (Gen. 5:1; Jos. 7:14).142
Marriage was initiated at betrothal, but could be broken if the husband found “some
indecency”143 (…‫ב‬QK K‫ו}ת ד‬N …Š_ ‫—ע‬literally, “something naked, exposed, or deprecatory”)144 in his bride
before the marriage was consummated (Deut. 24:1–4). Families were patricentric in nature (that
is “father-focused”).145 However, Jewish women were not viewed as commercial objects (cf.
Proverbs 31; Song of Solomon), as was the case for ancient Mesopotamian women.146 Children
were loved by their parents and abortion and infanticide were unthinkable concepts in the minds
of monotheistic Jews. The Canaanite practice of child sacrifice was looked upon with utmost
horror and revulsion by ancient Jews (Deut. 12:31; Jer. 7:31). Children were taught the fear of
the LORD by their parents (especially, by their father) in order to pass on the family traditions
142
Block, 38.
143
Wenham, 98.
144
Koehler and Baumgartner, “…‫ב‬QK K‫ו}ת ד‬N …Š_ ‫ע‬,”G211, 882.
145
Block, 41–44.
146
Ibid., 48, 57, 62–69.
63
and YHWH’s Heilsgeschichte of saving acts to future generations (Deut. 6; Ps. 78).
Homosexuality was nearly nonexistent given the prohibitions against it in the Tanakh and was
viewed as “abhorrent violations of the ethical and ritual order.”147
Unlike current trends, marriage was the expected norm for ancient Jews and was
considered covenantal in nature (Mal. 2:14–16). Marriage and family took on a utilitarian,
generational focus (as evidenced by the plethora of genealogies in the Old [toledot formulas] as
well as the New Testament). Children were looked at as a divine heritage, blessing, and even as
weapons from YHWH (Ps. 127:3–5). Asceticism was nonexistent and celibacy was seen as
foolishness in the eyes of ancient monotheistic Jews as society depended upon the procreation of
children (Gen. 1:28; 2:18; 9:1, 7).148 Children (especially, male children) were considered the
fruit of marriage (Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7) and childlessness was seen as YHWH’s curse as evidenced
by Hannah’s plight (1 Sam. 1:10, 11) and Rachel’s desperate cry, “Give me children, or else I
die” (Gen. 30:1). Like the ancient Mesopotamian culture, divorce occurred, but not without
severe financial penalties (such as the return of the bride’s dowry—a valuable gift given to the
bride usually by her father or some other benefactor for the bride’s provision) and social
stigma.149 Finally, while monogamy was normative for the general population (with serial
monogamy sometimes practiced) polygyny was practiced amongst the wealthy and elite with few
exceptions.150
The Ancient Greek Family Model
For the Greeks, the οἶκός/οἰκία (literally, “household”) was the most basic institution of
147
Ibid., 85.
148
Ibid., 102.
149
Ibid., 50, 54–56.
150
Ibid., 69–70.
64
society, and in fact, a central institution for understanding the New Testament cultural milieu.151
Family life for the Greco-Roman society in some aspects mirrored much of what one considers
the modern nuclear family as most consisted of husband, wife, children, and possibly aging
relatives of their extended family. However, there were some quite remarkable differences. First
of all, the Spartans of ancient Greece were quite a curiosity in their time. Especially so, in
consideration of their violent, unorthodox rearing of the male children to live a life of utilitarian
military service to the state.152 Second, unwanted children would be exposed and many would be
taken in by slave traders to be sold at market or raised as “entertainer prostitutes” (ἑταίρα—
literally, “companions”).153 Third, Greco-Roman society was male-driven and patriarchal in
nature with husbands having control over the lives and marriages of their children. Fourth,
Greco-Roman culture was steeped in slavery. It was a class-based, hierarchical culture and of key
importance was the concept of “legitimacy” in regards to being a citizen of the state.154
Marriage was still the norm for ancient Greeks and usually began with betrothal.
Although, divorce came easier in Greco-Roman culture as all that was usually required of the
husband in terms of spousal compensation was the return of the wife’s dowry. Children
(especially male children) were prized by their parents (chiefly, so they would have caregivers in
their elder years) and the bearing of legitimate children was considered the primary reason for
151
Some scholars, such as Deirdre Good in her work, Jesus’ Family Values (24–27), make much of the
“technical” distinction between the two terms, οἶκός and οἰκία. Good argues that the term οἶκός is generally in
describing a “building” or “structure” and οἰκία generally connotes a “household” (27). This distinction seems
superfluous upon consideration that in the thirty-four times οἰκία is used in the UBS text of the NT and the fifteen
times οἶκός is used in the UBS text, the reverse actually seems to be true. While it is true that in certain passages
(namely, Matt. 10:13, 25; 13:57; Mark 3:25; 6:4; John 4:53; 8:35; Acts 17:5—about twenty-four percent of the
term’s thirty-four occurrences) οἰκία does seem to connote the sense of “household”, the term is mostly used to
connote the sense of a structural, “house.” On the other hand, the term οἶκός seems to be used to connote the sense
of “household” in five of its fifteen occurrences (namely, Luke 11:17; Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31; Heb. 3:6), or about
thirty-three percent, in the UBS text.
152
S. M. Baugh, “Marriage and Family in Greek Society,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, ed.
Ken M. Campbell, (Downers Grove; IVP, 2003), 104.
153
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “ἑταίρα,” 398.
154
Baugh, 109.
65
marriage. While adultery was scandalous for women to perform, men were given far more
leniency in the public square. Men were not as stigmatized, as were women, for their adulterous
activities.
Homosexuality in the form of pederasty was common and even encouraged by many in
ancient Greek culture (not so much in Roman circles). Monogamous marriage was typical for
Greco-Roman society and the only cases of polygamy were in periods of war to perpetuate the
race and increase the military of the state. Like monotheistic Jewish families, marriage was
ethnocentric with the goal of maintaining the purity of the patriarchal ancestors’ lineage.
Unlike modern trends, life was utilitarian in purpose with the well-being of the
community of greater importance than that of the individual “nuclear” households. Even GrecoRoman architecture shows the public nature of the οἶκός/οἰκία and how homes were anything but
private.155 There would have hardly been any concept of the modern “gated community” in
Greco-Roman society.
The Ancient Roman Family Model
Roman philosophers saw marriage and the begetting of children as the basic unit of
human society.156 Cicero thought of family in terms of being the “seed-bed” of the Roman
civilization (De officiis 1.54). The Roman familia (literally, “household” and from whence the
English term “family” is derived) was much closer akin to the Greek concept of οἶκός than our
Western notion of the modern nuclear family. Patriarchy ruled the day in the minds of the Roman
populus with the concept of the paterfamilias having absolute control/power (patria potestas)
155
Beryl Rawson, “Adult–Child Relationships in Roman Society,” Marriage, Divorce, and Children in
Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 21–22.
156
Susan M. Treggiari, “Marriage and Family in Roman Society,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical
World, ed. Ken M. Campbell, (Downers Grove; IVP, 2003), 132.
66
over the life and death of his children.157 Marriage began at betrothal and the wives came under
the manus (literally, “the hand”), or control, of their husbands.158 Despite being a highly
patriarchal society, Roman marriage was not strictly utilitarian, but romantic as well. Women
were not merely looked at as “property” or “commercialized objects” of trade as they once had
been in more ancient times and the coinage handed over by husbands (once thought to have been
the “bride price”) held primarily symbolic value. In other words, the wife became “more of an
agent than an object.”159 Furthermore, extant funerary inscriptions tended to romanticize and
idealize the lives of wives and children. Numerous toys, such as dolls, have also been recovered
from this period in the archaeological record.160
Due to the high mortality rates (normally due to poor hygiene and unsanitary conditions)
of the Greco-Roman culture, most women had numerous children. If a family wanted to have
two adult children to care for them in their elderly years then a minimum of five children had to
be born.161 For Roman philosophers, the very fact of the created order and the animal kingdom
pointed to the normalcy of the basic institution of marriage and heterosexual procreation to
further the human civilization.162
Divorce-on-demand was commonplace and could be initiated unilaterally (by the
husband or the wife) as a testimony to the trending away from the strict patriarchal structure by
Cicero’s time.163 Serial marriage became normative amongst the upper classes, typically, to
157
James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early
Christianity, (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 238–40, 242.
158
Treggiari, 137.
159
Ibid., 138.
160
Rawson, 19–20.
161
Treggiari, 143.
162
Ibid., 144–45.
163
Ibid., 156.
67
improve one’s social or political standing in the polis. Despite the common frequency of divorce
in Greco-Roman culture, there was a seeming “idealization”164 of lifelong, monogamous
marriage (the univira [vel sim.]).165 However, many in the senatorial classes (such as senator
Cato) were critical of such romanticized marital idealization.166
The strict ethnocentric aspect of marriage as seen in ancient Jewish and Hellenistic
families is not as common in the Roman populus. This was a direct result of the Roman Empire’s
conquest and enslavement of numerous foreign lands and Rome’s shrewd foreign policy to
incorporate heads of foreign clans into “buying in” to the “Roman machine,” with the aim of
keeping the pax Romana (that is, “peace of Rome”) throughout the empire.167
Roman law did not allow for polygamy, yet the practice of concubinage was normative
amongst the Roman populus.168 Homosexuality of both sexes was practiced (although pederasty
in Roman circles was not as common as it was in Greek culture), however, it is important to note
that a freed male (e. g., the male Roman citizen) could never assume the “passive” role.169 This
would have been unthinkable and a legally punishable offense (stuprum) according to Roman
law.170 This emphasizes the importance of adhering to the expected gender roles among the
legitimate citizens of the Roman populus.
Unlike modern attitudes, marriage and family (as in other ancient family models) had a
utilitarian purpose. There was no elevation of the individual above the state. Privacy in the home
164
While this “sentimental ideal” of romanticized lifelong marriage was apparent in Roman literature and
documents, it was for the most part, tongue-in-cheek. For example, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great)
was actually mocked for his infatuation with his fourth wife, Julia, by his political opponents.
165
Ibid., 147–48, 177–82.
166
Jeffers, 241.
167
Treggiari, 143.
168
Jeffers, 17.
169
Treggiari, 173.
170
Ibid., 165, 172.
68
and separation of the home from the workplace would have been foreign concepts for much of
Greco-Roman society. Homes were places of business and political advancement centered
around the concept of symposium (dinner parties), finding its way in much of Greco-Roman
architecture and in the archaeological record.171
The Second Temple Jewish Family Model
Second Temple Judaism brought several innovations to the the ancient Jewish family. The
first innovation was the emphasis on scholastic rabbinical traditions in regards to Mosaic Law
(Matt. 19:3–8). This obviously led to a variety of Jewish hermeneutical considerations and
diverse interpretations towards the Tanakh. Second, while most Jewish people during the Second
Temple period believed that marriage and procreation of children were required of them by
YHWH, a minority of Jews opted for a life of celibacy.172 Ascetic groups such as the Essenes and
Philo’s Theraputae173, are mentioned explicitly in Second Temple literature and possibly
indirectly referenced in the New Testament (cf. Matt. 19:11, 12; Col. 2:8, 18). Third, serial
monogamy was the norm and the practice of polygyny seems to have become increasingly rare.
While Josephus does attest to the practice of polygamy in the first century, there seems to be
differing rabbinical opinions toward its validity. Ben Sira was critical of its practice and there is
no instance of its practice in the New Testament (although the pastoral epistles seem to
presuppose the existence of polygamy in at least some circles as is evidenced by the biblical
qualifications for ἐπίσκοπον and διάκονοι of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα—literally, a “one-woman
man.” Fourth, while birth control was nearly unthinkable in ancient Judaism, Second Temple
171
Osiek and Balch, 193–204.
172
David W. Chapman, “Marriage and Family in Second Temple Judaism,” in Marriage and Family in the
Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell, (Downers Grove; IVP, 2003), 132.
173
Philo, On the Contemplative Life, 21–22.
69
rabbinical tradition seems more lax regarding this subject and rabbinic sources note three forms
of birth control: coitus interruptus (cf. Onan in Genesis 38:6–10), the mokh (likely, an absorbent
vaginal contraceptive similar to the modern “sponge” device typically used by an adolescent
wife to prevent fertilization and potential complications—even death—from childbirth), and the
“cup of roots” (compare with the modern “morning after” or RU-486 Mifepristone pill).174 Fifth,
while there is much debate amongst Old Testament scholars whether or not Deuteronomy 24:1–4
offers the possibility of remarriage in light of a divorce, remarriage is widely permitted in
Second Temple literature.175
Unlike modern state education systems, Second Temple Jewish culture placed much
importance on the religious education of one’s children (especially, by their fathers). The
recitation of the Shema was a daily occurrence in Second Temple Jewish households.176 Second
Temple Jewish families were patricentric and utilitarian in nature and homosexuality was
expressly forbidden and socially stigmatized.
The New Testament Family Model
Marriage and family as depicted in the New Testament builds upon the foundation of the
Creation narrative (Gen. 1–2) and fulfills the husband-wife relationship as presented in the Old
Testament (ontological equality and functional complementarianism).177 Biological family is not
rendered superfluous by the innovation of the New Testament “spiritual” or “surrogate” family,
but is fulfilled in Christ. The New Testament fulfills the Old in terms of using the husband-wife
174
Chapman, 225–26.
175
Ibid., 231.
176
Ibid., 235.
177
Andreas Köstenberger, “Marriage and Family in the New Testament,” in Marriage and Family in the
Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 240.
70
“one-flesh” union (Gen. 2:24) as a metaphor for the one-Spirit union Christ has with his Bride—
that is the church (Eph. 5:31, 32). Divorce and serial monogamy were apparently pervasive
trends in Jesus’ day—hence Jesus’ teaching on marriage and family in the Synoptics (Matt. 5:31,
32; 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12; Luke 16:16–18). This was likely due to the differing interpretations
of the Mosaic Law by various rabbinical schools (e. g., Hillel and Shammai) and traditions.
The juxtapositioning of the more traditional Judeo-Christian mores with those of GrecoRoman culture prompts Christian writers, such as the Apostle Paul, to condemn such practices as
homosexuality (Rom. 1:26, 27) and the worship of human wisdom (Rom. 1:21–23; 1 Cor. 1:18–
31). It is interesting to note that while Paul confirms the Old Testament prohibition of
homosexuality (Lev. 18:22), he does not corroborate the punishment therof—physical death
(Lev. 20:13). Rather, for the Apostle Paul, a fate much worse than physical death (Matt. 10:28;
Rom. 1:32) awaits those who habitually transgress the teachings of God’s Law and fail to repent
—spiritual death and eternal separation from YHWH (Rom. 6:23).
Children hold a special place in the New Testament and offer the “Exemplar” by which
Christ judges those whom aspire to be among the greatest in his kingdom (Matt. 18:1–4). By
issuing the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew chapter one and Luke chapter three, the New
Testament continues the importance of the ‫ת‬Ñ‫ל_ד‬J ‫( תו‬toledot formulas) and generational aspects of
family, which are so crucial in the teachings of the Shema and Psalm chapter 78.
Innovative to Jesus’ teachings is the concept of prioritization between one’s earthly
family (biological) and one’s surrogate family (spiritual—Gal. 4:1–7). Jesus teaches in Matthew
and Mark that one’s ultimate allegiance lies not with one’s biological family, but with YHWH as
divine Father.178 While Jesus commands his disciples to leave their possessions behind (including
178
cf. Matt. 10:32–37; Mark 3:20–34
71
their family) to follow him,179 Christ did not denigrate the importance of biological family.
Rather, Christ positioned earthly marriage and family within the greater eschatological and
missiological context of of YHWH’s Heilsgeschichte.180
In contradistinction to the modern concept of the nuclear family, New Testament families
were not concerned merely with self-fulfillment. Rather, the surrogate family portrayed in the
New Testament was utilitarian in nature in that it looked after the needs of the community (Acts
2:42–47). The New Testament Jesus community was to show generosity to all and especially to
those whom society considers to be τῶν ἐλαχίστων (literally, “the least, or “of least
importance,”)181 who could not reciprocate the benevolence afforded them. The “church” is seen
as one (spiritual) family consisting of numerous (biological) families.182 Families were reminded
by Jesus the Christ of their missiological purpose in the “Great Commission” passages. In
Matthew 19:28 families183 are commanded by Jesus to μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη—“[M]ake
disciples of all the nations/people groups [Author’s translation].”
Modern Family Models
American Family Models From the Seventeenth Through the Twentieth Centuries
Perhaps the family model in American history that most closely aligned itself with the
the biblical ideal would be the pre-Victorian, Puritan family of the seventeenth century. Unlike
family models today, the Puritan families were patriarchal and utilitarian in focus They placed
179
cf. Matt. 4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 16:24; 19:21
180
Köstenberger, 250–51.
181
Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, “ἐλάχιστος,” 314.
182
Köstenberger, 253.
183
While in its immediate context, this command (Great Commission) is directed at the disciples in Galillee
(even to those who were doubting—Matt. 28:17) each of these disciples had a family. These numerous biological
families make up the one spiritual family that is the church—the Bride of Christ. Through the church the manifold
wisdom of YHWH in sending his Son to redeem the earth will be made known to the cosmos (Eph. 3:10).
72
heavy emphasis on the religious upbringing of children.184 Fathers took a strong (perhaps, overly
so), proactive role in the rearing and teaching of children.185 Divorce was rare and heavily
frowned upon by the community. In regards to the highpoint of Puritan family life, Popenoe
opines, “Since Puritan times, one could say, it has been all downhill for fathers. They have lost
power, authority, control, and status.”186
The Pre-Victorian era of the eighteenth century brought the “dawn of democratic
individualism” and age of Enlightenment philosophers such as Spinoza and Locke. Locke’s
concept of the tabula rasa (blank slate) highly influenced later psychological, sociological, and
philosophical developments of “the self” and fostered the focus on the individual.187 Families
became more personal and private in nature (contra Puritan utilitarianism and the Greco-Roman
concept of οἶκός) and focus on the emotional aspects of children limited parents’ use of corporal
punishment—“a child’s will was to be shaped, not broken.”188 The philosophical moorings of the
Enlightenment celebrated the innocence, autonomy, and individualism of the self and the
Calvinistic doctrine of original depravity was scrutinized and untenable by many.189
The Victorian period of the nineteenth century (and beginnings of the twentieth century)
gave birth to classical German liberalism and evolutionary scientism, which did much damage to
the traditional biblical view of marriage and family. These views challenged the popular
Reformation mantra of Sola Scriptura and generated skepticism and doubt in the hearts of many
who had developed their worldview from the pages of Holy Writ. The conservative opinion that
184
Popenoe, 87, 89.
185
Ibid., 88.
186
Ibid., 90.
187
Ibid., 91.
188
Ibid.
189
Ibid. 90–91.
73
the Bible was bedrock in the formation of the morality in human society was shaken at a deep,
cultural level. The once a priori assumption that the Bible was the foundation upon which to
build one’s worldview was at best questioned, if not forever changed. Marriage and family
became increasingly egalitarian and romanticized while the utilitarian aspect of family waned.190
Nuclear families became smaller than in pre-industrial times as the birthrate began dropping.191
The concept of divorce-on-demand became more prevalent and marriage took a self-fulfillment
focus.
The progressive views spawning from the Victorian era gained further momentum in the
era of modernism.192 Modernism brought technological advancement and financial freedom for
many during this age. Fathers were becoming increasingly absent from the home as a result.
Factories replaced farms as men were no longer working alongside the family members in the
fields.193 With financial freedom came an increase in autonomy and decrease of dependence on
others. The social stigmas involving divorce and serial monogamy became increasingly null. The
age of the “flappers” in the 1920’s saw a marked decrease in the birthrate and increase in sexual
freedom in seeming rebellion to the patriarchal repression of the “old” Puritan family.194
Expected filial gender roles were shifting as women flooded the industrial workforce.195 The
momentum behind these individualistic, postmodern trends was only curtailed by the poverty of
the Great Depression (thus renewing dependence upon one’s fellow man for survival) and
seeming revival of the traditional nuclear family during the period after the Second World War.196
190
Ibid., 94, 118.
191
Ibid., 105, 115–16.
192
Ibid., 109–13.
193
Ibid., 109.
194
Ibid., 116, 118–20.
195
Ibid., 115–16.
196
Ibid., 122–27.
74
The dawn of the “baby boom” seemed euphoric for many as the romanticized ideal of the
modern “nuclear’ family was celebrated and birthrates skyrocketed across the country. However,
this self-focused “euphoria” would not last long with the rise of postmodernism, “free-love,” and
divorce-on-demand (no-fault divorce) in the decade to come.
The 1960’s ushered in the celebration of postmodernism.197 Values that were traditionally
held and assumed were now challenged by the Nietzschean postmodern assumption that there is
no absolute truth or objective standard for morality. The once praiseworthy ethics of lifelong,
heterosexual marriage and social stigma of premarital sex were replaced with the postmodern
mantra “free love” and the sexual revolution.198 Views towards children were changing rapidly.
Families were waiting longer to become married and having fewer and fewer children. The
watershed case, Roe versus Wade would legalize abortion in 1979 (echoing the once patriarchal
decision to expose one’s unwanted children) as many argued for the woman’s “right to choose.”
The end of the twentieth century would see an explosion in both the divorce and cohabitation
rates, the momentum of the radical “Homosexual” and militant feminist movements, as well as
the disturbing modern phenomena of the fatherless family, especially in African-American
circles.199 Individualism would know no bounds with the innovation of the internet and the
concept of the online “virtual community.”
197
While the term “postmodernism” was in actuality coined in the 1870’s and used primarily as a term to
express a movement from within artistic, musical, and architectural circles, it nonetheless gained momentum in the
writings of philosophers such as Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, and was imbued with new meaning and expression in
American culture from the 1960’s on.
198
Peter R. Jones, “Sexual Perversion: The Necessary Fruit of Neo-Pagan Spirituality in the Culture at
Large,” in Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Wayne Grudem, (Wheaton: Crossway Books,
2202), 264–273.
199
Popenoe, 34–36.
75
Table 1
Trends of Various Family Models throughout History—Both Ancient and American
Family
Model
Views on
Marriage
Views on
Divorce
Ancient
Mesopotami
an
Patriarchal;
Pagan;
Contractual
Monogamy
Rare. Only
initiated by
husband
Positive;
Abhorred;
Utilitarian
Traditions
Illegal;
procreation;
passed
Asceticism sects
Statusgenerationally
based
Rare. Only
initiated by
husband
Positive;
Abhorred; Sinful
Religion
passed
generationally
Ancient
Jewish
Patricentric;
Generational;
(First Temple)
Covenantal
Pract. Polygamy
Views on
Children
Views on
“Homosexuality”
Overall
Purpose
Utilitarian
procreation;
Godly seed
Ethnocntrc.
Ancient
Greek
Patriarchal;
Procreative;
Monogamy
Common;
Initiated by
husband
Positive;
Military/state
Ancient
Roman
Paterfamilias;
Contractual
Serial Monog.
Common;
Unilateral
Positive
Practiced; Class- Utilitarian
Beginnings of
based
procreation;
idealization
Status
2nd Temple
Jewish
Patricentric;
Generational;
Contractual;
Some Polygamy
Common;
Becoming
Unilateral
Positive;
Generational;
Religion
Abhorred;
Utilitarian
Sinful;
procreation;
Asceticism sects Godly seed
Ethnocntrc.
Positive;
Characterize
Kingdom
Common;
Abhorred by
Jews/Christians
Utilitarian;
Kingdom
Focus
(Ezra to 70
A.D.)
New
Testament
American
Puritan
Complementary; Occurring, but
Covenantal
stigmatized;
Monogamy
Unilateral
Celebrated;
Utilitarian
widely practiced procreation;
Ethnocntrc.
Rare;
Stigmatized;
Unilateral
Positive; Strict
Discipline
(Overly so?)
Rare; Sinful
17th Century
Patriarchal;
Covenantal;
Monogamy
Utilitarian
procreation;
Godly seed
PreVictorian
Contractual;
Enlightenment
Occurring;
Unilateral
Positive; Locke
Tabula Rasa
Rare; Sinful
Less
utilitarian
Victorian
Romanticized;
Honeymoon
Occurring;
Unilateral
Positive; Selfesteem
Rare; Sinful
Selffulfillment
Self-fulfillment;
Egalitarian
Common;
On Demand
Positive; Self;
Less Rare;
SelfNuclear Family Mental Disorder fulfillment
19th century
Modern
To 1960
Postmodern
Post 1960
Subjective – no Widespread,
archetypes;
but decreasing
Cohabitation
–no marriages
Negative;
Children are
burden
Cyan cells = moderate points of departure from biblical ethics
Red cells = radical points of departure from biblical ethics
Celebrated;
Legalized
Marriage
Radical
autonomy
76
Appendix B
Matthew 19:9: A Textual Commentary
Matthew 19:9200
(TR) WH NU λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ
Variant 2
ἄλλην μοιχᾶται
C3 D L (W) Z Θ 078 Maj; All major English translations support this reading.
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι
C* N; RSVmg, NRSVmg, ESVmg
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ποιει αυτην
Variant 3
μοιχευθηναι
B f 1 copbo; No major English translations support this reading.
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα παρεκτος λογου πορνειας και γαμηση
Addition 1
αλλην μοιχαται
D f 13 33 it copsa; No major English translations support this reading.
και ο απολελυμενην γαμων μοιχαται
Variant 1
C* W Θ 078; ESVmg, HCSBmg
Addition 2 (TR) και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται
B Z Maj; KJV NKJV
Addition 3
ωσαυτως και ο γαμων απολελυμενην μοιχαται
P25; No major English translations support this reading.
Matthew 19:9 is the most thorny and disputed of all the verses in the pericope of Matthew
19:1–12. Much ink has been spilled trying to either prove or disprove the so-called “exception
clause” (μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ) in Matthew 19:9. There are three variants with three additional
readings. It should be noted that the early papyrus of P25vid (Fourth century A. D.) either supports
Variant 1 or Variant 2 above as it renders the last word μοιχευθηναι.201
Variant 1 includes the phrase ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι and omits the so-called “exception
clause” of μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ or παρεκτος λογου πορνειας and does not deal with the issue of
200
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary On the Variant
Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations,
(Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2008), 56–57.
201
Ibid., 56.
77
remarriage found in the WH/NU/Byzantine Majority reading of γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.
Externally, Variant 1 has hardly any support either quantitatively or geographically, but is
possibly supported by a very early papyrus (P25). Internally, this would be the most difficult
reading or lectio difficilior as it stands in complete contrast to the Jewish expectation of
remarriage after a divorce. It does not permit any so-called “exception clause” that would render
one blameless in a divorce. It is important to note that the “exception clause” is unique to
Matthew’s Gospel appearing in 5:31 in undisputed fashion as παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας and more
muddled in 19:9. None of the parallel passages outside of Matthew—namely, Mark 10:1–12;
Luke 16:18; or the Pauline teachings in 1 Cor. 7—hint at the notion of any supposed “exception
clause.”
Comfort notes regarding Variants 1–3,
The issue at stake in the first set of textual variations is whether (1) the man commits
adultery by marrying another woman after divorcing his wife [The Jewish expectation
under the Mosaic Law] or (2) the divorced woman is put into a situation where she
cannot but commit adultery if she marries another man. The other issue pertains to the
clause, “except for unchastity,” which may be original or may have been borrowed from
5:32, where the text is firm on this clause. The various changes in the manuscripts
represent different exegetical viewpoints among the scribes; in other words, the changes
are not due to any kind transcriptional error.202
Luz adds,
[T]he prohibition of remarriage for a divorced man in 19:9 corresponds to the prohibition
in 5:32 against marrying a divorced woman . . . The almost unanimous history of
interpretation in the ancient church speaks for the “Catholic” interpretation [That is no
remarriage]. This “hard” interpretation of v. 9, which completely alters the Jewish divorce
law, makes the negative reaction of the disciples in v. 10 more understandable.203
Variants 2 and 3 are similar in that they both include the less muddled rendering for the
“exception clause” following Matthew 5:32, παρεκτος λογου πορνειας . . . Externally, there are
only a handful of witnesses supporting this reading with the overwhelming majority of MSS both
202
Ibid., 56–57.
203
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, Hermeneia, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 493.
78
quantitatively and geographically favoring the WH/NU/Byzantine Majority reading.
Furthermore, no major English translations support the reading of Variant 2. Internally, this
reading seems to be a harmonization of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 5:32. Thus, Variants 2 and 3
are to be rejected in consideration of the original Matthean text.
In regards to the Additions 1–3, externally, Addition 2 has the most support both
quantitatively and geographically. Internally, Allen notes, “This clause is not in Mk. If genuine . .
. it may be meant to compensate for the omission of Mk.”204 Addition 3 is ruled out by most
scholars due to the fact that only one MSS witness supports it (P25). However, as stated above,
the P25 rendering would be the lectio difficilior as it would stand in utter contrast to the Jewish
expectation of Mosaic divorce law. Internally, Addition 1 has the support of Luke 16:18,
however, the present active participle does not seem to fit here as the present active participle
generally denotes a durative ongoing/repetitive action.
While the overwhelming majority of scholars will side with either the TR or WH/NU, it
would seem ideal to side with the reading of P25 if, in fact, one could prove its support of Variant
1. In light of the Jewish expectation of remarriage after divorce and the usual harmonization with
Mark 10:1–12, which is seemingly interrupted by the so-called “exception clause” of Matthew
19:9, it seems best to go with the lectio difficilior even if it is only supported by one possible
witness, albeit an ancient one (fourth century A. D.). This would reconcile the text with Mark
10:1–12, and in no way diminish the unattested reading of Matthew 5:32. The English translation
of the P25 text for Matthew 19:9 would be, “But I say unto you that whoever should loose his
wife makes her an adulteress, likewise also the one marrying (the woman) who has been loosed
commits adultery.” However, since it cannot be proven at this time that P25 supports variant 1, it
seems best to recognize the Byzantine Majority text as die Textstelle for Matthew 19:9.
204
Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew,
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 204.
79
Appendix C
The “Problem” of Fatherless Families
Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Lift up a song for Him who rides through the
deserts, Whose name is the LORD, and exult before Him. A father of the fatherless and a
judge for the widows, is God in His holy habitation.
— Ps. 68:4, 5
[F]or those born in 1980, 70 percent of white children and 94 percent of black children
are projected to have lived with only one parent before they reach age eighteen.
— David Popenoe, Families Without Fathers205
The problem of fatherlessness in the U.S. is an epidemic that has far reaching
implications. The results of fatherlessness can be seen in the prisons, local jails, courthouses,
welfare lines, as well as the schools, and the local churches scattered across America. Regarding
this pervasive epidemic, sociologist David Popenoe remarks, “[A]s marriage declines,
fatherhood will inevitably weaken and children will be hurt.”206 Popenoe’s research goes on to
show that in just three decades—between 1960 and 1990—the percentage of children living
apart from their biological fathers increased dramatically from seventeen to thirty-six percent.207
Along with this statistic came a sharp increase in poverty, crime, abortion, teen pregnancy, high
school dropouts, teenage suicide, child abuse, and child molestation. Also evident is a marked
increase in cohabitation and overall devaluation of marriage and traditional views on family.
In addition to all of the societal ills fatherlessness causes, there are also spiritual ills as
well. The rise in fatherlessness in the U.S. is evidenced by the marked decline in regular local
church attendance as divorce rips families apart. The Bible proclaims that husbands are to be the
205
Popenoe, 22.
206
Ibid., viii.
207
Ibid., 2.
80
spiritual leaders in the home, yet “husbands” are becoming increasingly rare in the twenty-firstcentury culture of divorce-on-demand and cohabitation. Children are being raised by secular
daycares, after school programs, and often grandparents, rather than by fathers and mothers
teaching them the fear of the LORD.
So what has happened in American culture to bring about this recent rise in fatherless
families? Two factors have contributed more than any other—the sharp increase of divorce-ondemand and unwed births. Both of these thorny issues have a common root—the decline of the
institution of marriage.208 Popenoe sheds further insight,
[A]t mid-century, the United States was probably the most marrying society in the world .
. . Marriage has been losing its social (i. e., utilitarian) purpose. In place of commitment
and obligation to others, especially children, marriage has become mainly a vehicle for
the emotional fulfillment of the adult partners . . . Fewer than 50 percent of Americans
today . . . cite “being married” as part of their definition of “family values” . . . This loss
of social purpose is part of the broader cultural shift toward a radical form of
individualism that accelerated rapidly in the 1960s.209
Since the dawn of modernity in the twentieth century, American culture has trended
towards the devaluation of not only marriage, but children as well. The ancient practice of
exposing infants has been replaced with modern abortion-on-demand since the watershed
Supreme Court ruling of Roe versus Wade in 1979. While divorce and unwed pregnancies are
still the leading causes of fatherlessness in America, radical feminism has done much to render
fathers superfluous in American society. Feminist sociologists Gerstel and Sarkisian remark,
“[F]ew Americans define family values in terms of the traditional nuclear family . . . the
majority of American now say that gays and lesbians . . . count as family . . . Neither young
women or young men want traditional families . . . they want egalitarian relationships.”210
208
Ibid., 23.
209
Ibid., 24.
210
Sarkisian and Gerstel, 2–3, 11.
81
Appendix D
Girard’s “Single Victim Mechanism” and America’s Culture of Guilt
Forgive Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, O LORD, and do not place the guilt
of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel.’ And the bloodguiltiness shall be
forgiven them. So you shall remove the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you
do what is right in the eyes of the LORD.
—Deut. 21:8, 9
America is a guilt-based culture. A culture that once celebrated the institution of slavery
and with the looming threat of the AIDS virus covering the headlines of the media, condemned
“homosexuality” as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM). But this mentality of racism, “discrimination,” and “inequality” was
seemingly overturned with the civil rights movement in the 1960’s and in the creation of socalled “affirmative action” policies in the federal government. In 1994, a similar change of heart
occurred in attitudes of Americans concerning their views towards “homosexuality.” This change
of heart was initiated by the pressures of the “homosexual” movement beginning to gain
momentum and to spread its influence throughout American culture.
As this paper is being written, the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to overturn
the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between a man and a
woman. So what has happened? How did American mores change in such dramatic fashion? Did
American culture suddenly regain an appreciation for Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 22:36–40 and
the command of love for one’s neighbor? Given the increase in crimes and the overcrowding of
American prisons over the last two decades, obviously not!
Girard offers a convincing answer to this problem. Girard explains, “Our society is the
most preoccupied with victims of any that ever was. Even if it is insincere, a big show, the
phenomenon has no precedent. No historical period, no society we know, has ever spoken of
82
victims the way we do.”211 Throughout its history, American culture had typically seen “slaves”
and “homosexuals” as “second-class citizens” what Girard calls “victims.”212 They fit the mold
of what Girard sets forth as the perfect “Scapegoat”— outcasts, minorities, marginalized, an easy
target that was typically despised by the majority.213 Americans unwittingly exemplified Girard’s
concept of “Single Victim Mechanism” (i. e., “Scapegoating”) to victimize African-Americans
and “Homosexuals” into a “mimetic contagion” of violence and hate crimes.
As a result, Girard says the victim (Scapegoat) becomes “deified.”214 Girard clarifies,
“Peoples of the world do not invent their gods. They deify their victims.”215 If Girard’s thesis is
correct, this could explain America’s sudden reversal of opinion and mores towards marriage and
family. It is to say that one’s guilt, therefore, “deifies” the victim. The once-hated object becomes
the focus of one’s worship, so to speak. This is evidenced in the majority of opinion in American
culture now favoring same-sex marriage and the desire to “right the wrong” of inequality as
heralded by those proponents of same-sex marriage. Girard agrees, “Placing emphasis on human
rights amounts to a formerly unthinkable effort to control uncontrollable processes of mimetic
snowballing” (i. e., the “Single Victim Mechanism”).216
Girard laments, “The true engine of progress is the slow decomposition of the closed
worlds rooted in victim mechanisms. This is the force that destroyed archaic societies and
henceforth dismantles the ones replacing them, the nations we call modern” (emphasis added).217
If Girard is right, could conservative Christians be the next public “Scapegoat”? Could true,
211
Girard., 161.
212
Ibid., 1.
213
Ibid., 75.
214
Ibid., 70–71.
215
Ibid. 70.
216
Ibid., 168.
217
Ibid., 166.
83
biblical Christianity become so hated, so obtuse to the society at large, that Christians become
the next object of hatred—as was the case during the early church? Only time will tell, but if the
DOMA is overturned in this watershed Supreme Court hearing, the writing will be on the wall.
The tenets of the Christian faith will be seen as archaic, hateful, and pernicious to the society at
large. New “bibles” will be written (this is already happening), eliminating any rhetoric against
homosexuality, feminism, and other foundational teachings on gender roles that do not mesh
with popular opinion. “Christian” music will be set to the beat of popular culture (under the guise
of “marketability”) with lyrics that never mention the name of Jesus Christ and devoid of the
theology of the Cross (again, this is already happening). The timeless and paradigmatic teachings
on marriage and family will be ripped from the pages of Holy Writ. New “christianities” will be
formed—Christ-less “christianities” that worship a pantheon of gods of their own invention.
Christians will become the ones marginalized, hated, isolated, and ultimately, martyred for the
faith they hold dear.
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aland, Kurt, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis Parallelis Evangeliorum
Apocryphorum Et Patrum Adhibitis Editit. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt,
1967.
———, Kurt, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, eds., in collaboration with Klaus Witte. Text
und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 4: Die
Synoptischen Evangelien. No. 2: Das Matthäusevangelium. 2.2: Resultate der Kollation
und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungen. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung, nos.
28-29. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.
———, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger.
Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006.
Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St.
Matthew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd Edition. Edited by Frederick William Danker. Chicago: University Of
Chicago Press, 2001.
Anderson, Amy S. The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew. Leiden, the
Netherlands: Brill, 2004.
Bacon, Benjamin W. Studies in Matthew. New York; Henry Holt and Company, 1930.
Bagby, Daniel G. The Church: The Power to Help and the Power to Hurt. Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1989.
Barna, George. “New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released.” The Barna Group, LTD.
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorcestatistics-released (accessed October 24, 2012).
Bauckham, Richard. Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. “ἐκκλησία.” In A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd
ed. 303–4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “γονεύς.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. 205. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
85
———. “διδακτικός.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 3rd ed. 240. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “ἐλάχιστος.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 3rd ed. 314. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “ἐπισκοπῆς.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 3rd ed. 379. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “ἑταίρα.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. 398. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “κρίσις.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. 569. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “οἶκός.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. 698–99. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “πρεσβύτερος.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 3rd ed. 862. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “σῴζω.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. 982. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
———. “τεκνίον.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. 994. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Baugh, S. M. “Marriage and Family in Greek Society.” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical
World. ed. Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove; IVP, 2003.
Bavinck, J. H. An Introduction to the Science of Missions. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1960.
Beale, G. K. A New Testament Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2011.
Bengell, Johann A. New Testament Word Studies. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978.
Beilby, James K. Epistemology As Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga’s Religious
Epistemology. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2005.
Block, Daniel I. “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel.” In Marriage and Family in the
Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.
Blomberg, Craig L. “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew
19:3–12.” Trinity Journal 11 (1990): 161-96.
86
———. Matthew, The New American Commentary. Vol. 22. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.
———. Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: B&H, 1997.
Bock, Darrell L. Luke 1:1-9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1994.
———. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2007.
Cardosa, Jose A. “Ministering to the Divorced Minister.” (D.Min. Project, Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1984).
Carson, D. A. Matthew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 8. Frank E. Gaebelein General
Ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Clark, Albert C. The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1914.
Cable News Network. “CNN Poll: ‘Rob Portman effect’ fuels support for same-sex marriage.”
Cable News Network. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/25/cnn-poll-robportman-effect-fuels-support-for-same-sex-marriage/ (accessed March 25, 2013).
Chapman, David W. “Marriage and Family in Second Temple Judaism.” In Marriage and Family
in the Biblical World. ed. Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove; IVP, 2003.
Chester, Tim. A Meal with Jesus: Discovering Grace, Community, and Mission around the Table.
Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary On the
Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the
Major English Translations. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2008.
Crary, David. “Gay-Marriage Backers End Losing Streak, Look Ahead.” The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121107/us-gay-marriage-breakthrough
(accessed November 11, 2012).
Davies, T. Witton. Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah. The New-Century Bible. New York: Henry
Frowde, 1912.
Deming, Will. Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellinistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The New International Commentary on
the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
87
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Gates, Gary J. “The Real ‘Modern Family’ in America.” CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/24/
opinion/gates-real-modern-family/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 (accessed March 25, 2013).
Geldenhuys, Norvall. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Girard, René. I See Satan Fall Like Lightning. 3rd ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.
Goheen, Michael W. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story. Grand
Rapids; Baker Academic, 2011.
Good, Deirdre. Jesus’ Family Values. New York: Church Publishing, 2006.
Goodridge, Hillary, et al. “Hillary Goodridge and Others vs. Department of Public Health &
Another.” Commonwealth of Massachussets. http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/440/
440mass309.html (accessed November 11, 2012).
Grant, F. C. An Introduction to New Testament Thought. New York: Abingdon, 1950.
Green, Joel E. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33A. Dallas: Word
Incorporated, 1993.
Hankins, Barry. Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture
(Religion and American Culture). Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press, 2003.
Heimbach, Daniel R. “Deconstructing the Family.” The Religion & Society Report 22 (OctoberNovember 2005): 1.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
House, H. Wayne. ed. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
1990.
Howard, George. The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text. Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 1987.
Jeffers. James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background
of Early Christianity. Downers Grove: IVP, 1999.
88
Jones, Peter R. “Sexual Perversion: The Necessary Fruit of Neo-Pagan Spirituality in the Culture
at Large.” In Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood. ed. Wayne Grudem.
Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002.
Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. Mission In the Old Testament: Israel As a Light to the Nations. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.
Karris, Robert J. Eating Your Way through Luke’s Gospel. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
2006.
Kittel, Robert S. “They Shall Be One Flesh: Fulfilling The Ideal Of Creation Through The
Family.” Journal Of Unification Studies 6 (2004-2005): 46.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. “‫שה‬y
x K ‫א‬.” In The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Vol. 1 ‫ע–א‬, Trans. M. E. J. Richardson. 93. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
———. “‫_…ית‬y ‫ב‬.” In The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1 ‫ע–א‬, Trans. M.
E. J. Richardson. 157–59. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
———. “…QK‫ב‬K‫ד‬.” In The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1 ‫ע–א‬, Trans. M.
E. J. Richardson. 211. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
———. “…Š ‫עז‬.”
J ~ In The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1 ‫ע–א‬, Trans. M.
E. J. Richardson. 811–12. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
———. “‫ו}ת‬N …Š_ ‫ע‬.” In The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1 ‫ע–א‬, Trans. M.
E. J. Richardson. 882. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
———. “‫ע‬K‫ ~צל‬.” In The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 2 ‫ת–פ‬, Trans. M.
E. J. Richardson. 1030. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Köstenberger, Andreas. “Marriage and Family in the New Testament.” In Marriage and Family
in the Biblical World. ed. Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.
———. and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation.
Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.
———, L. Scott. Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An
Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: B&H Academic, 2009), 893.
Kurtz, Stanley. “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: The ‘Conservative Case’ for Same-Sex
Marriage Collapses.” The Weekly Standard 9 no. 20 (2004): 26–28.
Lawler, Michael G. and Gail S. Risch. “Covenant Generativity: Toward a Theology of Christian
Family.” Horizons 26 (1999): 16.
89
Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the
Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000.
Levs, Josh. “Two More States Allow Same-Sex Civil Unions.” CNN. http://articles.cnn.com/
2012-01-01/us/us_civil-unions_1_civil-unions-marriage-licenses-hawaii-and-delaware?
_s=PM:US (accessed November 05, 2012).
Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 42 Dallas: Word, Inc., 1990.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. The New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Matthews, Victor H. “Marriage and Family in the Ancient Near East.” In Marriage and Family
in the Biblical World. ed. Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.
———. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3rd ed.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Nietzche, Freiderich. The Gay Science, with a Prelude of Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. tr.
Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1974.
Nicoll, W. Robertson, ed. The Synoptic Gospels and The Gospel of St. John. The Expositor’s
Greek Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1897.
Nolland, John. Luke 1-9:20. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 35A Dallas: Word, Inc., 1989.
———. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Obama, Barack. “Fathers Day Speech.” The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2008/06/15/obamas-fathers-day-speech_n_107220.html (accessed March 13, 2013).
Osiek, Carolyn and David L. Balch. Families in the New Testament World: Households and
House Churches. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.
90
Pew Research Center. “Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing
Demographics.” Pew Research Center. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growingsupport-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/ (accessed March
25, 2013).
Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad!: the Supremacy of God in Missions. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2003.
Plantinga, Cornelius Jr. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995.
Popenoe, David. Families Without Fathers—Fathers, Marriage and Children in American
Society, Rev. Ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009.
Rawson, Beryl. “Adult–Child Relationships in Roman Society.” Marriage, Divorce, and
Children in Ancient Rome. ed. Beryl Rawson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.
Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.
Sarkisian, Natalia and Naomi Gerstel. Nuclear Family Values, Extended Family Lives: The
Power of Race, Class and Gender. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Scobie, Charles H. H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2003.
Simonetti, Manlio and Thomas C. Oden, eds. Matthew 14–28. Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture: New Testament. Vol. Ib. Downers Grove: IVP, 2002.
Terry, John Mark, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson, eds. Missiology: An Introduction to the
Foundations, History, and Strategy of World Missions. Nashville: B&H, 1998.
Treggiari, Susan M. “Marriage and Family in Roman Society.” In Marriage and Family in the
Biblical World. ed. Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove; IVP, 2003.
Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations: Chicago
Style for Students and Researchers, Seventh Edition. Revised by Wayne C. Booth et al.
Chicago; University of Chicago, 2007.
Turner, David L. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2008.
Verkuyl, J. Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Waltke, Bruce with Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and
Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
91
Wenham, Gordon J. “Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited.” Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 22 (1984): 95–107.
Williams, Robert. “Toward a Theology for Lesbian and Gay Marriage.” Anglican Theological
Review 72 (1990): 155.
Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 16. Dallas: Word, Inc.
1985.
Witherington, Ben III. Matthew. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys Publishing Incorporated, 2006.
Wright, Bradley R. E. and Christina Zozula. “Bad News about the Good News: The Construction
of the Christian-Failure Narrative.” Journal of Religion and Society 14 (2012): 9.
Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers
Grove: IVP, 2006.
———. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Zimmerman, Carle C. Family and Civilization. 2nd ed., ed. James Kurth. Wilmington, DE:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2008.