How do we know when the books of the New Testament were written? Is it important?
In this episode of the Theology for the People podcast, I speak with Shane Angland about the dating of the Gospels and Revelation, and why the answer to that question might be more important than you think.
We discuss relative and absolute dating methods. We also look at some of the evidences for why we can be confident that the Gospels were written shortly after Jesus’ life and ascension. Additionally we talk about the Book of Revelation, and how the dating of Revelation actually determines how we interpret it.
Shane ss a teaching elder at Ennis Evangelical Church in County Clare, Ireland. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.) and holds a BA in History and Politics from the University of Limerick. Shane also served for several years as a missionary in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
The book Shane recommends at the end of this episode is: Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson. Although Shane doesn’t agree with Robinson’s theology at some points, this work was groundbreaking because it showed that the books of the New Testament were most likely all written within the first century, and therefore were not pseudographs written in the Second Century, or later, as some, like Walter Bauer, had claimed in the 19th Century.
When were the Gospels & Revelation Written? And Why It Matters – with Shane Angland –
Theology for the People
How do we know when the books of the New Testament were written? Is it important?
In this episode, I speak with Shane Angland about the dating of the Gospels and Revelation, and why the answer to that question might be more important than you think. We look at some of the evidences for why we can be confident that the Gospels were written shortly after Jesus' life and ascension. Additionally we talk about the Book of Revelation, and how the dating of Revelation actually determines how we interpret it.
Shane ss a teaching elder at Ennis Evangelical Church in County Clare, Ireland. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.) and holds a BA in History and Politics from the University of Limerick. Shane also served for several years as a missionary in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
The book Shane recommends at the end of this episode is: Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson
Check out Shane's blog here: http://anglandicus.blogspot.com/
Visit the Theology for the People blog at nickcady.org, where you can read articles and suggest topics for future episodes.
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theologyforthepeople/support
In Matthew 16, we read that in response to Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:17), Jesus says:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:18-19
These verses have been used by the Roman Catholic Church to support the concepts of papal authority and papal succession, suggesting that Peter’s successors hold the keys of the kingdom.
But is this correct?
What was Jesus speaking about when he said “on this rock I will build my church”? And what are the “keys of the kingdom”?
In a recent Sermon Extra video, Pastor Mike and I discussed this topic. Here are some highlights, and then you can see the full video below.
What was Jesus speaking about when he said “on this rock I will build my church”?
There are 3 possible options:
Jesus is speaking about Peter as the first leader of the church
Jesus is referring to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah) and the Son of the Living God (deity)
Jesus is referring to himself as the rock (cornerstone) upon which the church is based
The strength of the first view (that Jesus is speaking about Peter) is the fact that Peter’s name means “stone.” So, perhaps Jesus is speaking about Peter through a play on words.
However, when Peter himself writes his first epistle (1 Peter), he writes that we who are believers are like living stones which are being built together into a spiritual house (temple), with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, he says that we who are believers are members of the household of God, which is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).
When John (who was present when Jesus said those words recorded in Matthew 16) wrote his gospel, he made this statement his grand culmination:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20:30-31
It’s surprising just how similar John’s words are to Peter’s statement: that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. John says that this is the way to receive eternal life. So, is this confession of Jesus as Messiah and God the foundation of the church?
Here’s the thing: even if it is referring to Peter, and Jesus was giving Peter a position of primacy of leadership in the early church, it does not necessarily follow that Peter’s primacy of leadership would then be handed down in succession to whoever held his position in the future. This is especially true, since Peter’s position changed over the course of time in the early days of Christianity. Early on, we see Peter as a leader in the church in Jerusalem, but eventually he left Jerusalem. He eventually died in Rome, but the church in Rome was not started by him.
The idea of papal succession is quite a leap from this verse, and it has significant historical issues with it as well, as I explain in the video linked below.
What are the “Keys of the Kingdom”?
Keys are something which open doors and close doors. Did Jesus give these keys specifically to Peter, or were they given to Christian leaders in general, or even to believers in general?
If they were given to Peter, it is worth noting that Peter is the one who opened the doors to salvation through Jesus first to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), then to the Samaritans (Acts 8), and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11).
It is certainly significant that the exact phrase that is used in Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16 about the keys of the kingdom: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” is used again by Jesus only two chapters later in Matthew 18, when he is talking about how to deal with a fellow believer who has sinned against you.
There, after explaining the protocol for dealing with these situations, he says:
“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Matthew 18:18-20
This is spoken to all of Jesus’ disciples, not just Peter, but the final statements seem to make it clear that this statement applies to all believers who gather in Jesus’ name.
Here’s the video in which we discuss this in a bit more detail, especially in regard to this historical development of interpretation within the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches:
This week’s episode of the Theology for the People podcast is a discussion I had with pastors Benjamin Morrison and Craig Babcock on the topic of hermeneutics and Biblical interpretation.
Hermeneutics is the method by which we interpret communication, particularly texts. Legal hermeneutics, for example, is the study of how laws, or the constitution for example, are to be understood and put into practice.
Biblical hermeneutics is all about how to correctly interpret the Bible, so that we can be doers of the Word, not hearers only.
It must be said that not all hermeneutics are equally valid. Some hermeneutics are better than others. Sometimes we even intentionally use a hermeneutics in order to properly interpret something, as we do with “Christ-centered hermeneutics” – in which we intentionally read all of Scripture as pointing to Jesus, which we do because Jesus himself told us that this was the proper way to read and interpret the Old Testament Scriptures (see Luke 24:44-48).
Other examples of good hermeneutics would be “biblical hermeneutics,” in which read the Bible understanding all of the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, meaning that each individual part of the Bible should be understood in light of what the rest of the Bible says. We might intentionally choose to read the gospels through a Jewish lens, seeking to put ourselves sin their shoes in order to understand the things that happened or were said.
Oftentimes, however, our hermeneutics are not intentional, and we may not be aware of them, and they do impact how we interpret and understand what the Bible says. How then can we become aware of the hermeneutics we’re unintentionally using so that we can determine if they are good or not?
In this episode we discuss this and other questions surrounding the topic of hermeneutics. You can listen here or in the embedded player below.
Hermeneutics: How Do We Correctly Interpret What the Bible Says? – with Benjamin Morrison & Craig Babcock –
Theology for the People
In this episode Nick Cady and special co-host Craig Babcock speak with Benjamin Morrison, lead pastor of Calvary Chapel Svitlovodsk, Ukraine and coordinator for City to City Ukraine, about the topic of hermeneutics: the interpretation of texts, particularly the Bible. Hermeneutics and biblical interpretation is the focus of Ben's masters studies at London School of Theology, Nick's alma mater.
What is hermeneutics, and why is it important? Can't we just read the Bible without having to worry about interpretation?
As Ben shows us, everyone who reads the Bible has a hermeneutics and we are all interpreters, the question is: are you a good and faithful interpreter of the biblical text? If, as Ben points out, not all hermeneutics are equally good, then how can we determine which ones are better than others and how do we identify our own hermeneutics in order to examine whether they are good or not? We discuss these questions in this episode.
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theologyforthepeople/support
In Part 2 of this two-part series, Mike and I discuss the process through which the New Testament was recognized as Holy Scripture.
At what point were the books of the New Testament recognized as Scripture? Who was involved in that process, or who made that determination? What about the disputed books, and why was the Gospel of Thomas kept out of the Bible?
We answer these questions and more in this episode. (Click here to listen to Part 1.)
The Formation of the New Testament Canon: Part 2 – Recognition, Disputes & the Gospel of Thomas –
Theology for the People
In Part 2 of this two-part series, Nick and Mike discuss the process through which the New Testament was recognized as Holy Scripture.
At what point were the books of the New Testament recognized as Scripture? Who was involved in that process, or who made that determination? What about the disputed books, and why was the Gospel of Thomas kept out of the Bible?
We answer these questions and more in this episode.
Make sure to check out the Theology for the People blog as well.
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theologyforthepeople/support
The Formation of the New Testament Canon: Part 1 – Nicaea, Constantine, & Conspiracy Theories –
Theology for the People
In Part 1 of this two-part episode, Nick and Mike discuss some common misnomers and conspiracy theories regarding the formation of the New Testament canon.
What happened in Nicaea? Did Constantine play a role in the formation of the New Testament canon? If so, is there anything we should be concerned about?
Check out the Theology for the People blog as well.
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theologyforthepeople/support
What are they? How do we recognize them before it’s too late? And how do we avoid being carried away by them?
We give some examples of winds and waves in the recent past, as well as the desire to move beyond the basics of Christianity to the “deeper things.” We discuss what people often mean when they use that phrase, and how to discover and experience the deepest things in reality.
In this episode Nick and Mike discuss what it means in Ephesians 4:14 where the Apostle Paul talks about “winds and waves of doctrine.” What are they? How do we recognize them before it’s too late? And how do we avoid being carried away by them?
Along with some examples of winds and waves in the recent past, we discuss the “deeper things” of Christianity: what many people mean when they use that phrase and what the deepest things are in reality.
Also visit the Theology for the People blog.
—
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theologyforthepeople/support
Theology for the People Now on GoodLion Podcast Network
The Theology for the People podcast is now on the GoodLion Podcast Network, where you can find a lot of other great podcast content. As part of joining GoodLion, all of our episodes were updated with new graphics. Check them out:
Loved your teaching about 2 Corinthians 12 and the context why Paul wrote this. Can you direct me to the verses that show the criticism he took for always having trouble and not having visions so he was not spiritual enough so Paul writes chapter 12. Thanks
I’m guessing you probably heard this message on our radio program: Be Set Free. We recently started podcasting the radio program, which means that you can subscribe to the podcast and never miss a broadcast; each day’s message will be delivered directly to your phone. And as of just recently, that podcast is available on Apple Podcasts as well – check it out here: Be Set Free Radio on Apple Podcasts
The Answer
Here is a good summary of the issue with links to many of the relevant verses:
In addition to calling into question Paul’s motives in organizing a collection for believers in Judea (8:20–21; cf. 2:17; 12:14–18) and questioning his personal courage (10:10–11; 11:21), Paul’s opponents had argued that Paul suffered too much to be a Spirit-filled apostle of the risen Christ. Paul argues that his weakness as an apostle is the very means by which believers are comforted (1:3–11) and God in Christ is made known in the world (2:14–17; 4:7–12; 6:3–10; 11:23b–33). Paul’s sufferings embody the cross of Christ, while his endurance amid adversity, with thanksgiving and contentment, manifests the resurrection power of the Spirit (12:7–10). Paul’s suffering as an apostle is thus the very means God uses to reveal his glory (1:3–4, 11, 20; 4:15; 9:11–15; 10:17–18).
ESV Study Bible, Introduction to 2 Corinthians
What this summary doesn’t give is the verses which talk about the criticisms Paul was receiving. Those criticisms are addressed in 2 Corinthians chapters 10-12, in which Paul defends his ministry.
In these chapters it is very clear that Paul feels uncomfortable defending himself, but he does so because he feels that it is necessary to counter the narrative being spread by the “super apostles”: a term Paul uses sarcastically to describe certain people who had come around or rose up within the Corinthian church and were promoting themselves as spiritual authorities, which included trying to tear down Paul as an authority figure in the minds of the Corinthian Christians. This is particularly sad in light of the fact that Paul was the one who founded the church in Corinth.
Based on the ways in which Paul defends himself and his ministry, we become aware of what their criticisms must have been. It becomes clear that they taught some form of the “prosperity gospel” which states that the proof of spiritual maturity is triumphalism: i.e. that a person will not suffer physical, psychological, or financial difficulties. If someone does suffer such difficulties, it is assumed that there must be something wrong with them. This is the same accusation that was leveled against Job in the Book of Job.
Apparently the “super apostles”, whom Paul identifies as false apostles in Chapter 11, accused Paul of being weak, and said that his sufferings were proof that he was not as spiritual or did not have the authority or blessing of God upon his ministry, like they did. Paul instead chooses to boast in his weaknesses, because through them God receives glory through his life, rather than him. The triumphalist “super apostles” – in other words, sought to bring glory and attention to themselves rather than to God.
In chapter 12, Paul reluctantly shares about a vision he had of Heaven. The reason Paul shares this vision, which until now he had kept to himself, was to prove to the Corinthians that he did have spiritual visions and experiences. The only impetus for this must have been that the “super apostles” claimed that Paul didn’t have supernatural visions, which they apparently claimed was proof of their superior spirituality. Paul responds by saying, “No, what they’re saying about me is not true, and here’s an example – but I don’t go around boasting about these things, rather the only thing I want to boast in is Christ; I want to bring attention and glory to Him rather than to myself.”
Thanks for the question! 2 Corinthians is one of my favorite books of the Bible, and I look forward to teaching through it at some point in the future at White Fields.
Ask a Question or Suggest a Topic
If you have a question or would like to suggest a topic for me to address here on the blog, click here: Ask a Question or Suggest a Topic
A question I am frequently asked is if there is a difference between the “baptism” of the Holy Spirit, and being “filled” with the Holy Spirit. Are they two different words which describe the same thing? The answer is: in some cases ‘Yes,’ and in other cases ‘No.’
Let me explain:
Understanding the Three Relationships the Holy Spirit Has with People
Throughout the Bible, we can see three distinct relationships which the Holy Spirit has with people. I would say that there are no less than these three, and no more than these three.
However, there are various terms and phrases which are used by the biblical authors to describe these relationships, and here’s what leads to confusion: some of the biblical authors use the same words to describe different relationships!
And yet, by looking at the context and the meaning of what the authors are describing (by the inspiration of the Spirit), we can see that three distinct relationships with the Holy Spirit are described in the Bible.
These three relationships can be easily remembered by connecting them to three simple prepositions: With, Upon, and In.
With – Conviction. (All People)
The Holy Spirit is WITH all people, bringing conviction about 3 things: sin, righteousness, and judgment.
In the Gospel of John chapters 14 &16, Jesus tells his disciples (at the Last Supper) that he is going away, but he will send the Spirit. Then he tells them about the person and work of the Holy Spirit.
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth… You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
John 14:16-17
Jesus then tells them that the work of the Spirit with people is that he brings conviction about sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Spirit speaks to people, to bring conviction that they have sinned, that God is righteous (and they have fallen short of his righteousness), and that a day is coming when God will judge the world, i.e. they will have to stand before him in judgment because they have fallen short.
In other words: the work of the Holy Spirit in the world with all people, is that he is bringing conviction of sin and the need for a Savior.
In Genesis 6, God says that his Spirit will not always strive with humankind. In other words, the Spirit is striving with people, to bring about conviction of sin which will lead to repentance in some cases, or a hardening of hearts in other cases.
What this means is that God’s Spirit is speaking to people’s hearts in the deepest jungles, in closed countries, as well as to the hearts of your loved ones. It is possible to harden your heart to the voice of the Spirit, as we are told in Hebrews 4:7, among other places.
The ultimate rejection of the work of the Spirit in this way is what constitutes the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit: rejecting the work of the Spirit to bring conviction leading to repentance and embracing the Savior.
Upon – Empowerment. (Some People)
Throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament, we see a second relationship with the Holy Spirit, in which the Holy Spirit empowers people to fulfill particular callings that God has put on their lives.
Sometimes this empowerment manifests itself in supernatural gifts, such as with Saul in 1 Samuel 10, or with the charismatic gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14.
This empowerment is often described by the term “upon” in the Old Testament, and in some places in the New Testament:
“And the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon [Samson]” (Judges 14:9)
And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:49)
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)
This empowering relationship was described by the anointing with oil of priests, kings, and prophets in the Old Testament. The oil symbolized the empowering of God to fulfill a calling he has put upon our lives.
It seems that this empowering is sometimes given by God to people who are not believers, and who do not have saving faith. Example of this might be King Saul in 1 Samuel 10, or the high priest Caiaphas in John 11:49-52, who prophesied that Jesus would be killed in order to die for the nation. Furthermore, talking about the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, Paul seems to imply in 1 Corinthians 13 that it is possible to exercise spiritual gifts and not be a Christian! Jesus himself says that some people who cast out demons will not go to heaven (Matthew 7:22-23)
Furthermore, the word Messiah (anointed one) carries with it the connotation that the Spirit is upon this one, to empower him to carry out a unique mission from God: to atone for sin and bring salvation to the world. This is why Isaiah 61, which Jesus quoted in Luke 4 in Nazareth when he announced that he was Messiah, says:
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound
Isaiah 61:1-2, quoted in Luke 4 by Jesus and applied to himself
This is an important distinction from the next relationship with the Holy Spirit, and I will explain why it is so important as we go on.
In – Indwelling. (Those who have been born again through faith in Jesus)
Jesus told his disciples at the Last Supper that the Holy Spirit had been with them, but would soon be in them (John 14:16-17).
This indwelling of the Holy Spirit was something which was prophesied and predicted, but which never happened until after Jesus had died and risen from the grave.
In Ezekiel 37, God spoke through the prophet Ezekiel, telling the people about a future day when he would place his Spirit inside of his people.
Paul tells us in Ephesians 1:13-14 & 4:30, and 2 Corinthians 1:22 & 5:5 that when we put our faith in Jesus, and believe the gospel, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that we have been redeemed by God, and he see us through until our redemption is complete.
The Spirit within us sanctifies us, guides us, teaches us, reminds us of the words of Jesus (John 16:13-15).
It is incorrect to say, as some do, that “God is within all of us.” What the Bible teaches is that God’s Spirit is only within those who have placed their faith in Jesus and been redeemed by Him.
Where these distinctions bring clarity
These distinctions bring clarity to some things, for example: in Psalm 51, David, having sinned with Bathsheeba, prays: “Do not take your Holy Spirit from me.”
Without making these clear distinctions in relationship, we might draw the conclusion that if we sin, we are in danger of God removing his Holy Spirit from us who are believers. And since Romans 8:9 says:
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Romans 8:9
We might then conclude that we are in danger of losing our salvation if we sin, since God might remove his Spirit from us. However, it is important to remember that David had the Spirit with him (bringing conviction), and he had the Spirit upon him (as King to fulfill his calling).
David was not, therefore, worried about losing the indwelling of God’s Spirit, but rather the convicting and comforting presence of the Spirit, and/or the empowering power of the Spirit in his life.
Furthermore, it helps us understand how people like Saul, in the Old Testament, were able to do things by the Spirit of God upon them, and yet it seems that they were not amongst those Old Testament saints who died in saving faith (cf. Hebrews 11).
Where it gets confusing: Luke and Paul use the same words to mean different things
Here’s where it gets interesting and here is the source of some of the confusion on this topic: Luke and Paul use the same terms to mean different things in their respective writings!
Luke, in his writings (Gospel of Luke & Acts of the Apostles), talks a lot about the Spirit, but he does so exclusively in regard to the empowering of the Holy Spirit. Seriously, look into it: there is no direct reference to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Luke or Acts.
Paul, on the other hand, focuses mostly on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
So, when Luke talks about the disciples being filled with the Spirit of God in Acts, he is talking about empowerment, not indwelling. This is clear from the context, but it is also clear from other clues. A great example of this is how it says in Luke 1 that John the Baptist would be “filled with the Spirit” from birth. This filling cannot be understood as the indwelling of the Spirit, since: 1) John could not have trusted in the gospel before hearing it and understanding it (see Ephesians 1:13), and 2) since Jesus had not yet accomplished his saving work through his life, death, and resurrection.
Furthermore, it is important to note that in John 20, after his resurrection but prior to his ascension, Jesus imparted the Holy Spirit to his disciples:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
John 20:22
And yet (and this is important!), prior to his ascension, he told those same disciples to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit had come upon them to cloth them with power from on high, to empower them to carry out the mission he had given them (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8).
The Holy Spirit then came upon them on the day of Pentecost, 10 days after Jesus’ ascension.
So we see that the imparting of the Holy Spirit by Jesus in John 20 prior to his ascension was for them to receive the Spirit indwelling them, but the coming upon of the Spirit in Acts 2 was a separate event for the purpose of empowering them.
For these empowering events, Luke uses the terms “filled with the Holy Spirit” and “baptized with the Holy Spirit” interchangeably. Paul, on the other hand, uses the term “filled” with the Holy Spirit to speak of the indwelling work of the Spirit. The meanings of the two uses of the word “filled” are clear from their contexts and what they describe the Spirit doing in each case.
It is in this way, therefore, that Luke can describe believers being filled with, or baptized with, the Holy Spirit multiple times, such as in Acts 4, where people who are already believers receive a fresh filling of the Spirit, leading to even more boldness. The key here is that while they already have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, there is apparently need for fresh fillings of the Spirit for empowerment. Thus, to sing songs in which we ask for the Holy Spirit to fill us is acceptable and right, as long as we understand that we are asking for empowerment from God’s Spirit, not sealing by God’s Spirit.
Hopefully this explanation helps you as you read the Bible, seek the Lord, pray, worship, and serve!
Matthew chapter 2 tells one of the most overlooked and skipped-over parts of the Christmas story: the mass killing of innocent infants and toddlers by king Herod “the Great.”
When you read the Christmas story to your children, you might likely leave this part out. Chances are that if you attend a school Christmas pageant, the kids will not act out this part of the story.
And yet, it’s an incredibly important part of the Christmas story, because in effect, it tells us what Christmas is really all about: God came to us in order to rescue us from the tyranny of evil, sin, suffering, and death.
This past Sunday we studied this story to kick off our Advent series, “God With Us.” You can listen to the message here: “The Hopes and Fears of All the Years”
One of the most interesting parts of Matthew chapter 2 is that Matthew points out several prophecies which Jesus fulfilled. However, Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus was raised in Nazareth to fulfill what was spoken by the prophets. However, you can look through the Old Testament all you want, but you won’t find a prophecy which mentions Nazareth as a city directly. What then is this verse referring to?
Mike and I sat down for our weekly Sermon Extra video to discuss this topic, and answer that question. Check it out:
In Matthew 19 we read about a time when some Pharisees came to Jesus to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Matthew 19:3)
The Pharisees, as usual, were attempting to trap Jesus with a no-win question, so that no matter what answer he gave, it would cause him to lose some of his followers. In the Law of Moses, Moses had allowed divorce for the reason of “uncleanness.” Human nature being what it is, people took advantage of the fact that the term “uncleanness” was open to interpretation, and they used it as a loophole, which afforded them the opportunity to “technically” keep the letter of the Law, while ignoring the heart of the Law. By the time of Jesus, people were in the practice of saying that basically anything could constitute “uncleanness,” for example: if a man saw a woman who was more beautiful than his wife, he could say that his wife was “unclean” in comparison to the other woman, and use that as grounds for divorce. If a man got angry at his wife, he could accuse her of being “unclean,” because her actions had caused him to sin by being angry.
The Big Two
Jesus combatted this flippant attitude towards marriage and divorce by taking people back to the design for marriage shown in creation, adding that divorce is permissible in cases of adultery.
Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:15, gave another justification for divorce: abandonment.
Historically, Christians have recognized these two reasons as the two biblical grounds for divorce. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 24, Paragraph 6 states that “nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage.”
What About Abuse?
Certainly God hates abuse. Throughout the Old Testament, God shows himself to be a God who is on the side of the abused and opposes abusers. In the prophetic books, such as Amos, when his own people become abusers, God makes it clear to them that because of what they are doing, He is opposed to them, and He calls them to repent and actively work for the welfare of the weak, the vulnerable, and the oppressed.
However, since abuse is not specifically mentioned in the Bible as a grounds for divorce, some Christians have wondered what the protocol should be for those in abusive marriages.
What’s important to note, is that even amongst those who do not believe that abuse is a biblical justification for divorce, almost no one would ever recommend a spouse to stay in an abusive relationship. According to a LifeWay Reseach survey, 96% of pastors recommend at minimum: separation, protection (such as restraining orders), and church discipline (for the abuser) in cases of abuse.
While it is quite alarming that 4% of the pastors polled said that a spouse should stay in an abusive relationship even when violence is present, it is important to note that even amongst those who do not believe that abuse is biblical grounds for divorce, the majority do advocate for separation. Assumedly, those who advocate for separation but not divorce are hopeful that repentance and restoration are possible and are committed to a high view of the authority of Scripture, believing that the Bible only gives the two justifications for divorce listed above.
Wayne Grudem and “in such cases”
Amongst those who have sought to identify a biblical justification for divorce in cases of abuse, most point to 1 Corinthians 7:15, which speaks about one spouse abandoning the marriage. The argument goes that abuse constitutes a form of abandonment. Many people, even those who hate abuse, find this line of thinking to be contrived and unconvincing.
Recently prominent theologian Wayne Grudem, Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, announced at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that he had changed his position on divorce in cases of abuse based on his study of 1 Corinthians 7:15.
While he is still not persuaded by the “abuse is a kind of desertion” argument, he believes that another phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:15 presents a compelling argument for divorce in cases of abuse, namely the phrase, “in such cases” (ἐντοῖςτοιούτοις).
But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not bound. (1 Corinthians 7:15)
The question is, does this phrase refer to: 1) only cases of desertion by an unbeliever, or 2) cases in which a spouse has done something that has similarly destroyed a marriage?
Interestingly, this Greek phrase does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament or the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), but there are several uses of it in Ancient Greek literature, including 52 from the same time period as the New Testament. There are also several uses of the singular version of the word τοιοῦτος (“in this case”) in the New Testament.
Grudem’s analysis of the uses of these words in the Bible and in other Greek writings from the same time period has led him to the conclusion that “in such cases” refers to the cases in which a spouse has done something which, similar to abandonment, has destroyed a marriage, and that in such cases the latter part of 1 Corinthians 7:15 applies: the abused spouse is no longer bound, i.e. may divorce.
Grudem’s analysis has been met with very little criticism. You can read the outline of the presentation here, which includes a look at the different texts which use this phrase “in such cases” and what it means in those contexts, and why these led Grudem to change his position.
Looking for Loopholes or for the Heart of God
At worst, this could be used in the same way people used the idea of “uncleanness” in Jesus’ day: as carte blanche or a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. The same could be said though of the teachings of grace and forgiveness in the Bible, yet we must not reject nor downplay them just because they might be hijacked or misused – and I believe the same applies here.
Theology for the People 
