What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus and Divorce: The Problem With The Evangelical Consensus
Is there a New Testament position on divorce and remarriage? Do the Gospels speak definitively to this question? It seems that many studies only add to the confusion about this difficult and controversial issue.
Heth and Wenham have sliced through the rhetoric in this careful book on the gospel pronouncements concerning the marriage union. JESUS AND DIVORCE combines a rigorous commitment to scholarship as well as a keen sensitivity to the emotional and pastoral implications of this painful topic. While emphasizing Jesus' teaching in the book of Matthew, the authors also provide a detailed survey of relevant Scriptures.
True to Scripture, this analysis takes into account the views the Church has held throughout history. Seven major positions are summarized and evaluated: --The Early Church View, --The Erasmian (Reformation) View, --The modern Erasmian (Evangelical) View, --The Unlawful Marriages View, --The Bethrothal View, --the Preteritive View, and --The Traditio-Historical View.
After rejecting the evangelical and reformation interpretations of the Matthew 19:9 exception clause, Heth and Wenham conclude that, "It is always wrong to divorce what God has joined together; what is more, divorce, except for unchastity, is tantamount to committing adultery; and remarriage after divorce is always so."
JESUS AND DIVORCE also offers practical, sensitive advice to pastors, counselors, and couples, and it points readers to scores of other books and articles on the subject.
Heth and Wenham have sliced through the rhetoric in this careful book on the gospel pronouncements concerning the marriage union. JESUS AND DIVORCE combines a rigorous commitment to scholarship as well as a keen sensitivity to the emotional and pastoral implications of this painful topic. While emphasizing Jesus' teaching in the book of Matthew, the authors also provide a detailed survey of relevant Scriptures.
True to Scripture, this analysis takes into account the views the Church has held throughout history. Seven major positions are summarized and evaluated: --The Early Church View, --The Erasmian (Reformation) View, --The modern Erasmian (Evangelical) View, --The Unlawful Marriages View, --The Bethrothal View, --the Preteritive View, and --The Traditio-Historical View.
After rejecting the evangelical and reformation interpretations of the Matthew 19:9 exception clause, Heth and Wenham conclude that, "It is always wrong to divorce what God has joined together; what is more, divorce, except for unchastity, is tantamount to committing adultery; and remarriage after divorce is always so."
JESUS AND DIVORCE also offers practical, sensitive advice to pastors, counselors, and couples, and it points readers to scores of other books and articles on the subject.
287 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
3 people are currently reading
51 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 22, 2024
Thorough and convincing.
May 1, 2025
Helpful for understanding the hard permanence view better, but ultimately not convincing.
November 27, 2012
This along with Andrew Cornes' work in the field, I believe are the best, most theologically sound and pastoral and relevant (in the true sense of the word, not the pomo or evangelical senses) works in this tremendously painful field of ethics and pastoral counseling. GREAT STUFF!!!
Wenham is methodical yet engaging... theologically sound, yet not disconnected or abstract... He understands relationships, the heart of God and God's revelation and communicates it very well. There are places in the book that get a bot technical, but nothing that will lose you if you pay attention. He is firm and forthright but with gentleness and a humility to the boldness. A really, GOOD BOOK!!!Get it and read it - study it - understand it - master it.
Wenham and Heth (who later moved away from this position) argue that marriage is permanent, as long as the other spouse lives... that is not to say that divorce is not permissible, but rather that remarriage (after divorce) compounds sin - amongst which was clearly the hard heart that lead to the divorce.
I believe that they handle Murray, and that vein (Adam's et all) very fairly, they handle the "exception" clauses wonderfully and they dismantle many other popular evangelical notions (such as the Erasmusian view) judiciously. If you want to better understand God's revelation, and how the people of God have understood it down through the ages, this (and Cornes' book) is the place to go!
Wenham is methodical yet engaging... theologically sound, yet not disconnected or abstract... He understands relationships, the heart of God and God's revelation and communicates it very well. There are places in the book that get a bot technical, but nothing that will lose you if you pay attention. He is firm and forthright but with gentleness and a humility to the boldness. A really, GOOD BOOK!!!Get it and read it - study it - understand it - master it.
Wenham and Heth (who later moved away from this position) argue that marriage is permanent, as long as the other spouse lives... that is not to say that divorce is not permissible, but rather that remarriage (after divorce) compounds sin - amongst which was clearly the hard heart that lead to the divorce.
I believe that they handle Murray, and that vein (Adam's et all) very fairly, they handle the "exception" clauses wonderfully and they dismantle many other popular evangelical notions (such as the Erasmusian view) judiciously. If you want to better understand God's revelation, and how the people of God have understood it down through the ages, this (and Cornes' book) is the place to go!
October 28, 2018
Review of the first edition (1984)
Hugely influential book in its day, although out of print now. Heth and Wenham attempt to challenge what they term the Evangelical Consensus or Erasmian View, that adultery invalidates the marriage covenant and therefore remarriage is permitted. Their thesis - that divorce is allowed, but remarriage absolutely is not - is built on two pillars:
1. That the marriage covenant is indissoluble.
2. Up until the 16th century (Erasmus), the church never permitted remarriage.
This is slightly undermined by the fact that lead author William Heth disavowed himself of pillar 1 shortly after the second edition came out.
The whole book is only about 195 pages, but its a scholarly work, so that is followed by 80 pages of notes, bibliographies, author and scripture indexes.
Of the main text, just under a third (62 pages) deals with the early church position. The first chapter is a fairly selective range of texts, drawn mainly from the work of Henri Crouzel, which nevertheless contradicts itself, because there clearly are instances of remarriage in the early church, some of which they mention. The second chapter purports to a modern exposition of the early church view. In fact it is nothing of the kind, it is just exegesis by some modern scholars (mainly Jacques duPont) who happen to share the authors' view. It does however contain some detailed grammatical analysis. Unfortunately, for much of the rest of the book, they repeatedly refer to their view as 'the early church view', as if they had already proven their point, which they haven't; so that gets quite annoying after a while.
The next 40% (80 pages) is their analysis of what they term the Erasmian View, which has dominated evangelical thought, and is codified into the Westminster Confession. They skip over about 1000 years of history, ignoring any exceptions and not acknowledging the existence of the eastern orthodox church. The exegesis of the Old Testament texts is surprisingly brief, considering that Gordon Wenham is an Old Testament scholar. The New Testament chapter is much more in depth, although it does repeat some of the grammatical stuff from chapter 2. The section on Paul is suitably detailed though. Unfortunately they have a habit of repeatedly using the term Erasmians to describe anybody who disagrees with them; which starts to sound rather patronising and pejorative.
The final quarter (53 pages) goes briefly through 4 other interpretations of the Matthean exception, which also do not actually allow an exception - at least in the authors' interpretation of them. These are certainly interesting, but not dealt with in a huge amount of detail.
This is certainly an important book for anybody studying divorce regulations in the New Testament from a scholarly point of view. And useful to read alongside someone like Instone-Brewer, which has a very different perspective. Although groundbreaking in its day, it ultimately fails to demonstrate that the marriage covenant actually is indissoluble, or that the early church (other than Augustine) saw it that way.
Hugely influential book in its day, although out of print now. Heth and Wenham attempt to challenge what they term the Evangelical Consensus or Erasmian View, that adultery invalidates the marriage covenant and therefore remarriage is permitted. Their thesis - that divorce is allowed, but remarriage absolutely is not - is built on two pillars:
1. That the marriage covenant is indissoluble.
2. Up until the 16th century (Erasmus), the church never permitted remarriage.
This is slightly undermined by the fact that lead author William Heth disavowed himself of pillar 1 shortly after the second edition came out.
The whole book is only about 195 pages, but its a scholarly work, so that is followed by 80 pages of notes, bibliographies, author and scripture indexes.
Of the main text, just under a third (62 pages) deals with the early church position. The first chapter is a fairly selective range of texts, drawn mainly from the work of Henri Crouzel, which nevertheless contradicts itself, because there clearly are instances of remarriage in the early church, some of which they mention. The second chapter purports to a modern exposition of the early church view. In fact it is nothing of the kind, it is just exegesis by some modern scholars (mainly Jacques duPont) who happen to share the authors' view. It does however contain some detailed grammatical analysis. Unfortunately, for much of the rest of the book, they repeatedly refer to their view as 'the early church view', as if they had already proven their point, which they haven't; so that gets quite annoying after a while.
The next 40% (80 pages) is their analysis of what they term the Erasmian View, which has dominated evangelical thought, and is codified into the Westminster Confession. They skip over about 1000 years of history, ignoring any exceptions and not acknowledging the existence of the eastern orthodox church. The exegesis of the Old Testament texts is surprisingly brief, considering that Gordon Wenham is an Old Testament scholar. The New Testament chapter is much more in depth, although it does repeat some of the grammatical stuff from chapter 2. The section on Paul is suitably detailed though. Unfortunately they have a habit of repeatedly using the term Erasmians to describe anybody who disagrees with them; which starts to sound rather patronising and pejorative.
The final quarter (53 pages) goes briefly through 4 other interpretations of the Matthean exception, which also do not actually allow an exception - at least in the authors' interpretation of them. These are certainly interesting, but not dealt with in a huge amount of detail.
This is certainly an important book for anybody studying divorce regulations in the New Testament from a scholarly point of view. And useful to read alongside someone like Instone-Brewer, which has a very different perspective. Although groundbreaking in its day, it ultimately fails to demonstrate that the marriage covenant actually is indissoluble, or that the early church (other than Augustine) saw it that way.
July 28, 2018
Tedious read but rewarding, it's not boring but detailed and thorough analysis has to be appreciated. Somehow dated because of the literature that is referenced at the time of writing this book but the arguments have not been advanced since, and this book is still the best out of all I have read on the subject. Other views are dealt with respect and irenic tone, plus their views seem to be represented fairly.
May 10, 2018
An exegetically rigorous defense of the "indissoluble view" which holds that remarriage after divorce is always impermissible.
Subjects the "Erasmanian" view of the Reformers, which has been codified in the Westminster Confession of Faith, to a withering critique.
In short: WCF 24.5-6 is seriously mistaken and false.
Subjects the "Erasmanian" view of the Reformers, which has been codified in the Westminster Confession of Faith, to a withering critique.
In short: WCF 24.5-6 is seriously mistaken and false.
June 21, 2019
Helpful, but ultimately not convincing, critique of the traditional protestant view.
September 27, 2021
Still the most important defense of the no-remarriage position, as far as I am aware.
December 28, 2013
Academic, objective and thorough. It presents a multitude of different interpretations showing the pros and cons. As others have said, this book along with Andrew Cornes are the best. I have read both and I was convinced by their exegesis.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews