Tag: Imago Dei

James on Controlling the Tongue

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Spiritual Formation2 Comments

I’ll be honest. I have not always used my tongue in the most positive, and constructive of ways. I could append my guilty plea with the excuse, saying, “it wasn’t me, the devil made me do it,” but such trifle excuses remove personal responsibility from the case. So what am I to do? Repent, seek the counsel of the Scriptures, and then implement that wisdom on a consistent basis.

As in all spiritual quests, the journey is quite personal. Spiritual progress is a tailor-made phenomenon, for no two people are exactly the same and all have individualized challenges. It is the struggle of overcoming, and harnessing the impulses of our body, and conforming them to the teaching of God as revealed in the Bible that unites all men searching for spiritual solutions to their plight with sin.

Perhaps, the most pervasive struggle is the use and misuse of our tongue. This little piece is focused on providing an encouragement and to provide ammunition in the battle over the tongue.

A Warning by James

When the brother of the Lord addressed the church spread across the Roman Empire, James provided one of the most lengthy sections committed to illustrating the danger and misuse of the tongue in the New Testament (3:1-18).

The passage connects two main themes articulated to resolve a number of problems facing the Jewish-Gentile church. On the one hand, a section affirming that faith and action must go hand in hand in order to be genuine faith (2:14-26); and on the other hand, James makes the connection that a wise and understanding person is not only demonstrated by a “good conduct,”[1] but that because of a behavior saturated in heavenly wisdom, such a person can contribute to the diffusion of quarrelings (3:13-4:12).

James argues, therefore, that all members should act in a spirit of humility grounded in the recognition of God (4:4-10; cf. Jas 1:27); otherwise, they will continue to be guilty of sins exasperating the church climate of James’ audience (4:17). So James addresses the use of the tongue and the need to minimize the “heat” amplifying the problems, and to maximize “light” in order to diffuse the internal strife.

James halts the multiplication of teachers by affirming that a teacher should be a mature Christian and that a mature Christian teacher is to be able to control the tongue (3:1-2). The reason? Because, despite its apparent insignificant size, it actually wields a large span of control over a person’s influence and ability (3:3-5a).

Furthermore, its destructive power (unrighteous use) can destroy lives presently and eternally (3:5b-6), but its most consistent problem is found in its duplicity (3:7-12): “with it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.”

Therefore, James warns against “wanna-be teachers” who are too immature to enter the fray of “church problems.” Such matters are to be left to those who have demonstrated a pattern of life guided by wisdom and understanding (3:13). Such individuals will ideally refrain from acting “earthly, unspiritual, [and] demonic,” and instead will act on “the wisdom that comes from above” (3:14-17).

The results?

A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3:18 ESV)

Despite the great dangers of the tongue, James says that it can form the foundation needed to resolve conflict – physically, socially, and spiritually. Imagine just how much better people and churches we would be if we constantly sowed the seeds of peace within the congregation and among our congregational neighbors.

In James’ approach to church conflict, he highlights an important trait of the Christian involved: it must be a mature Christian who can win the battle of control over the tongue. It may not always be a perfect use of the tongue, but the tongue will not be allowed to run wild. This is a decision all Christians can make; and so, what we are saying is this: the control of the tongue is an absolutely obtainable spiritual goal.

“Excuses, Excuses”

Usually, we find ourselves under the delusion of our own excuses: “I was raised to cuss like a sailor,” “I was angry and I lost it,” “I need to work on that, but I always forget.” We could plumb the depths of the excuse abyss ad infinitum and find a defense for every one of our misconducts. But we do ourselves a true dis-service by accepting defeat, instead of trusting in Him who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 6:6-14, 8:32).

The apostle Paul says that we are more than conquerors through God’s power (Rom 8:37), and to raise the white flag is to accept defeat unnecessarily. Such determinism is Calvinistic to the core, and utterly rejects the free-volitional-will that God endowed upon His Imago Dei (Gen 1:26). A person can choose to serve God or not – it is within the hands of the person (Josh 24:15, cf. Eccl 9:10). Furthermore, it dismisses the seriousness of the sins of the mouth, which God has already spoken of as behaviors under His wrath (Prov 6:16-19; Rev 21:8).

Returning to the situation confronting the church James addresses, it is essential to notice that one of his main objectives is to denounce and expose the erroneous excuse that God has placed us in a difficult situation only to fail and that we have no recourse but to sin (cf. Jas 1:12-18). To overthrow this deception, James sets forth the themes of his letter:[2]

Knowing this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear [1:21-2:26], slow to speak [3:1-18], slow to anger [4:1-5:6]; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires. (James 1:19-20)

Such a letter demands personal responsibility in the employment of true religion. Furthermore, true religious expressed through the Christian lifestyle is dependent upon the ability to control the tongue (Jas 1:27-28). This is clearly stated in James 3:2:

For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. (James 3:2)

Chalinagogeo, the word used for “bridle” in James 3:2 is the same word used in James 1.26. It means to literally “lead with a bridle”; and among all the New Testament documents it appears in James alone. Moreover, it carries the metaphorical force of restraint and the ability to keep things in check (cf. NIV).[3]

Amazingly, James reaffirms his statement about the tongue in 1:26-28 , and applies it to the need to control the whole body (i.e. behavior and character) in 3:2. In light of this data, could anything be more clearer than the spiritual need to overcome his or her tongue?

In what way could the excuses above carry weight against the inspired words of James? An uncontrolled use of the tongue can not be explained away with frivolous excuses, nor will they stand when they are brought before the Divine Tribunal in the judgment (Eccl 12:14; Matt 12:36).

With such clear biblical data, excuses must be tossed to the side, responsibility must be taken for the misuse of the tongue, and a course of action must be taken to consistently (daily) manage the tongue knowing full well that it is “a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas 3:8).

Some Suggestions

A study like this would be incomplete without attention being brought to possible strategies to minimize the misuse of the tongue and to maximize the potential of reaching true religion with the proper use of the tongue. Some of the points come from Scripture, and others come from common sense. There is no doubt that these are but a sample of all that could be said.

(1) Check the Heart

Jesus once made the statement that the heart was the source of all of our actions. Notice how Matthew records this affirmation:

[W]hat comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. (Matthew 15:18-20; cf. Mark 7:14-23)

Indeed, we see the wisdom of Proverbs 4:23, saying, “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” Many feel that the best way to succeed in life is to expose oneself to everything that can be known, and then let the chips fall where they may; thinking that exposure is the same thing as protection. Actually, the opposite is true.

The apostle Paul penned the following inspired words: “I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil” (Rom 16:19). Two things are said here: we must be thoroughly informed about what is good, and we must be unadulterated with evil.

Layering these passages together, it is clear that the heart must be guarded against evil influences by filling it with “what is good.” This will enable a person to control what proceeds “from the heart.” Certainly, then, with a tongue controlled at its source, the course of our lives will be better.

(2) Upgrade the Filter

Have you ever heard of BTM? BTM stands for “brain to mouth” and is commonly used to describe a popular “syndrome” of sharing whatever comes to mind – i.e., you think it, you say it. Surely this cannot be a prudent method of communication.

It is enlightening to observe some passages from Proverbs and how they describe BTM-ish uses of the mouth. Note a couple of passages:

  • The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things. (15:28)
  • If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (18:13)

There is evidence to conclude then that Christians should upgrade their tongue with a filter that makes them ponder of what they are going to say. Moreover, a person can say what is on their heart without forsaking forethought when talking with other people.

Word choice – and it is a choice – is an important part of the communication process. It will enable us to speak morally, honestly, correctly, empathically, and positively. So the next time you are on the verge of a brain-to-mouth moment, pause, “hear” and “ponder” over the matter at hand before you speak. This filtration system just might be the best thing you do to change the direction of your life for the better (Jas 3:2-6)!

(3) Embrace Silence

In chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, the “Preacher” (Eccl 1:1),[4] presents his famous “there is a time” monologue (3:1-8). In verse 7 of this passage, he pens, that there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” What was Solomon addressing?

The overruling theme of this section of the book focuses upon two main things: (a) in this transient life humanity has many ways (i.e. the “a time to” statements, 3:2-8) to stay busy (3:1, 10); and (b) despite the ability for the mundanity of life to bring despair (3:9), everything is beautiful “in its time” in light of the eternal consequences of living the life designed by God (3:11-14).[5]

Now that we have established the context, the actual verse needs some clarification. The whole verse reads (3:7):

(A) a time to tear, 
and (B) a time to sew; 
(A') a time to keep silence, 
and (B') a time to speak

As seen above, from the first verse to the eighth each verse is broken down into four parts of what can be best expressed as “opposite extremes.”

For example, in 3:2 birth and death are “opposite extremes” of each other, and then in a similar vein, the vegetative imagery is used of planting a productive plant seed and then plucking the plant to end its productivity. The two lines are very similar in their emphasis, there is a time to begin life and a time that life and all its productivity will come to an end.

Ecclesiastes 3:7 follows a similar pattern, only that here the passage seems to refer to the customs of mourning and grief shown during the event of a death. Customarily, in the cultural milieu of biblical times a garment was “torn” to show grief,[6] but when it was time to overcome grief reconnecting the torn pieces (i.e. “a time to sew”) would symbolize “picking up the pieces” (for lack of a better phrase).

Likewise, carrying this pattern of posing “opposite extremes” against each other, the Preacher says that there are appropriate times that justify silence -like death- and that there are times when we must resume our daily conversations.

Solomon stresses that life often confronts us with these opposite extremities of life. One moment, we are careful without a concern in the world; and then, in the next moment, it would seem as if the whole world were on our shoulders and every detail must be right. However, in the grand scheme of things, knowing that eternity looms in the future, and we have a purpose in the world, we face each challenge with spiritual and moral strategies in place. We fear God and keep his commandments (Eccl 12:13).

Amazingly, one of those spiritual and moral strategies is to be silent or conversant depending upon how the situation demands us to act. Often, spiritually concerned individuals feel that they must consistently insert their lips into every problem or situation, thinking perhaps that it is the conscientious thing to do. Solomon reminds us – there is a time for it, and then there is a time when it is highly inappropriate to speak.

Conclusion

What can we say, our tongue is the battleground. So much depends upon our ability to control this little muscle organ. As we have observed, the use of our tongues stems from our own maturity and spiritual depth. We must be vigilant than to guard our hearts, be more patient and think before we speak; and finally, we must recognize that just because we feel we have something to say, the occasion may not call for it.

May this study be enriching and encouraging to you in your quest to live a life of biblical faith.

Sources

  1. All quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible unless otherwise noted (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Although many have suggested outlines for the book of James, we agree with John Niemela’s assessment of the organization of the letter based upon the thematic structure of the letter (“Faith Without Works: A Definition,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 6.2 (2000): 3-6). In brief: (1) Prologue (1:1-18), (2) Theme (1:19-20), (3) Themes Subdivided (1:21-5:6), (4) Epilogue (5:7-20).
  3. Ralph Earle, Word Meanings in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 434.
  4. The word used for Ecclesiates’ author, the “Preacher,” translates as a difficult word according to R. K. Harrison (Introduction to the Old Testament [1969; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004], 1072-73). Perhaps a helpful way of thinking about the term itself is in the following way, “Ecclesiastes is a Greek translation of Heb. qohelet ‘one who convenes a congregation,’ presumably to preach to it. ‘Preacher,’ then, is not an inaccurate translation of either Greek or Hebrew. However, Qoheleth (sometimes spelled Koheleth) would hardly parallel the Christian meaning since his texts were taken more from his own observations of life than from the Law or the Prophets” (William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey, 2d ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996], 497-98). For a brief but good response to the question of Solomon’s authorship in light of linguistic criticisms certain scholars use to reject Solomonic authorship see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids:, MI Zondervan, 1982), 255-58.
  5. Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985), 97-99.
  6. Several passages in the Old Testament alone demonstrate this cultural practice: Gen 37:29, 34, 44:13; Num 14:6; Josh 7:6; Judg 11:35; 2 Sam 1:11-12; 2 Sam 13:19, 31; Ezra 9:3; Esth 4:1; Job 1:20, 2:12; Isa 37:1, etc. These is not all the passages that could be listed, but these are sufficient to demonstrate the pattern of behavior.

Recommended Reading

  1. D. Edmond Hiebert, “The Unifying Theme of the Epistle of James,” BSac 135 (1978): 221-31.
  2. Wayne Jackson, “James 3:1 – A Warning to Teachers,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 17 May 2002).
  3. Wayne Jackson, “The Tongue – One of Man’s Most Dangerous Weapons,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 21 March 2005).

Genesis 2: When Boy Met Girl for the First Time

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bible Study, Genesis, Hebrew Bible, marriage, Old Testament, Women Studies2 Comments

One of the most fundamental principles articulated in the Bible is that God created the universe and that within this grand cosmos, a focal point was given to a small globe predominately covered in water – the planet earth. It is upon this planet that God organized the elements for human habitation over a period of six days (Exod 20:7). During the sixth day, the uncaused Creator made humanity (Gen 1:26-27):[1]

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness […] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

When God created humanity, the Scriptures show that he also created the first marriage, and consequently the first family. The narrative of this origin is the foundation for a godly marriage. The current study is a brief look into some of the vital lessons found in the creation of the human family – and first marriage.

The Historical Setting

In Genesis 2, the sixth day of creation is elaborated upon (2:4-25). There is a common literary device in the book of Genesis that perhaps is obscured by the English translation to which we call brief attention. It usually is styled the Toledoth formula, and is often translated as “these are the generations,” “this is the family history,” “this is the account,” or some other formulation (Gen 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 9, 37:2).

Attention is given to this literary device for two reasons – though several other thoughts could be developed. First, it is one of the clearest features in Genesis that displays to biblical students the “structure intended” by the author.[2] Second, this series of episodes throughout the book both provides a strong sense of unity and harmony within its narrative, and indicates a “historical impulse” to be understood while reading Genesis.[3]

These narratives are not mere “fairy-tales” given for ancient religious and philosophical contemplation. Instead, the biblical material is styled in such a way to make it obvious “the author intended it to be read as a work of history that recounts what has taken place in the far-distant past.”[4]

Therefore, in Genesis 2:4, when it reads, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth […],” we are beginning a historical – albeit theological – pilgrimage that starts with the historical creation of our forefathers made in the “image of God” (1:27).

Humanity – The Pinnacle of Creation

Heaven’s joy in creating humanity is perhaps seen quite clearly when we compare how God assessed the situation when humans come into the picture. In general, God saw His creation as “good” – “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The Hebrew word for “good” in Genesis 1 (Heb. tob) has many applications in the Old Testament, employed by different authors as many times as 741 times.

In the Creation Account, “good” anticipates the theme of the fall of Adam and Eve,[5] but at the same time demonstrates that the Creation as God intended was an ideal place for the well-being of its inhabitants.[6] Consequently, at the close of the sixth day, after the creation of humanity God surveyed his handiwork, and saw that “it was very good.”

Perhaps our Creator observed that all the pieces to his creation were now in place, and so now the planet was a very good place to live – God’s ideal world realized. Though not in contradistinction, perhaps we are reading a phrase of great emotion and tenderness, as the only creation made in the Imago Dei (“image of God”) now walks the earth. Furthermore, humanity is entrusted with sovereignty over the animals and with the planets overall care (Gen 1:26); humanity is thus the crown of creation.

The sweet psalmist of Israel (2 Sam 23:1) sets forth a beautiful hymn of praise to God for His creative acts, but most importantly, for his emphasis upon the human family. A segment of the 8th Psalm is as follows:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet. (Psalm 8:3–6)

No doubt as King of Israel, David had pondered over the Creation Account several times (Psa 19). Perhaps he became more intimately involved in its study since it was his duty as King to be a Scribe of the Law as well (Deut 17:18-20).

God Created the Family

Returning to Genesis 2:4, we see a narrative serving much as a prism fragmenting a beam of light into many unique colors of spiritual insight. We may focus upon many of them as we have done above, but here attention is drawn to one in particular. When God created humanity, he also created the fundamental building block of human society – God created the family.

God employed His sovereignty and created a human community on the sixth day made up of one male and one female. Genesis 1:27 abbreviates the day, but 2:4-25 reiterates and expands upon the sixth day, a common feature in Old Testament narration to focus upon a critical moment that pushes the story forward.[7] We find Adam created from earthen materials, and fashioned into a “living soul” with the “breathe of life” given to him (2:7); however, he was alone, and that was not good for the well-being of the creation (2:18).

One of the aspects of being made in the image of God is that humans are by-in-large social beings. God is a trinity; in other words, God is a community of love made of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:2, etc.). Should it be all that surprising that the Imago Dei is likewise a social being? Hardly, and God saw the loneliness and incompleteness Adam felt and addresses the matter.

In what appears to be an animal parade of potential companions organized by God, Adam still finds no animal that would be a “a helper fit for him” (2:18-20). In other words, “a helper corresponding to him,”[8] suggesting Adam’s deep need to have another person just like him to help fulfill his responsibilities of governing the creation. A companion was needed to work side-by-side, another person like Adam to continue the human family, another person to create a community of love made in the image of God.

Consequently, when no animal met those criteria, the Lord caused a great sleep to fall upon Adam. When Adam awoke, God had created a new being that corresponded to him; someone who would help him in this new world. God presented this person to Adam and he named her Woman (Heb. ‘issah), which is the logical result since she was taken out of man (Heb. ‘is 2.22-23).

Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., makes a very important point here worthy to be reflected upon:

Unlike the animals – indeed, unlike the man himself – she did not come up from the ground below but out from human flesh, putting her alone at the man’s level.[9]

Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (1996)

This was indeed a public proclamation of her status as his only true companion in the garden.[10]

Boy Meets Girl for the First Time

It is amazing to fathom how God collaborated with Adam to find a solution to his solitude. God orchestrated the events that led to the creation of Eve, and Adam knew exactly what he saw: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). We might respectfully paraphrase Adam as saying, “Finally, a person made just like me!” The event was quite literally that of a match made by Heaven.

Together, they were to share the dominion over the planet (1:26), and dwell in an environment objectively unaware of the evil uses of the sexual appetite – hence “they were naked and not ashamed.”[11]

After Adam’s great announcement of finding his companion, the bedrock biblical principle of marriage is declared in terms of a logical consequence derived from the events of day six leading to the creation of womankind. Moses addresses his post-fall contemporaries, and places a prescriptive emphasis upon this pre-fall narrative: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2:24).[12]

There have been departures from God’s intent for marriage since the polygamy practiced by Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (etc.), or whether it is the tolerated relaxation of the original marriage code in Genesis 2:24 allowed under the Mosaic system due to the “hardness of heart” (Matt 19:8).

Jesus appealing back to this Genesis narrative affirms that “from the beginning [of time] it was not so” (Matt 19:8).[13] The marriage can only be severed on the basis of adultery, and while many pollute this teaching, the Lord is quite clear on the subject (Matt 5:32).[14]

The “One Flesh” Aspect

Jesus addressed a much-needed foundational marriage issue, one that our contemporary culture is in dire need of emphasizing: divorce and remarriage is not for any cause.

When God created male and female, and gave them the garden for their home, reproduction as an aspect of life, and delegated the authority to them for the governance of the world and its other inhabitants, He joined Adam and Eve into one flesh (2:24; 1:26-28). Their example is designed to serve all subsequent generations on earth as the templar for the permanent nature of marriage (and its goals).

As we conclude this piece focused upon the first encounter between boy and girl – rather man and woman (Heb. ‘is and ‘issah respectively), it is vital to give some attention to the concept of one flesh. In doing so, there are three pivotal principles articulated by Ortlund based upon Genesis 2:24.[15]

  1. Viewed negatively, marriage severs the strongest of human bonds – parental; and as such, “elevates the marital union above all other personal loyalties, under God.”
  2. Viewed positively, marriage is the context where the male “devotes his primary loyalty to his wife” emotionally, sexually, and socially.
  3. Likewise, “the new life [as one flesh] created by a marriage fuses a man and wife together into one, fully shared human experience, prompting mutual care, tenderness and love.”

These are beautiful principles that would enrich any marriage.

Conclusion

The teaching from Genesis 2:24 is set forth before the Mosaic and Christian covenant, and this means that its teaching applies to the entirety of the human race.[16] God did not allow the creation week to end without the creation of humanity, and subsequently the family.

It was not consistent with the well-being of the creation for Adam to be alone, and God created the perfect companion to help him navigate through the world of Eden. This was the first marriage, and God designed marriage to be a permanent relationship of a “fully shared human experience” – the good, the bad, and the ugly. Human interference in the marriage is strongly warned against by Jesus (Matt 19:6, 9).

All we can do is ponder over these principles, find avenues in our lives to enact them, and allow the idealistic Edenic garden to be planted, cultivated, and blossomed in our marriages. As it is written in the Scriptures:

Awake, O north wind, and come O south wind! Blow upon my garden, let its spices flow. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits. I came to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gathered my myrrh with my spice, I ate my honeycomb with my honey, I drank my wine with my milk. Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love! (Song of Solomon 4:16–5:1)

Sources

  1. All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
  2. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 48.
  3. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 48-49.
  4. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 49.
  5. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Mark E. Biddle. (1997; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 2:491-92.
  6. William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 1:100.
  7. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981), 50-51.
  8. Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 9.
  9. Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 19.
  10. Ortlund, Whoredom, 19.
  11. Woods, Genesis-Exodus, 9.
  12. Ortlund, Whoredom, 20-21.
  13. Wayne Jackson, The Teaching of Jesus Christ on Divorce and Remarriage: A Critical Study of Matthew 19:9, revised ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2002), 2-8.
  14. Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (1976; repr., Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:67. Some, however, attempt to use 1 Corinthians 7:15 as support for divorce for the cause of desertion, claiming Paul was applying the teaching of Jesus to a new situation. While the teaching of Jesus was certainly being applied to a new situation, there is no reason to assert that desertion in 1 Corinthians 7:15 serves as an additional allowance for divorce and remarriage. We recommend Wayne Jackson article, “What Is the Meaning of ‘Not under Bondage’ (1 Cor. 7:15)?” (ChristianCourier.com), in response to this viewpoint.
  15. Ortlund, Whoredom, 21-23.
  16. Cf. Jackson, The Teaching of Jesus Christ on Divorce and Remarriage, 5-6.