Was First Century Judaism Legalistic?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The ongoing debate surrounding the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) engages deeply with interpretations of first-century Judaism and the writings of the Apostle Paul. At the heart of this discourse is the assertion made by proponents of the NPP that the prevailing view of righteousness in first-century Judaism was not fundamentally rooted in legalism, but rather in a framework of grace or "covenantal nomism." This perspective shifts the understanding of Jewish identity and religious practice away from a simplistic dichotomy of law versus grace.

• Covenantal Nomism:

          -At the core of the NPP is the term covenantal nomism, a concept articulated by E.P. Sanders. According to Sanders, this framework asserts that Second Temple Judaism was characterized by a belief that as long as a Jew maintained their covenantal relationship with God—primarily manifested through obedience to the Law—they remained a member of God's chosen people. This relationship was dynamic and relational rather than transactional, contrasting sharply with the more common perception of a legalistic approach to salvation.
          -To break this down further, covenantal nomism posits that God’s covenant with Israel provided a narrative in which obedience to God’s commands was understood not merely as a means of earning favor but as a continuation of one’s identity within God’s community. Thus, the commandments were seen as markers of fidelity to the covenant, serving to define and uphold community boundaries. The implication here is substantial: Paul’s letters, often interpreted as polemics against a works-based faith, may instead reflect his concern about boundary markers that fostered divisions, particularly between Jews and Gentiles.

• The Context Of Grace In Second Temple Judaism:

          -Even if one accepts Sanders's vision of Judaism as fundamentally rooted in grace, which emphasizes maintaining one’s covenantal status, it does not entirely rule out the existence of a belief in works righteousness—the idea that one’s standing before God could be contingent upon both faith and meritorious actions. Evidence from the intertestamental literature, such as 4 Ezra and 2 Enoch, indicates that many Jews believed in a judgment based on one's deeds that would influence eternal outcomes. For instance, Jubilees illustrates that while election may initiate one’s entry into the covenant community, ongoing obedience to the Law is required for remaining in that status. These texts signal a nuanced interplay between election, grace, and the expectation for obedience, painting a more complex picture than just one of grace devoid of merit.

• Insights From The Gospels:

          -Looking at the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus often confronted prevailing interpretations of righteousness that Jesus viewed as overly simplistic or hypocritical. The Pharisees and religious leaders are frequently depicted as exemplars of a legalistic approach that emphasized external compliance to the Law while neglecting the internal transformation that God desires. For instance, in Matthew 9:11, their criticism of Jesus for associating with "sinners" exposes a rigid perspective that compartmentalizes righteousness. Similarly, in addressing the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30), Jesus challenges the notion that adherence to the Law, particularly when divorced from love and humility, guarantees righteousness.
          -The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in Luke 18:9-14 starkly underscores the pitfalls of self-righteousness and the need for genuine humility before God as the path to justification. Jesus's teaching about righteousness not merely as a legal standard but as an issue of the heart offers profound implications for understanding both his message and Paul’s later theological reflections.

• Pauline Epistles And Works Righteousness:

          -Within Paul's epistles, he is vehemently vocal against what he perceives to be errors related to works-righteousness. Romans 9:30-10:4 illustrates Paul's argument that righteousness comes through faith, not by works of the Law. As a former Pharisee, Paul reflects on his own earlier understanding of righteousness through the Law (Philippians 3:4-9), highlighting a radical transformation in his theology post-encounter with Christ. This struggle illustrates that although covenantal faithfulness was a principle in early Judaism, many still conflated obedience with justification in ways Paul found problematic.

• Arguments Based On Liberal Scholarship:

          -The contributions of liberal scholarship further complicate this picture. Numerous references within Paul's writings and the canon of scripture highlight a broad discourse on "works" without exclusion of boasting (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:5; Gal. 5:19). Even if some texts attributed to Paul are debated concerning their authenticity, they reflect a trend in early Christianity that grasped the essence of grace as opposed to performance-based acceptance. This pushes readers to reconsider the implications of Paul’s teachings on justification and righteousness, particularly regarding their potential reception both in his time and among contemporary readers.

God Intended Sex To Be Sacred And Treated As Such

"Reducing troth to physical sex is to reduce human sexual intercourse to animal copulation. Physical intercourse is a good gift of the Lord which ought to stay in the marriage-room of the creation. If sex in principle can be had with anyone—so-called free love—without exception elements of selfishness, exploitation and insecurity enter in."

James H. Olthus, Wycliffe Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Carl F.H. Henry editor, p. 408

Showing Mercy To Those Who Offend

“Let mercy keep company with courage. Follow my advice in this: if in battle you win a man’s surrender, then unless he has done you such grievance as amounts to heart’s sorrow, accept his oath, and let him live.”

Wolfram von Eschenbach, Parzival

Exegetical Notes On 2 Timothy

CHAPTER 1:

The opening verses of 2 Timothy serve as a heartfelt prologue, in which Paul earnestly wishes for divine favor to be showered on his beloved mentee, Timothy. In this sincere greeting, he articulates a deep desire for Timothy to receive grace, mercy, and peace from God—a triad of spiritual blessings that underscores the significance of divine assistance for sustenance and resilience in ministry. The phrase "according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus" may reveal Paul's own awareness of the impending trials he faces, including martyrdom. This foreknowledge imbues the passage with urgency and poignancy, reminding both Paul and Timothy that amid suffering, the promise of eternal life provides profound hope and purpose.

As we delve into verses four through seven, we catch a glimpse of Paul's affectionate longing to visit Timothy, a desire that transcends mere companionship and speaks to the inseparable bond formed through shared faith and ministry. Paul wishes to uplift his younger companion, urging him to stand firm against the daunting challenges that lie ahead. The mention of Timothy’s godly upbringing, rooted in a childhood steeped in the teachings of the Old Testament, not only highlights Timothy’s preparation for ministry but also emphasizes the lasting impact of discipleship and family spiritual heritage on one's faith journey.

In verse nine, we encounter theologically rich content that resonates deeply with the overarching narrative of redemption. The Phillips New Testament astutely captures the essence of Paul’s words: "Before time began he planned to give us in Christ the grace to achieve this purpose, but it is only since our saviour Jesus Christ has been revealed that the method has become apparent." This passage unveils the eternal blueprint of God's plan for humanity, interwoven with grace and centered on Christ's redemptive work. Here, Paul emphasizes the divine initiative in sparing sinners, framing Jesus not only as the agent of grace but also as the embodiment of God's desire for a redeemed humanity.

Verses twelve through fourteen reveal Paul’s unwavering conviction regarding his divine commissioning to preach the gospel amidst overwhelming trials. Despite the hardships he endures, Paul remains steadfast in his commitment to the gospel's transformative power. His exhortation to Timothy is not merely guidance but a passionate call to carry forth the sacred ministry entrusted to him. Paul encapsulates his assurance in the sufficiency of Christ's strength, recognizing that this same divine fortitude sustains both their missions, reinforcing the essential nature of reliance on God in fulfilling one’s calling.

CHAPTER 2:

In verses one and two, Paul instructs Timothy to share the teachings he has received, a directive that underscores the importance of the generational transmission of faith. This process of mentorship is vital for the ministry’s endurance and manifests the call for discipleship within the Christian community. The expectation that new leaders will continue the work demonstrates the cooperative nature of gospel ministry, indicating that every generation has an essential role in the expansion of the church’s mission.

The apostle employs vivid metaphors like a soldier on active duty, an athlete, and a hardworking farmer to bring life to his message. These illustrations serve not only to inspire dedication and resilience but also to reinforce the reality that loyalty to God will ultimately lead to His commendation. They remind Timothy—and the broader church—of the inherent struggle and discipline involved in the Christian life, encouraging believers to endure persecution with a future reward in mind. Paul's own imprisonment exemplifies how trials do not hinder the growth of the gospel; rather, they become a fertile ground for its proliferation, confirming the truth that the message of Christ cannot be locked away.

The assertion that God remains faithful even amidst human unfaithfulness provides a source of hope for believers. This theme is frequent in Paul’s writings, assuring Timothy that God's character is immutable, even when individuals falter. This reassurance invites a response of dependence and faithfulness from Timothy, grounding him in the certainty of God’s promises and faithfulness throughout the ages.

In his exhortation for Timothy to uphold integrity and pursue godliness in ministry (2 Timothy 2:15), Paul emphasizes that Christian character must reflect the teachings received. By warning Timothy against engaging in profane and futile debates (2 Timothy 2:16), Paul underscores the reality that such distractions can undermine the believer's spiritual vitality and communal health. The inflammatory image of toxic discussions spreading "like gangrene" (or "like cancer") illustrates the insidious danger posed by unwholesome dialogue—arguably one of the most critical challenges facing the church in every generation.

Timothy is called to cultivate purity and intentionality in his pursuits (2 Timothy 2:22), striving towards virtues that embody the essence of the Christian life. Paul’s exhortation to dwell on what is honorable and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8) serves not only as a guide for Timothy but as timeless counsel for all believers. This integration of faith into daily practice speaks to the holistic nature of discipleship—an invitation to live out one's beliefs in practical and visible ways, thereby becoming a vessel for honor in God's service (2 Timothy 2:21).

CHAPTER 3:

In verses one through five, Paul delivers a chilling portrayal of humanity’s moral decline, encapsulating the spirit of the age through a series of self-referential and destructive behaviors: "lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant…" This stark list serves as both a prophetic warning and a clarion call for believers to remain separate from the pervasive corruption that steals spiritual vitality and authenticity. These behaviors are characterized by an inherent selfishness that prioritizes individual gratification over communal and divine responsibilities. Paul’s use of “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” suggests a spiritual blindness that occurs when temporary desires supplant genuine devotion, leading to a hollow faith devoid of true commitment.

Verse thirteen introduces the concept of judicial hardening, where a continued disregard for God's grace leads to a gradual surrender to moral decay. This idea is especially relevant in the context of Romans 1:24-26, where Paul illustrates how the rejection of God's truth results in abandonment to sin. The downward spiral described emphasizes the dire consequences of a hardened heart: individuals not only cultivate their sin but also become incapable of recognizing or responding to God's redemptive overtures. This sobering truth is a reminder for believers to remain vigilant against complacency in their own faith and moral practices.

Moreover, in addressing the inspiration and utility of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), an insightful distinction is made. Rather than viewing "every Scripture" as an isolated entity, lasting insights emerge when affirming that "all Scripture is inspired by God." This interpretation strengthens the understanding that the entirety of Scripture—being divinely breathed—carries intrinsic authority and valuable application for teaching and moral correction. The writings of Paul advocate for a recognition of the Old Testament's authority, framing it as the wellspring from which the New Testament's revelations emerge. This serves as a foundational belief for the church, promoting the use of Scripture for reproof, correction, and training in righteousness—a holistic approach aimed at molding believers into mature followers of Christ.

CHAPTER 4:

As Paul unrolls the final chapter of his epistle, he exhorts Timothy to remain vigilant in upholding the truth of the gospel in the face of growing apostasy. The caution about people seeking to "have their ears tickled" (2 Timothy 4:3-4) anticipates the challenge of sound doctrine amidst a culture inclined towards preference-driven spirituality. Paul’s recognition of the historical presence of false teachers, identified in earlier admonitions about individuals like Hymenaeus and Alexander, reinforces the timeliness of his warning and highlights the ongoing battle for the integrity of the faith.

Acknowledging the nearness of his martyrdom, Paul employs the metaphor of a libation—a wine offering ceremonially poured out before God—to articulate the sacrificial nature of his life and ministry. This imagery deepens the understanding of his impending execution, framing it not as a tragic end, but as a precious and acceptable offering to God. Paul's unwavering confidence in receiving a "crown of righteousness" speaks to his deep-seated belief in divine justice and reward, embodying the hope for all believers who remain steadfast amidst trials (2 Timothy 4:8).

Paul's assurance of divine sustenance amidst suffering reflects the broader promise found in 2 Peter 3:9, revealing the nature of God’s patience and desire for universal reconciliation. This provides Timothy—and ultimately all readers—with comfort and assurance, reinforcing the need for perseverance in faith.

The thematic exploration of heavenly rewards, notably examined by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, invites believers to move beyond mere speculation about the nature of heavenly glory to engage with the profound truth the rewards convey about God’s ultimate purpose. The symbols of crowns, harps, and gold serve as metaphors for the indescribable joy awaiting the faithful, challenging readers to grasp the reality of eternal satisfaction that dwarfs earthly ambitions.

Finally, Paul’s request for Timothy to bring his overcoat and his books (2 Timothy 4:13) presents an endearing glimpse into the apostle’s character. This request mirrors a lifelong commitment to learning and ministry, even as his earthly journey nears its conclusion. It serves as a poignant reminder for believers to prioritize their spiritual growth and to steadfastly pursue knowledge as they navigate the complexities of life.

The mention of Alexander the Coppersmith in this context, with its possible connections to Acts 19:33 and 1 Timothy 1:20, highlights the reality of opposition in the gospel ministry. Paul’s proclamation that God would repay Alexander for his actions reaffirms the principle of divine justice that offers peace of mind, urging believers to release the burden of vengeance and trust in God's ultimate righteousness. In this intricate tapestry of mentorship, endurance, and divine purpose, Paul lays out an enduring framework for all who seek to follow Christ faithfully.

Emphasizing the Importance of Courage

"Courage is not simply one of the virtues but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky."

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Letter 29

Do Matthew 5:43-45 And Matthew 19:16 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to address a few arguments made by Tim Staples against Sola Fide. He appeals to the command to love one's neighbor and the parable of the rich young ruler as biblical evidence for the Roman Catholic position on justification. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "The inspired author here quotes Jesus Christ as using a purpose clause in Greek—hotos genesthe huioi tou patros humon to en ouranois—“in order that you may be made sons of your Father in heaven.” That means, in simple terms, you have to do this (love your enemies and pray for your persecutors) in order for that (being made sons of your Father) to become a reality. It really doesn’t get any plainer than that."

          The Holy Spirit pours the love of God into our hearts through His grace. That is related to our justification before God. However, this act of the Spirit is not to be conflated with such an instance. The manifestation of love in our lives demonstrates that we have been declared righteous by God.

          "When Jesus spoke to the rich young man, he was equally clear that it is not enough to believe in him (Christ) to have eternal life. That is part of it (John 3:16). But Jesus says it is also necessary to “keep the commandments” and “sell what you possess . . . and follow” him."

          A young man who was wealthy approached Jesus Christ and asked Him about what kind of works that he needed to accomplish in order to obtain eternal life (Matthew 19:16). He clearly wanted to earn a right standing before God. In response, Christ revealed that the individual fell short of meeting God's perfect standard of obedience to the Law (Matthew 19:21-22). That is true of us all (Romans 3:23). The disciples marveled at this encounter (Matthew 19:25). He concluded the conversation by reinforcing the fact of the impossibility of salvation apart from the work of God (Matthew 19:26). Rather than refuting justification by faith alone, this passage actually affirms that doctrine.

Early Church Evidence Against Transubstantiation

"Moreover, among the Tauri of Pontus, and to the Egyptian Busiris, it was a sacred rite to immolate their guests, and for the Galli to slaughter to Mercury human, or rather inhuman, sacrifices. The Roman sacrificers buried living a Greek man and a Greek woman, a Gallic man and a Gallic woman; and to this day, Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder; and, what is worthy of the son of Saturn, he is gorged with the blood of an evil and criminal man. I believe that he himself taught Catiline to conspire under a compact of blood, and Bellona to steep her sacred rites with a draught of human gore, and taught men to heal epilepsy with the blood of a man, that is, with a worse disease. They also are not unlike to him who devour the wild beasts from the arena, besmeared and stained with blood, or fattened with the limbs or the entrails of men. To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food."

The Octavius of Minucius Felix, Chapter XXX

The "Spirit of God" Or "Wind" In Genesis 1:2?

Genesis 1:1–2 speaks of more than just the act of creation. The text identifies the Creator as “God” and immediately thereafter indicates the possibility of another person of the Godhead at work: “the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters.” The phrase “Spirit of God” (יםִ להֱ אַ רוּח) occurs only fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible and appears always to be a reference to a person, not a wind. In addition, יםִ להֱ א never occurs as an adjective in the Creation account—it always refers to God.8 The evidence is so overwhelming that Hildebrandt reaches a conclusion commensurate with that of Moltmann regarding the personhood of the Spirit of God: “The personhood of God the Holy Spirit is the loving, self-communicating, out-fanning and out-pouring presence of the eternal divine life of the triune God.”9 However, Hildebrandt then warns that taking this too far might lead to “speculative intrusion into the OT references,” since the full development of the personhood of the Spirit of God awaits the NT revelation.10 This hesitation to make the commitment to seeing a divine person as “the Spirit of God” in the second verse of Genesis arises even among some of the strongest evangelical theologians. Merrill, for example, concludes that “The Spirit is to be understood here as an effect of God and not yet, as in New Testament and Christian theology, the third Person of the triune Godhead.”11 

Why the disagreements and even the hesitation to identify “the Spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2 as a person of the Godhead? Part of the resistance comes from the thinking that the interpreter must give due recognition to the ANE setting for the writing of Genesis and its Creation account.12 Is that how we must read Genesis? Must we limit ourselves to the way that pagan, unbelieving, idolatrous ANE cultures viewed God (or, gods)? To yield to this hermeneutic requires one to degrade and even destroy the significant difference between genuine believers in the true God and those who ridicule them for their faith. Their worldviews are (and were) very different. Their value systems are opposed. A rough equivalent in our own day would be to insist that future readers of evangelical books should read them as though evangelicals have adopted the prevailing worldview or Zeitgeist—that our theology and morality actually coincide with non-Christian philosophy and (im)morality in the twenty-first century. If we would scream, “Foul!,” so would the OT writers. Many who write as Hildenbrandt does only intend that we recognize that the OT writers are reacting to and interacting with the unbelieving culture of their day, not adopting the beliefs expressed by pagan myths. However, it doesn’t always come out sounding or smelling that way, especially when someone insists that there is no way that “the Spirit of God” in Genesis 1:2 could be a person of the Godhead, because such a concept was totally foreign to the ANE cultures among whom the Hebrew writers dwelt. 

One must also look at Genesis 6:3 where God refers to “My Spirit.” Hildebrandt’s treatment of this text detours into later revelation before reaching a conclusion. He seeks to place the reference in a context of divine judgment as expressed throughout the OT. He still comes to a result identifying the Spirit as a personal being, but not as independently as the decision he made in 1:2.

William D. Barrick, Divine Persons in Genesis: Theological Implications, p. 3-4

An Exegetical Analysis Of Ephesians 2:8-9

        "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

        The Apostle Paul begins this chapter by describing how the world is in terms of its standing before God. Man is utterly lost, under divine judgment for sin. Man in his natural state is enslaved to Satan, living in lawlessness and perusing fleshly desires. But God in His love and graciousness has offered to us a path of redemption. We are set free from sin and death through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is life to us. It is not because we loved God, but Him having first loved us, that He reached out to us. We are powerless to change our sinful condition by ourselves. In this passage, Paul evidently made use of themes found in the Old Testament which relate to the giving of the Promised Land. Moses said to the Israelites before they crossed into the place God had given to them:

        "Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; And when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; Then thine heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage; Who led thee through that great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day." (Deuteronomy 8:11-18, emphasis added)

        Moses again sternly warned the Jews not to become big-headed because of what God did for them. He used repetition so that his hearers would not misjudge or misconstrue what was going on around them. The broader point was that the Jews did not create for themselves a nation by their own wit, prowess, or exertion. All of the good things which happened to them were a result of God's covenant faithfulness:

        "Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee. Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people." (Deuteronomy 9:3-6, emphasis added)

        God promised that He was going to grant His chosen people blessings. He ensured that the Jews would remain prosperous and secure. God continually watched over His people. He continually provided for the needs of His people. He was not, however, carrying through with His oath to their ancestors because of righteous conduct. Rather, God was working things out according to His divine purpose and plan. He was not blessing Israel because of anything praiseworthy about these people, for they had went after foreign gods and put Him to the test. The Jews were indeed a rebellious people against Him, just like the rest of us. God accomplished great things on their behalf in spite of them being unrighteous. For that reason, there was no grounds for the Jews to boast or become prideful. He wanted them to place their trust in Him. This testifies to the graciousness and mercy of the Lord. 

        Likewise, God offered up His Son Jesus Christ as a sacrifice to make atonement for our sins. He did so, not because of any righteousness that we have, but in spite of our unrighteousness. We have all sinned against Him. We have all broken His Law. Thus, we neither deserve His grace nor His salvation. None of us are worthy of entering the kingdom of God. His offer of eternal life is available without cost to all who come by faith. Justification in His sight is not accomplished by our merits and power, but by God Himself. He wants us to lean on Him. He gives to believers His righteousness. He saves us because He is loving and merciful. There is no room for Christians in this framework to boast, since it is God who pours new life on to our souls through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is He who removes the stains of sin from us. We are not justified by works of righteousness, but by His grace.

        Compare the phrase "lest anyone should boast" in Ephesians 2:9 with the language of 1 Corinthians 1:28-29: "and the insignificant things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no human may boast before God." It is clear that God despises the pride or exaggerated sense of greatness that is so common to man. He listens to the humble of heart. God uses ordinary people to bring down those who are puffed-up and perceive themselves to be mighty. He uses us to bring glory to Himself. God oftentimes does not operate in ways that we would expect. He takes pleasure in forgiving our trespasses against Him. 

        Why would anyone boast before God? Sin is insane and foolish. It gives one a distorted sense of reality, which results in futile behavior. The Apostle Paul wrote elsewhere that people who fail to recognize God for who He is become senseless in their reasoning and worship created entities rather than Himself (Romans 1:21-25). That is a most unnatural scenario to happen. Paul's words about the exclusion of boasting find their backdrop in the words of the Weeping Prophet Jeremiah: "This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom or the strong boast of their strength or the rich boast of their riches, but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord" (Jeremiah 9:23-24). God's blessings are acts of divine grace, not human merit.

When Did Marriage Become A Sacrament?

Divorce, Annulment & Communion
An Orthodox Theologian Weighs In
By David Bentley Hart

Neither, for several centuries after the Apostolic Age, did any Christian theological authority think of marriage as a sacrament in our sense. Augustine (354–430) thought it might be described as a sacramentum in the proper acceptation of the Latin word: a solemn and binding oath before God. But even then, although he took the term chiefly from Jerome’s rendering of Ephesians 5:32, he certainly did not number matrimony among the saving “mysteries” of the church, alongside baptism and the Eucharist. Neither did anyone else, for many, many years. Even the great Church Fathers tended to treat marriage as little more than a civil institution, no different in kind for Christians than for non-Christians. One need only look, for example, at John Chrysostom’s fifty-sixth homily (on the second chapter of Genesis) to see how unacquainted even a late-fourth-century theologian of the highest eminence was with any concept of “holy” matrimony. And, inasmuch as they thought of marriage chiefly as a natural fact rather than as a sacred vocation, the Christians of late antiquity did not treat it as a theological topic.

In his Commentary on Matthew, for example, Origen (ca. 184–253) notes that many of the bishops of his time permitted both divorce and remarriage among the faithful. Canon 11 of the Council of Arles (314) recommends that a divorced man not remarry so long as his former wife still lives, but also grants that, for healthy young men incapable of the continence this would require of them, remarriage may prove necessary. Basil the Great (ca. 330–379) instructed Amphilochius of Iconium to allow men abandoned by their wives to remarry without penalty...Even Augustine, while firmly convinced that marriage should as a rule be indissoluble, nonetheless confessed in his Retractiones that he had no final answer on the issue.

To be honest, many modern believers would be shocked to learn how late in Christian history a clear concept of marriage as a religious institution evolved, and how long it took for it to be absolutely distinguished from what would come to be thought of as common-law unions, or for the church to insist on its solemnization in all cases. They would be even more disturbed, I imagine (as much on democratic principles as religious), to discover that throughout much of the Middle Ages the whole issue of wedlock certified by the church concerned mostly the aristocracy, inasmuch as marriage was chiefly a matter of property, inheritance, and politics. As far as we can tell, among the peasantry of many lands, and for many centuries, marital union was a remarkably mercurial sort of arrangement, one that coalesced and dissolved with considerable informality, as circumstances dictated. And the clergy did not, for the most part, give a damn.

Really, when one looks at it closely, in light of both the empirical facts and the abstract principles of the matter, the distinction between divorce and annulment is specious all the way down. For one thing, as regards actual cases on the ground, anyone who has seen a sufficient number of annulments at close quarters (and I have witnessed quite a few) knows that they are not only fairly easy to obtain for those willing to make the effort, but that the terms governing them are applied with such plasticity that it is difficult to see how any marriage could fail to meet the standards. True, abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not do away with proper use); but, in fact, there really is no abuse involved. The very concept of annulment, as something ontologically distinct from divorce, is logically incoherent, and really can be taken seriously only by a mind so absolutely indoctrinated to believe that the Roman Catholic Church does not tolerate divorce and remarriage that no evidence to the contrary can alter that conviction.

The very premise that a marriage can be pronounced null and void, in effect retroactively (since that same marriage would be regarded as real and legitimate if suit for annulment had never been brought forward), on the grounds of some original defect of intention that means it was never a real marriage to begin with (though again, it would be considered a real marriage if that defect were never exposed), basically provides a license to regard every marriage as provisional only. After all, in what union of a man and a woman could one not detect some crucial defect of original intention if one were to seek it? Moreover, if one looks at the criteria customarily used to prove that a marriage was never really a marriage, they scarcely differ at all from the criteria that the Orthodox Church—in principle, at least—is supposed to accept as legitimate grounds for divorce. And what is a divorce, after all, other than a recognition that the original marriage was contracted in ignorance and without full mutual commitment to everything a true marriage is?

It might make Catholics feel better about their Eastern brethren if the Orthodox Church called these separations “annulments,” and issued formal absolutions from wedding vows under such terms. I have to say, however, that I am glad it does neither. To my mind, the concept of annulment is not only specious and logically contradictory, but also somewhat insidious—in fact, often rather cynical and cruel. It is terrible enough when a marriage—something on which a man and a woman, at what is usually a fairly innocent moment in their lives, have staked their futures and their hopes for happiness—falls apart. It is somehow all the more terrible when, solely for the sake of avoiding institutional embarrassment, we are asked to indulge in the fiction that it was never a real marriage to begin with.

I know of a woman whose well-connected husband managed to obtain an annulment without her consent, and on grounds that would have scarcely qualified him as a plaintiff before a secular divorce court. And I happen to know that, of the two, he was the far more culpable in the matter. What she found bitterest of all in the final settlement was that, according to her church, no one was obliged to admit that her life as a wife and mother of twenty-six years—in a union freely contracted, sacramentally solemnized, physically and fruitfully consummated—had broken apart.

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/divorce-annulment-communion