Divorce and Remarriage

In his final chapter Jones continues with the theme of marriage and discusses divorce and remarriage. Here Jones again brings the ideas of covenant into play while discussing the issue. It becomes apparent based on the Mosaic teaching, Jesus’ teaching and the Apostle Paul’s teachings on divorce and remarriage that there is general agreement but not absolute agreement between the three. This is how covenant helps to show the reasons for seeming differences, regardless of how small, between Moses, Jesus and Paul.

Ultimately, all three of the rules regarding remarriage and divorce have a singularly common and root issue. The rejection of the covenant of marriage. In Jesus’ teachings a man and woman can only divorce on grounds of adultery, but to Paul, a believing spouse may remarry after being left by an unbeliever. Jones asks the brilliant and helpful question here, “Why?” In the teaching of Jesus, divorce is allowed when adultery takes place, but what is adultery? Jones explains it as a willful and radical violation of the marriage covenant.  Then he moves on to the issue of abandonment of a believing spouse by a non-believer and concludes that this reason is also permitable because abandonment is a willful and radical violation of the marriage covenant. This was very helpful because, as Jones modeled throughout the book, the main goal of ethics is to determine the intention behind a command (i.e. the root issue at stake) and then form Biblically shaped positions based on that reasoning.

In all I really enjoyed Jones’ book, it was certainly much more of a book about forming Biblical ethics rather than using biblical ethics to resolve ethical problems. Jones spent almost no time on the issues of homosexuality, abortion, the environment or the evils of capitalism. But what he did do was argue for, explain, defend and teach a method which allows one to form biblical views on said positions and for that I am grateful. I would much rather be shown and taught a way to understanding rather than simply given a list of things that I should approve or disapprove of. So in that respect, Jones’ book was both highly practical, pastoral and helpful. It was a pleasure to read and interact with. I recommend it highly.

Marriage and the Family

Jones’ eighth chapter is concerned with “Marriage and Family” but not in the strictly individual sense, but rather in the family as a social structure.

Jones establishes that the entirety of Scripture and even throughout all cultures and times, the family is understood to be the basic social structure. It is through this basic social structure that Jones believes Christians can be both a witness and an agent of transformation towards the culture. Because of this, Jones sets out some basic Christian understandings of the family.

In doing this, Jones decides to first look at the Christian marriage as a covenant. He claims that the bond of male and female into a marriage is the creational mandate for marriage. As in other ancient covenants, the man and woman bind themselves to one another and even take on specific blessings and curses to an extent (i.e. for better or for worse). The covenant of marriage is an unconditional “royal grant” covenant in the sense that each person is giving themselves to the other and promising to never leave or forsake the other, “until death.”

He also takes a great deal of time discussing the roles within marriage, explaining that men and women have different but complimentary roles that are ordained by God. This of course is coming at things from a complimentarian viewpoint but I found this section to be very well written explaining that for men and women to have different God-ordained roles does not mean that in order for Christians to have a biblical marriage, they must be hardworking men and housekeeping women. This is not the point of complimentarianism in the eyes of Jones. To say that men and women have different roles is simply to point out the differences in genetics and function that a husband and wife have together.

Ultimately what Jones calls Christian couples to is a loving and life-long marriage in which they love each other well, have children who they love and raise in the Lord. By doing this, Jones’ argues that Christians will be able to transform and witness to the fallenness of the world at its very fundamental social level. To say that I enjoyed this chapter would be an understatement. In reality, this chapter actually made me think about what type of husband and father I would like to be someday.

The Resolution of Moral Conflicts

Jones titles his seventh chapter, “The Resolution of Moral Conflicts.” The chapters purpose is more of a “how to” resolve moral conflicts rather than a chapter resolving all moral conflicts. Jones goes through the many different types of ethical systems which offer ways to deal with these moral dilemmas. The first he examines is consequentialism.

In this system, “an act is right if it is intended to produce a greater balance of good over evil than any available option.” Jones describes current views on consequentialism and its close relation to utilitarianism. He interestingly notes that consequentialism claims to do away with moral dilemmas but in reality it only propagates them. The fundamental aspect of consequentialism is attempting to do the most good in each situation, not only for the individual but also for all of humanity. Jones correctly points out that, “One could never be sure of doing the right thing if it depended upon a balance of good over evil weighed in such a scale.” Jones therefore concludes that consequentialism is not the method one should take in resolving moral conflicts because it is impossible to know precisely what action will produce the most good. I found this to be very persuasive. Although I often use a consequential lens to consider what the right thing to do is, I had never considered my incredibly underwhelming knowledge of the consequences.

The second system is described by Jones as “Tragic Morality,” which is the theory more popularly known as “the lesser of two evils.” He cites J.I. Packer accepting this reality which states that in a fallen world, people are sometimes faced with a choice between two sinful options and the least sinful one must be chosen. He also cites John Warwick Montgomery as using a situation where you are faced with the decision to kill a sniper in order to save the lives of his victims. However, Jones points out that Montgomery is makes the mistake of assuming that the taking of human life is always wrong. Jones argues that to take a life in order to bring about public justice or the like is in no way wrong.

Jones eventually goes on to note that the incorrect assumption behind this model is that it makes sin necessary in some situations. In fact, Jones argues, “To hold that in a fallen world situations arise that make sin unavoidable renders the example of Jesus meaningless, for either he sinned…or else he never faced a really tough moral situation, and so was not tested at all points like us.” I found this to be very compelling. In either situation, there is much lost from the obedience and righteousness of Jesus and that is something no one wants to cause.

Jones moves on to critiquing “hierarchicalism” and “prima facie duties” in the next section. In spite of helpful things in both, Jones ultimately rejects them as still setting up systems in which sin is inevitable in certain circumstances. This brings Jones to his solution to these rejected systems. He argues for what he calls “case analysis,”  which he defines as, “the careful, devout effort to discover by reflection and discussion, the right course of action in typical circumstances.” This system claims to look to the whole of Scripture and the context of laws within the larger story of redemption to determine what is right or wrong in a given case. This I found to be very helpful because it looks to all of Scripture and shows that there are times in which we can look toward the motive of a law, or redemptive context of a command, in order to understand its application today.

The Universal Norms of Love

After having discussed the “forms of love” Jones spends the next chapter describing the “norms of love.” His discussion begins with the Ten Commandments, a brief history on the way they have been understood throughout Roman Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Reformed, Orthodox and Anglican Traditions. But the questions still begs, “Do the Ten Commandments apply to Christian today? Aren’t Christians under the new covenant?” Jones does a wonderful job of providing an answer to this question. He points out that in Romans 1 Gentiles are shown to be guilty without special revelation of God’s law because it is a natural law, they knew better. Therefore it can be understood that God’s law is the will of God for human life and because of this, the commandments still have a particular function in the life of the church.

However, this function is now slightly modified. While under the old covenant, the commandments functioned as stipulations that must be kept in order to remain in good standing with God and within the covenant people, now that the new covenant has come; the commandments no longer determine our standing with the people of God. Our obedience to the Ten Commandments is important, and good, but it is not the grounds for our right standing within the covenant family. The Christian understands God’s law to be directive and helpful in determining God’s will for their behavior and life as redeemed people.

This was one of the most helpful things that I’ve read in this book. For a long time in my Christian life I wasn’t sure what to do with the Old Testament laws. Are they still binding on the Christian? What about food and dietary laws? Jones does an excellent job answering the first question however; I wish that he had spent some time addressing the second issue. Are food and dietary laws from the Old Testament really evidences of God’s will for the Christian? I’m assuming based on my own knowledge of the New Testament that they are not. In many of Paul’s letters he refers to these things as shadows of the coming Messiah that have been replaced by the advent. But the issue still seems a bit hazy and elaboration here would have been greatly appreciated.

Jones’ main point in this chapter was very good, even though he didn’t spend time addressing some of my specific questions. His goal was to show how the Law of God revealed in the Old Testament and finally in Jesus is not a condemning or constraining law for the Christian. It is however, a picture into how the Christian is to love God through obedience. This obedience to the will of God, revealed in His law, is the universal norm of love for the Christian.

The Characteristics of Love

Jones’ fifth chapter centers on justice, mercy and faithfulness as the primary forms of Christian love. This was definitely an interesting way of thinking about love. I had never read a long discussion about the actual inner workings of love. To read this chapter was both helpful and surprising to an extent.

In asking the question, “what is justice?” Jones gives a brief but excellent definition, “To render to each his or her due.” This discussion of justice at first glance looked to me to have nothing to do with love. However, after some thinking, it became clear that Jones is simply arguing that one aspect of love is to deal justly with people. He gives an example from Proverbs where it is stated that God hates for the guilty to be acquitted and the innocent to be condemned. But love certainly does not stop at justice, it also must entail more because, “to think of love in terms of obligations…yields a minimalistic ethic…[which] falls short of what God is calling us to be and to do in response to his love” (86).

Mercy then is what Jones brings us to next. In his discussion Jones often seems to be describing mercy along the same lines as grace. This was interesting for me because I often think of mercy and grace in systematic theological categories where mercy is the withholding of due punishment and grace is a free and undeserved gift. But Jones recognizes the overlap between mercy and grace as an attribute of God. He describes mercy as something that is constrained by the love of Christ. It is those that have experienced the free grace of God that are then called to walk in mercy toward others. This mercy attitude of the Christian is personified and championed in James 2:13 where the author writes, “Mercy triumphs over judgment!” This for James is the bedrock of why the Christian walks to mercy towards others, because the Christian has been shown great mercy by God! Mercy is therefore just as important to Christian love as justice, in fact it is even at times to triumph over justice because God will deal justly and the Christian is called to be merciful and longsuffering, or patient, towards all.

The third aspect of love as Jones defines it is faithfulness. He first summarizes God’s faithfulness, especially to His covenant promises of the Old Testament. This faithfulness of God is found also in the obedience and faithfulness of Jesus Christ, the one whose faithfulness both achieves and defines the salvation of God’s people. Jones again shows the relationship between this characteristic of God and its manifestation in the life of His people. Jones describes Christians as those who, “live by trust in the faithful God…[and] whose entire salvation depends on the faithfulness of God are disposed to practice the same in their own relationships and responsibilities” (94).

One interesting thought came to my mind after reading Jones’ quote above, the Christians are disposed to faithfulness. The Christian life is not an effort of willpower and exertion to try harder at being faithful. The Christian is actually transformed by the grace of God into a faithful covenant member. This is essential to Christian ethics because without the above qualification, the Christian might find himself, or herself, trapped in the despair of an achievement based relationship with God and others. But in realizing that you are actually being transformed to a “long obedience in the same direction,” as Eugene Peterson puts it, relieves the burden of achievement and frees you to live a life of love towards God and others.

Thoughts on the Direction, or Rule, of the Christian Life

Having just read the fourth chapter of Jones’ book I must say I feel refreshed. Jones begins his chapter explaining that, “the Christian life [is] characterized by obedient love” (59). He continues on to explain that our obedience is the result of trust and faith in Christ’s obedience in our place. He is quick and sure to explain that our obedience, while it does take place and is important, is not what gains us right standing before God. Our sole basis for right standing before God is in Jesus.

After establishing this, Jones returned to the Westminster Shorter Catechism and discussed question and answer number two, “‘What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?’ ‘The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.’” (61). This question and answer, as well as 2 Timothy 3:14–17 is used by Jones to explain the ways in which Scripture functions in the life of the believer. He highlights three basic functions:

1. Making known to us the salvation offered in Christ

2. For teaching/training in righteousness

3. For correcting/rebuking us.

It is these three simply but often glossed over functions that prove so valuable to the Christian life. Often we want simply to have some area of our life “fixed” rather than allow God to speak to us, through His Scriptures, and have our life-style corrected and then reconfigured into Christ-likeness.

Jones then briefly discussed the seven different forms of biblical direction: prohibition, permission, mandate, counsel, precedent and example. This section on prohibition was helpful because Jones claimed that, “Biblical direction in the form of prohibition requires discernment as it is necessary to determine from Scripture as whole—not isolated prooftexts—what God has actually forbidden” (63). I have always felt this was the most important way to go about understanding anything in Scripture but I realize now that prohibitive commands are even more important to understand within the context of the entire biblical story. For instance, one might see a Levitical law that states the people of God are to refrain from eating shellfish. This could easily become a “prohibitive command” for someone who believes they are following God’s will by not eating crab and clam like the sinners, but in reality all this person would be doing is misunderstanding a law which was meant for a particular people in a particular time.

Perhaps the most timely insight from this chapter by Jones came in his section on the role of conscience in the Christian life. He both affirms the role of conscience in the Christian walk, and also qualifies this by saying that conscience is sub-ordinate to Scripture. This might be the most counter-cultural thing about the Christian life, that what a two-thousand plus year old text is considered the Word of God and therefore, holds far greater weight than personal conscience. Even in Christian dominated cultures like the south and the largest Baptist University in the world, one’s personal conscience is often held above the words of Scripture, either out of downright disagreement or laziness. In either case, Jones’ argument is a much needed reminder that, as Christians, we are called to submit the totality of our being to Christ, including our presuppositions about right and wrong.

The Human Heart, Christian Freedom and the Two Greatest Commandments

The third chapter of Jones’ book is titled The Motive of the Christian Life, and covers topics such as the human heart, Christian freedom, love of God, love of neighbor and love of self. This was probably one of the most helpful chapters I’ve read on ethics, possibly ever. I have often dismissed the discipline of ethics from my study out of fear that ethics tended to result into legalism. I could not have been more wrong!

Jones set up his discussion of the human heart by being realistic, and thoroughly reformed, in his understanding of the problem facing the human heart. He explains that with the glory of God as the end, or goal, of the Christian life we run into a problem, “nobody naturally seeks this end; all seek happiness, but no one seeks God” (37). He continues and says at the end of the page, “Something drastic has to happen for human beings to make God their goal, a change of heart so profound it is like being born all over again, this time from above” (37). Change of the human heart, is wrought by God, through his gift of faith, which produces also a hope and love for God.

The second section discussing Christian freedom draws much from both Luther and Calvin. Jones makes it clear that the reformers did not teach that justification by faith alone frees the Christian from works but as Luther puts it, “from false opinions concerning works, that is, the foolish presumption that justification is acquired by works” (39). Then he moves on to Calvin’s understanding of Christian obedience and freedom. For Calvin the Christian is free from the fear of punishment that the law brings but still finds the law useful in discerning what is pleasing to God. And as one discerns this, the Christian is freed into a child-like obedience of pleasing one’s father, because he loves you rather than slaving away for the acceptance of one’s father. Calvin and Jones also, pull the imagery of parent and child into a wonderful place in Christian obedience. I have always found this imagery to be incredibly helpful and I was happy to know that Calvin also saw it as such.

The rest of the chapter focused on love of God, neighbor and self. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment is, he responded with, “Love the Lord your God…[and] your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37–40). This section might be the best explanation of the Greatest Commandment I’ve ever heard. The most helpful part was the discussion about what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. I’ve heard a wide range of opinions about what that looks like and what exactly it means. Jones understands it to mean, “Love your neighbor as a person like yourself.” Very often I’ve heard this command interpret in a quantitative sense meaning, “Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself” and sometimes it would be argued that you shouldn’t love anyone more than anyone else, especially not yourself. This interpretation never seemed helpful to me and I always thought that it overlooked the natural bond that forms between people. I always thought, “Wait… I have to love everyone else just as much and no less than I love my best friend, or my future wife?” That never made any sense, it seemed to disregard the presence of “favorites” in Jesus’ own life and ministry. Jesus talked with Peter, James and John more often than the others, doesn’t that seem to imply that Jesus loved and cared for them more than the others?

But now with Jones the second greatest commandment makes more sense. Seeing ones neighbor as like me, (i.e., in the same problems, struggles, places and world) causes me to have an empathetic response towards their wants and needs because their wants and needs are MY wants and needs. As Jones also points out, “Reading the second great commandment in a qualitative sense also fits with Jesus’ other comprehensive principle of love” (50).

The other very helpful part of this chapter was its discussion of self-love. In light of the second great commandment’s charge to “Love your neighbor as yourself” Jones tries to develop a biblical understanding of self-love and then discover what kind of self-love is present in this command.

He describes self-love as taking three different forms, sinful self-love, natural self-love and moral self-love. Most often, I think of self-love as selfishness, as sinful, which might be why this command has always seemed odd to me. But Jones does a wonderful job showing that sinful self-love is real, but not what Jesus is calling for here. The second is also natural self-love is also present in the scriptures but for this to be what Jesus is calling for would mean that two very different kinds of love are being described. It does not flow with the sentence well if Jesus meant that we should, “agape love our neighbor as we naturally care and love ourselves.” So finally Jones introduces the concept of self-love as moral and this is what he argues the second great commandment is calling Christians to.

Jones explains that Augustine understood this moral self-love in a positive light. Jones agrees with Augustine and putting it in his own words Jones says, “[moral self-love] is a theocentric self-regard that is assigned paradigmatic value in the commandment to love our neighbor as ourself” (56). And he even calls this self-love a care for one’s own happiness and recognition of one’s own worth. But in order to understand this moral self-love in the most Biblical sense is to heed Dr. Richard Mouw’s words, “The Christian must be willing to say to God, ‘Make me into the kind of self that you want me to be. Transform, if it please you, my understanding of what it is that will bring me happiness’” (57). So this moral self-love that Jesus calls for is a transformed and theocentric love of self. Understanding and loving yourself rightly because of a right understanding of who God is.

The Question of Ethics and the Goal of the Christian Life

In the first two chapters of his book, Biblical Christian Ethics, David Clyde Jones, a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, lays some groundwork for his book about Ethics. I found the material to be interesting and helpful, especially in describing Christian Ethics as seeking an answer to the question, "What is God calling us, his redeemed people, to be and to do?" Jones' answer comes in three layers, "The controlling purpose of the Christian life is the glory of God; the impelling motive of the Christian life is love for God; and the directing principle of the Christian life is the will of God revealed in Christ and the Holy Scriptures" (16). This three fold answer he promises to expound upon in the next three chapters.

The second chapter discusses "The Goal of the Christian Life" which Jones' describes as encompassing the pursuit of four things: the Glory of God, the Image of Christ, the Kingdom of God and Eternal Life. It is these things which the Christian is aimed at, our finish line. And these four things are not stand alone goals but four aspects of the Christian aim, with overlap and significant linking between them. For instance, Jones says that, "God is glorified in the imitation of Christ in all things great and small, for the image of Christ is the supreme expression of the glory of God" (24).

Along these lines Jones also claims that glorifying God and enjoying him forever go together in the biblical end, or goal, of the Christian. This really got me thinking about glorifying and enjoying God forever, it seems that one could certainly glorify and value something without necessarily enjoying that thing. And that someone could enjoy something without necessarily glorifying it. I can certainly enjoy football without glorifying and setting it as the most valued thing in my life but with God, the two must go hand in hand.

Why is this? Well because God is not out simply for his own glorification but also for the good, happiness and joy of his creatures, which can only be ultimately found in Him. Therefore he orients the Christian life around glorifying and enjoying Him because through this glorifying and enjoying, the Christian is conformed to the image of Christ, which allows us to live in the Kingdom of God here on Earth and emulate the hope of life eternal.

All this to say, there was much that I really enjoyed and will be thinking about but one quote really stuck out to me in particular came at the end of chapter two while Jones wrapped up his discussion of practical implications. He says on page 36, “The fundamental principle of the Christian life is not adherence to impersonal law but allegiance to God the personal law-giver our of a desire to please him and to be conformed to him.” One of the best ways I’ve heard it put, thank you Dr. Jones.