7/30/2019 Zhekov

1/2

Yordan Kalev Zhekov, Defining the New Testament Logia on Divorce and Remarriagein a Pluralistic Context. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications (Wipf and Stock Publishers), 2009. Pp. 402. $46.00, paper.

Zhekov offers a detailed investigation into the Christian Scriptures' teachingon divorce and remarriage that is well worth reading for those interested in thesubject. He acknowledges a plurality of perspectives in the contemporary church, influenced not only by the plurality of church traditions bur also by social pressures. Zhekov considers "whether unity is to be found in the diversity of Christian views of understanding the exact biblical teaching on marriage, divorce,and remarriage in general and the NT teaching on these issues in particular" (pp. 16-17).

According to Zhekov, existing studies of the Christian Bible's teaching in thisarea are complicated by a "multiplicity of incoherent, one-sided, and self-centered methodologies," which lead to a four-fold inaccuracy in defining its teaching. He blames inadequate exegesis and methodologies, an incomplete interrelationof the theological conclusions within the church traditions, and inadequate practical implementation within pluralistic societies. Of interest to ecumenists, but only partially satisfactory to this reviewer, is his discussion of various Christian traditions regarding marriage.

In the introductory remarks, Zhekov indicates that marriage is a union that maybe dissolved by "a lack of fulfillment of the stipulations of the marital union

." His definition of marriage does not draw upon sacramental or covenantal language in which the couple is drawn together by God. "A valid marriage," accordingto Zhekov, "is established when both parties agree to it, the church witnesses and blesses it, and the legal authorities legalize it" (p. 7). Though marriage appears to be more social than religious, God is not absent in Zhekov's model. God, e.g., gives sex to the couple and provides standards of life. However, it is unclear whether God's relation to the married couple is in any way different thanthe relationship to the two individuals who established this union. This emphasizes the individuality of the spouses, even with regard to the marital union.

On a theological level, Zhekov's policy, which permits dissolution of marriage

upon the failure of one or both spouses to fulfill the marital stipulations, treats marriage as little more than a contract and thus of human origin and subjectto human willfulness. On a pastoral level, this policy requires one or both spouses to assume blame for the failure of a marriage; yet, once he has theologically established the impermanence of marriage, it appears pastorally insensitive to assign blame. Zhekov argues, however, that divorce remains an exceptional circumstance, permitted only "when sinful behavior of one of the spouses has endangered the moral integrity and life of the other" (p. 18). This is in keeping withhis reading of Paul: He finds that Paul permits divorce from the unbeliever forthe sake of the salvation of a new Christian. Known as the Pauline privilege, this principle is stretched by Zhekov to encompass additional circumstances wherethe behavior of one spouse--even of a devout believer--is detrimental to the continued Christian life of the other spouse.

One question that is not adequately addressed by Zhekov is the connection between the biblical teaching and the various church traditions. Although he considers this to be a serious flaw in many studies, his own contributions dismiss the traditional teaching on the permanence of marriage in favor of a policy permitting divorce in exceptional cases. His criterion for dismissing tradition is unstated, which is unfortunate from an ecumenical and theological perspective.

Nicholas Jesson, St. Thomas More College, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

7/30/2019 Zhekov

2/2

COPYRIGHT 2010 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

COPYRIGHT 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning