Yordan Kalev Zhekov, Defining the New Testament Logia on Divorce and Remarriage in a Pluralistic Context.

Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications (Wipf and Stock Publ ishers), 2009. Pp. 402. $46.00, paper. Zhekov offers a detailed investigation into the Christian Scriptures' teaching on divorce and remarriage that is well worth reading for those interested in the subject. He acknowledges a plurality of perspectives in the contemporary church , influenced not only by the plurality of church traditions bur also by social p ressures. Zhekov considers "whether unity is to be found in the diversity of Chr istian 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 this area are complicated by a "multiplicity of incoherent, one-sided, and self-cent ered methodologies," which lead to a four-fold inaccuracy in defining its teachi ng. He blames inadequate exegesis and methodologies, an incomplete interrelation of the theological conclusions within the church traditions, and inadequate pra ctical implementation within pluralistic societies. Of interest to ecumenists, b ut only partially satisfactory to this reviewer, is his discussion of various Ch ristian traditions regarding marriage. In the introductory remarks, Zhekov indicates that marriage is a union that may be dissolved by "a lack of fulfillment of the stipulations of the marital union ." His definition of marriage does not draw upon sacramental or covenantal langu age in which the couple is drawn together by God. "A valid marriage," according to Zhekov, "is established when both parties agree to it, the church witnesses a nd blesses it, and the legal authorities legalize it" (p. 7). Though marriage ap pears 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 u nclear whether God's relation to the married couple is in any way different than the relationship to the two individuals who established this union. This emphas izes 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, tre ats marriage as little more than a contract and thus of human origin and subject to human willfulness. On a pastoral level, this policy requires one or both spo uses to assume blame for the failure of a marriage; yet, once he has theological ly established the impermanence of marriage, it appears pastorally insensitive t o assign blame. Zhekov argues, however, that divorce remains an exceptional circ umstance, permitted only "when sinful behavior of one of the spouses has endange red the moral integrity and life of the other" (p. 18). This is in keeping with his reading of Paul: He finds that Paul permits divorce from the unbeliever for the sake of the salvation of a new Christian. Known as the Pauline privilege, th is principle is stretched by Zhekov to encompass additional circumstances where the behavior of one spouse--even of a devout believer--is detrimental to the con tinued Christian life of the other spouse. One question that is not adequately addressed by Zhekov is the connection betwe en the biblical teaching and the various church traditions. Although he consider s this to be a serious flaw in many studies, his own contributions dismiss the t raditional teaching on the permanence of marriage in favor of a policy permittin g divorce in exceptional cases. His criterion for dismissing tradition is unstat ed, which is unfortunate from an ecumenical and theological perspective. Nicholas Jesson, St. Thomas More College, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

COPYRIGHT 2010 Journal of Ecumenical Studies COPYRIGHT 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning