Admittedly I haven’t read Luck’s book, but going by your summary I’m not convinced of his argument. His method seems flawed – Jesus explicitly says that parts of the Jewish law code were included “because of the hardness of your hearts,” and then goes on to say ” And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt 19:8-9). As I see it, the only way to argue that something is legitimate grounds for Christians to divorce is to show that it falls under the category of “sexual immorality” (porneia). Does Luck address this concern?

Coleman, yes he does. Luck believes divorce is the result of being “cracked Eikons” — broken, sinful humans. In that kind of world, divorce happens.
Do you think that justifiable divorce can only happen when porneia occurs? What about 1 Cor 7?

And what of the fact that Jesus said that any man who marries a previously divorced (put away) woman also commits adultery? Putting it on today’s culture, it would mean even if a woman was divorced by a cheating/lying abusive husband that she would have no right to marry again. Doesn’t seem right…any other interpretations?
To me, its a cultural issue – women had no rights in Jesus’ day. This was Jesus expanding the rights of women, protecting them from husband who would use the Law of Moses to suit themselves.

Scot,
1 Cor. 7 does suggest that divorce for other reasons is “permissible” but when both parties are believers remarriage is not allowed (except to each other). If one party is not a believer and chooses to leave then the believer is “released” and Paul says nothing about remarriage to others, presumably it is allowed.
But divorce without the possibility for future remarriage is still a pretty tough directive.

RJS, part of the idea of divorce in the ancient world of Judaism entailed “setting a woman free” and that meant remarriage. So, many today interpret Matt 5′s prohibition of married a divorced woman” means marrying an impermissibly divorced woman.
Furthermore, the intent of Jesus is as much to denounce easy divorce as it is to set out all the ground rules for permissibility. Had Jesus meant “this reason and this reason only” then Paul’s addition would be contra Jesus.

Coleman #1 and Scot #2,
I see Jesus command as concerning initiating divorce and 1 Cor. 7 is discussing when someone else wants to divorce you.

I wish more pastors would jump into this discussion. Pastors live where alleged “biblical” interpretations on marriage, divorce and remarriage intersect with living, breathing, sometimes desperately hurting men and women. Those limiting divorce to just *porneia* with or without freedom to remarry sometimes come off as taking the biblical “high ground.” That may seem correct doctrinally, but it is pitifully ungracious pastorally. I’ve seen abusive husbands gloat that their wive cannot divorce them because “hey, I didn’t cheat on her or nothing.” They are sexually faithful and maritally neanderthals, bullying and threatening and “pure as they driven snow” sexually. Finally, the wife says, “I’ve had it” and wants a divorce and SHE comes off as biblically sinful one. It’s a load of cr*p…pardon my Greek. Luck is saying that marriage is a lot more than about SEXUAL faithfulness.

John, I agree..
Why not more pastors who are struggling with this issue in their church?

I think evangelicals have idealized the post-WWII nuclear family unit and have tried to preserve it with proof-texting marriage doctrines. A prevailing view or two takes the “high ground” and pastors get scared to buck the status quo. Pastors lament the damage they see and instead of dealing *ad hoc* with the damage before their eyes, they hide behind or acquiesce to the “biblical view.” Pastors sense that they must protect doctrine not real human lives. Divorce is the 21st century version of Sabbath laws.

John,
I don’t think that the “proof-texting marriage doctrines” are post WWII. But I do think that some of the ontological arguments may be a cultural response within evangelicalism. We can defend marriage better if it is an ontological change rather than a covenant entered into.
But isn’t some of our response to the fact that divorce seems at times a default. Divorce for abuse should be allowed by all – but where is the line to be drawn within Christian communities?

I would be interested to know how pastors would view the issue of “pornography” and it’s affect on the one viewing it and the affect on the marriage covenant with respect to the dissolution of a marriage.

I wrote an article recently related to this topic. In the article I ask why so many churches accept unrepentant divorcees and remarried couples into fellowship, but reject unrepentant LGBT persons and couples. It is a hypocrisy that needs examining.
You can read more at http://blog.emergingworshiper.org.