|
Divorce and Remarriage A Position Paper Pastor William Heinrich August 2009 DISCLAIMER: After
years of reading both the Bible and books on the subject of divorce and
remarriage, it must be concluded that there are many different conclusions on
the subject. Most of these have solid
Bible evidence and respected theologians who hold them. It is therefore not the goal of this paper to
recognize the errors or veracity of any of the various views. Should one who seeks membership at SBGC have
a view differing from the conclusion of this paper, he will be asked to read
and study these conclusions. Should he
continue to hold another view, he will be asked to defend it from
scripture. If as a matter of conscience
he feels he must hold another view, he will be received equal to all who hold
the views of this paper. The goal of
this paper is not to attack those who have been divorced, but to put forth what
we believe concerning marriage. Doctrine: Reasons why all divorce and
remarriage is prohibited while both spouses are alive Reason No. One: Marriage above all else is to
picture the marriage of Christ and His church.
1.
It was true in
the Old Testament. CF
Hosea 11-3; Jer. 3; Ez. 16:26
2.
It is true in the
New Testament CF
Matt. 22; Eph 5
·
In Eph. 5:22-23 it is very clear Christian marriage is
to illustrate Christ and His church. For
example: v. 22 as to the Lord v. 23 as also Christ is the head of the church. v. 24 just as the church is subject to Christ v. 25 just as Christ also loved the church v. 27 a glorious church v. 29 just as Christ does His church v.
32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
3.
It is true that
we are united to Christ forever, and that must be the picture given in
Christian marriage.
4.
It is true that
He will not divorce us and marry another, and that must be the picture given in
Christian marriage.
·
God did not divorce Reason No. Two: God hates divorce.
1.
Malachi
2:16: “For the LORD God of
·
Sin adheres to such a one as a stain adheres to a
garment.
2.
It is
unreasonable God will in certain cases allow what He hates.
a.
Did He not refuse
their sacrifices for doing what He hates?
Mal. 2:10-17
b.
Did He not
require one spouse for God-fearing children?
Mal. 2:15
c.
Did He not call
divorce a treacherous deed? Mal. 2:11,
14, 15, 16 Reason No. Three: Divorce is out of the spirit
of the whole scripture.
1.
Divorce makes the
Christian a liar, for he promised God and witnesses to cleave to his wife until
death and for better or worse.
2.
Divorce causes a
believer to go to law against his wife who is a sister in Christ. Believers are forbidden to go to law against
each other. I Cor. 6:1
3.
Divorce is to
reject scripture when it says all things work together for good for the called
toward the purpose of being conformed to the image of Christ.
4.
Divorce settles
problems in a sinful way, not God’s way.
Matt. 18:15-17; Gal. 6:1-3
5.
Divorce is hate,
not love, and Christians are to love one another.
6.
Divorce is to
oppose God who said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate.”
7.
Divorce is
without faith. “Whatsoever is not of
faith is sin.” Note: Reasons Four through Fourteen are taken word-for-word from the position paper of John Piper. (You can read it on their website here) Reason No. Four: Luke 16:18 calls all
remarriage after divorce adultery. Luke
6:18: “Everyone who divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from
her husband commits adultery.”
a.
“This verse shows
that Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God’s
sight. The reason a second marriage is
called adultery is because the first one is considered to still be valid. So Jesus is taking a stand against the Jewish
culture in which all divorce was considered to carry with it the right of
remarriage.”
b.
“The second half
of the verse shows that not merely the divorcing man is guilty of adultery when
he remarries, but also any man who marries a divorced woman.”
c.
“Since there are
no exceptions mentioned in the verse, and since Jesus is clearly rejecting the
common cultural conception of divorce as including the right of remarriage, the
first readers of this gospel would have been hard-put to argue for any
exceptions on the basis that Jesus shared the cultural assumption that divorce
for unfaithfulness or desertion freed a spouse for remarriage.” Reason No. Five: “Mark 10:11-12 call all
remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who
does the divorcing.” Mark
10:10-12: “And he said to them, ‘Whoever
divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she
divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’”
a.
“This text
repeats the first half of Luke 16:18 but goes farther and says that not only
the man who divorces, but also a woman who divorces, and then remarries is
committing adultery.”
b.
“As in Luke
16:18, there are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.” Reason No. Six: “Mark 10:29 and Matthew
19:3-8 teach that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ justification of divorce from
Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted the purpose of God in creation that no human
being separate what God has joined together.” Mark
10:2-9: “And some Pharisees came up to
Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to
divorce his wife. And He answered and
said to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’
And they said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce
and send her away.’ But Jesus said to
them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made
them male and female. For this cause a
man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh;
consequently they are not longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let
no man separate.’” Matthew
19:3-9: “And some Pharisees came to Him,
testing Him, and saying, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any
cause at all?’ And He answered and said,
‘Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male
and female, and said, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh”? Consequently they are no more two, but one
flesh. What therefore God has joined
together, let no man separate.’ They
said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce
her?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your
hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the
beginning it has not been this way. And
I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries
another commits adultery.’”
a.
“In both Matthew
and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is
lawful for a man to divorce his wife.
They evidently have in mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply
describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will take a position
with regard to this passage.”
b.
“Jesus’ answer
is, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you do divorce your wives.’ (Mt. 19:8)”
c.
But then Jesus
criticizes the Pharisees’ failure to recognize in the books of Moses God’s
deepest and original intention for marriage.
So he quotes two passages from Genesis.
‘God made them male and female…For this reason a man shall leave his
father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one
flesh.’ (Genesis 1:27; 2:24)”
d.
“From these
passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, ‘So they are no longer two, but one.’ And then he makes his climaxing statement,
‘What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.’”
e.
“The implication
is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees’ use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the
standard of marriage for his disciples to God’s original intention in
creation. He says that none of us should
try to undo the ‘one-flesh’ relationship which God has united.”
f.
“Before we jump
to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of
the exception clause (‘except for unchastity’) mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we
should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew
19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew
19:6, (‘let no man put asunder’)
especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the
Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn
remarriage. More on this below.” Reason No. Seven: “Matthew 5:32 does not teach
that remarriage is lawful in some cases.
Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for
those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife
is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become
an adulteress before the divorce.” Matthew
5:32: “But I say to you that everyone
who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an
adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
a.
“Jesus assumes
that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a
husband will be drawn into a second marriage.
Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage
adultery.”
b.
“The remarkable
thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the
remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless
adultery: ‘Everyone who divorces his
wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her (the innocent wife who has
not been unchaste) an adulteress.’ This
is a clear statement, it seems to me, that remarriage is wrong not merely when
a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is
innocent. In other words, Jesus’
opposition to remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness of the
marriage bond by anything but death.”
c.
I will save my
explanation of the exception clause (‘Except on the ground of unchastity’) for
later in the paper, but for now, it may suffice to say that on the traditional
interpretation of the clause, it may simply mean that a man makes his wife an
adulteress except in the case where she has made herself one.”
d.
I would assume
that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she
remarries, therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more
guilty. If one argues that this guilty
woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is
not, just because the guilty woman’s adultery has broken the ‘one flesh’
relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent
divorced woman, ‘If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to
remarry.’ This seems wrong for at least
two reasons.”
1.
It seems to
elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in
marital union and disunion.
2.
If sexual union
with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say
that an innocently divorced wife can’t remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that
her divorcing husband in not divorcing to have sexual relations with
another. This is a very unlikely
assumption. More likely is that Jesus
does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with
another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the
‘one-flesh’ relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses
are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.” Reason No. Eight: “1 Corinthians 7:10-11
teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who
divorces should not remarry.” 1
Corinthians 7:10-11: “To the married I
give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her
husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her
husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”
a.
“When Paul says
that this charge is not his but the Lord’s, I think he means that he is aware
of a specific saying from the historical Jesus which addressed this issue. As a matter of fact, these verses look very
much like Mark 10:11-12, because both the wife and the husband are
addressed. Also, remarriage seems to be
excluded by verse 11 the same way it is excluded in Mark 10:11-12.”
b.
“Paul seems to be
aware that separation will be inevitable in certain cases. Perhaps he has in mind a situation of
unrepentant adultery, or desertion, or brutality. But in such a case he says that the person
who feels constrained to separate should not seek remarriage but remain
single. And he reinforces the authority
of this statement by saying he has a word from the Lord. Thus Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’ sayings
is that remarriage should not be pursued.”
c.
“As in Luke 16:18
and Mark 10:11-12 and Matthew 5:32, this text does not explicitly entertain the
possibility of any exceptions to the prohibition of remarriage.” Reason No. Nine: “1 Corinthians 7:39 and
Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a
spouse.” 1
Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is bound to
her husband as long as he lives. If the
husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” Romans
7:1-3: “Do you not know, brethren – for
I am speaking to those who know the law – that the law is binding on a person
only during his life? Thus a married
woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband
dies she is discharged from the law concerning her husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress
if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that
law; if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.” “Both
of these passages (1Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2) say explicitly that a woman
is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
No exceptions are explicitly mentioned that would suggest she could be
free from her husband to remarry on any other basis.” Reason No. Ten: “Matthew 19:10-12 teaches
that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ’s disciples to sustain
them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of
Christ.” Matthew
19:10-12: “The disciples said to him,
‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to
marry.’ But he said to them, ‘Not all
men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from
birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are
eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven. He who is able to receive this,
let him receive it.’”
a.
“Just preceding
this passage in Matthew 19:9 Jesus prohibited all remarriage after
divorce. (I will deal with the meaning
of ‘except for immorality’ below.) This
seemed like an intolerable prohibition to Jesus’ disciples: If you close off every possibility of
remarriage, then you make marriage so risky that it would be better not to
marry, since you might be ‘trapped’ to live as a single person to the rest of
your life or you may be ‘trapped’ in a bad marriage.”
b.
“Jesus does not
deny the tremendous difficulty of his command.
Instead, he says in verse 11, that the enablement to fulfill the command
not to remarry is a divine gift to his disciples. Verse 12 is an argument that such a life is
indeed possible because there are people who for the sake of the kingdom, as
well as lower reasons, have dedicated themselves to a life of singleness.”
c.
Jesus is not
saying that some of his disciples have the ability to obey his command not to
remarry and some don’t. He is saying
that the mark of a disciple is that they receive a gift of continence while
non-disciples don’t. The evidence for
this is 1) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 13:11, 2) the parallel
between Matthew 19:12 and 13:9, 43; 11:15, and 3) the parallel between Matthew 19:11
and 19:26.” Reason No. Eleven: “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not
legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the ‘one-flesh’ relationship
established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage. Deuteronomy
24:1-4: “When a man takes a wife and
marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has
found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and
puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house
and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns
against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and
sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be
his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her
again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination
before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your
God gives you as an inheritance.”
a.
The remarkable
thing about these four verses is that, while divorce is taken for granted,
nevertheless the woman who is divorced becomes ‘defiled’ by her remarriage
(verse 4). It may well be that when the
Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was legitimate he based his negative answer
not only on God’s intention expressed in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but also on the
implication of Deuteronomy 24:4 that remarriage after divorce defiles a
person. In other words, there were ample
clues in the Mosaic law that the divorce concession was on the basis of the
hardness of man’s heart and really did not make divorce an remarriage
legitimate.
b.
The prohibition
of a wife returning to her first husband even after her second husband dies
(because it is an abomination) suggests very strongly that today no second
marriage should be broken up in order to restore a first one (for Heth and
Wenham’s explanation of this see Jesus and Divorce, page 110).” Reason No. Twelve: “1 Corinthians 7:15 does not
mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is
free to remarry. It means that the
Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving
partner insists on it.” 1
Corinthians 7:15: If the unbelieving
partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister
is not bound. For God has called us to
peace.” “There are several reasons
why the phrase ‘is not bound’ should not be construed to mean ‘is free to
remarry.’”
a.
“Marriage is an
ordinance of creation binding on all of God’s human creatures, irrespective of
their faith or lack of faith.”
b.
“The word used
for ‘bound’ (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where
Paul says, ‘A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives.’ Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of
the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; 1
Corinthians 7:39), or to one’s betrothed (1 Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not
being bound in 1 Corinthians 7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which
we would expect him to do if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same
freedom to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39).
c.
“The last phrase
of verse 15 (‘God has called us to peace’) supports verse 15 best if Paul is
saying that a deserted partner is not ‘bound to make war’ on the deserting
unbeliever to get him or her to stay. It
seems to me that the peace God has called us to is the peace of marital
harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving
partner insists on departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live
in perpetual conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in
letting him or her go.”
d.
“This
interpretation also preserves a closer harmony to the intention of verses
10-11, where an inevitable separation does not result in the right of
remarriage.
e.
“Verse 16 (‘For
how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will
save your wife?’) is an argument that you can’t know, and so should not make
the hope of saving them a ground for fighting to make them stay. This supports the understanding of verse 15
as a focus on not being enslaved to stay together, rather than not being
enslaved to stay single.” *
“Paul did not see the single life as a life of slavery and so would not have
called the necessity of staying single a state of being enslaved.” Reason No. Thirteen: “1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does
not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should
seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.” 1
Corinthians 7:27-28: “Are you bound to a
wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a
virgin marries, she does not sin.” “Recently some people have
argued that this passage deals with divorced people because in verse 27 Paul
asks, ‘Are you free (literally: loosed)
from a wife?’ Some have assumed that he
means, ‘Are you divorced?’ Thus he would
be saying in verse 28 that it is not sin when divorced people remarry. There are several reasons why this
interpretation is most unlikely.”
a.
“Verse 25 signals
that Paul is beginning a new section and dealing with a new issue. He says, ‘Now concerning the virgins (ton
Parthenon) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by
the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.’ He has
already dealt with the problem of divorced people in verses 10-16. Now he takes up a new issue about those who
are not yet married, and he signals this by saying, ‘Now concerning the
virgins.’ Therefore, it is very unlikely
that the people referred to in verses 27 and 28 are divorced.”
b.
“A flat statement
that it is not sin for divorced people to be remarried (verse 28) would
contradict verse 11, where he said that a woman who has separated from her
husband should remain single.”
c.
“Verse 36 is
surely describing the same situation in view in verses 27 and 28, but clearly
refers to a couple that is not yet married.
‘If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if
his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.’ This is the same as verse 28 where Paul says,
‘But if you marry, you do not sin.’”
d.
“The reference in
verse 27 to being bound to a ‘wife’ may be misleading because it may suggest
that the man is already married. But in
the Greek the word for wife is simply ‘woman’ and may refer to a man’s
betrothed as well as his spouse. The
context dictates that the reference is to a man’s betrothed virgin, not to his
spouse. So ‘being bound’ and ‘being
loosed’ have reference to whether a person is betrothed or not.”
e.
“It is
significant that the verb Paul uses for ‘loosed’ (luo) or ‘free’ is not a word
that he uses for divorce. Paul’s words
for divorce are chorizo (verses
10,11,15; cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphienai (verses
11, 12, 13).” Reason No. Fourteen: “The exception clause of
Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person
to be remarried. All the weight of the
New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view,
and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does
not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after
divorce is prohibited.” Matthew
19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for
immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
a.
“Several years
ago I taught our congregation in two evening services concerning my
understanding of this verse and argued that ‘except for immorality’ did not
refer to adultery but to premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman
discovers in the betrothed partner.
Since that time I have discovered other people who hold this view and
who have given it a much more scholarly exposition than I did. I have also discovered numerous other ways of
understanding this verse which also exclude the legitimacy of remarriage. Several of these are summed up in William
Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).”
b.
“Here I will
simply give a brief summary of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to
it.” “I
began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus’
denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not
preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce
and remarriage. I was bothered by the
simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making
explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of
Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.” “Would
they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination
is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew’s exception clause conforms to the
absoluteness of Mark and Luke.” “The
second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use
the word porneia (‘except for
immorality) instead of the word moicheia
which means adultery? Almost all
commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. The question nags at me why Matthew would not
use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.” ”Then
I noticed something very interesting.
The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses
the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence
for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of
porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives
of porneia in its normal sense of
fornication or incest (1 Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?’” “Isaksson
agrees with this view of porneia and
sums up his research much like this on pages 134-5 of Marriage and Ministry: “Thus
we cannot get away from the fact that the distinction between what was to be
regarded as porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was very strictly
maintained in pre-Christian Jewish literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course, denote different
forms of forbidden sexual relations, but we can find no unequivocal examples of
the use of this word to denote a wife’s adultery. Under these circumstances we can hardly
assume that this word means adultery in the clauses in Matthew. The logia on divorce are worded as a
paragraph of the law, intended to be obeyed by the members of the Church. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable
that in a text of this nature the writer would not have maintained a clear
distinction between what was unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not porneia was used to describe
the wife’s adultery. From the
philological point of view there are accordingly very strong arguments against
this interpretation of the clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which
the wife was guilty of adultery.” “The next clue in my search for an explanation came
when I stumbled upon the use of porneia
in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia.
In other words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume
that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to
study Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.” “In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as
husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yeet they are described as only being
betrothed to each other. This is
probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man
and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment
then than engagement is today. In verse
19 Joseph resolves ‘to divorce’ Mary.
The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and
19:9. But most important of all, Matthew
says that Joseph was ‘just’ in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably
on account of her porneia,
fornication.” “Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the
narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in
chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by
Jesus) and yet to allow for ‘divorces’ like the one Joseph contemplated toward
his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). Therefore, Matthew
includes the exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also in
general to show that the kind of ‘divorce’ that one might pursue during a
betrothal on account of fornication is not included in Jesus’ absolute
prohibition.” “A common objection to this interpretation is that
both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to
is marriage not betrothal. The point is
pressed that ‘except for fornication’ is irrelevant to the context of
marriage.” “My answer is that this irrelevancy is jus the point
Matthew wants to make. We may take it
for granted that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication is not an
evil ‘divorce’ and does not prohibit remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew’s readers
would take this for granted.” “Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for us
to exclude ‘the case of fornication’ (since we can’t see how a betrothed virgin
could be ‘made an adulteress’ in any case), it may not be pointless for
Matthew’s readers. For that matter, it
may not be pointless for any readers: if
Jesus had said, ‘Every man who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress,’ a
reader could legitimately ask: ‘Then was
Joseph about to make Mary and adulteress?’
We may say this question is not reasonable since we think you can’t make
unmarried women adulteresses. But it
certainly is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for
Matthew to make explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during
betrothal.” “This interpretation of the exception clause has
several advantages:
1.
It does not force
Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke and the
whole range of New Testament teaching set forth above in sections 1-10, including
Matthew’s own absolute teaching in 19:3-8.
2.
It provides an
explanation for why the word porneia
is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia.
3.
It squares with
Matthew’s own use of porneia for
fornication in Matthew 15:19.
4.
It fits the demands
of Matthew’s wider context concerning Joseph’s contemplated divorce." “Since I first wrote this exposition of Matthew 19:9 I
have discovered a chapter on this view in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce
and a scholarly defense of it by A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the “Conclusions
and Applications” “In the New Testament the question about remarriage
after divorce is not determined by:
1.
The guilt or
innocence of either spouse,
2.
Nor by whether
either spouse is a believer or not,
3.
Nor by whether
the divorce happened before or after either spouse’s conversion,
4.
Nor by the ease
or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,
5.
Nor by whether
there is adultery or desertion involved,
6.
Nor by the
on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,
7.
Nor by the
cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.” “Rather it is determined by the fact that:
1.
Marriage is a
‘one-flesh’ relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance
in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
2.
Only God, not
man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9 – this is why
remarriage is called adultery by Jesus:
he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke
16;18; Mark 10;11,
3.
God ends the
one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses
(Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
4.
The grace and
power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced
Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,
26; 1 Corinthians 10:13,
5.
Temporal
frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience
of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the
life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).” “Those who are already remarried:
1.
Should
acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second
marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
2.
Should not
attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2
above)
3.
Should not
separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin
because all their sexual relations are acts u adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for
this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant
standing in God’s eyes. That is, there
were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to
be sanctified to God. While not the
ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God’s will for a couple and their
ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.” Note: Reasons
Four through Fourteen were taken word-for-word from the position paper of John
Piper. Reason No. Fifteen: Adultery brought stoning, not
divorce. Deuteronomy
22:13-30: “If any man takes a wife, and
goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and
brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her
I found she was not a virgin,’ then the father and mother of the young woman
shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the
elders of the city at the gate. And the
young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man
as wife, and he detests her; now he has charged her with shameful conduct,
saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the
evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’
And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take that
man and punish him; and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and
give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name
on a virgin of “If
a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall
die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so you shall put away
the evil person from “If
a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in
the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of
that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman
because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his
neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil person from among you. But it a man finds a betrothed young woman in
the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man
who lay with her shall die. But you shall
do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin worthy of
death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so
is this matter; for he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young
woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. “If
a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes
her and lies with her, and they are found out, give to the young woman’s father
fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her;
he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. “A
man shall not take his father’s wife, nor uncover his father’s bed.”
1.
Those married who
commit adultery were stoned. 22:13-22
2.
Those betrothed
who commit fornication were stoned.
22:23-27
·
Betrothed is a married couple who have never lived
together. Usually a year of preparation
was given.
3.
Those not married
or betrothed who commit fornication must marry and must never divorce. 22:28-30 Reason No. Sixteen: The holiness code includes
fornication.
1.
Leviticus 18-20
was known as the holiness code.
2.
Most believe that
was what was referred to in Acts 15:20. Acts
15:20: …“but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols,
from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.”
3.
If that be true,
Jesus was not allowing divorce for adultery, but for fornication. Matthew 19:9: “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.” * Listed in Lev. 18-20 are immoral acts
done with near to kin, homosexuality, and bestiality. Adultery is always between two married
people. Reason No. Seventeen: Fornication involves an
unmarried couple.
1.
Betrothed couples
were engaged or married without yet living together.
2.
Should one be
unfaithful before they came together, Moses allowed divorce, but only because
of their hard hearts.
3.
Should the
betrothed maid lose her virginity by rape and she cried out but none heard her,
Moses allows a divorce, for she was contracted to be a virgin. The divorce paper must explain why she was no
longer his so should she marry and it be discovered she was not a virgin, she
would be protected from stoning.
|
