JAMES A.E. MACLELLAN: re-marriage

Showing posts with label re-marriage. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 7 Final

The question that is yet to be considered is, “How does divorce and re-marriage impact the calling of elders and deacons in the service of the Church?” We read, “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife. . .”^{^[1]} and “Let deacons each be the husband of one wife. . ..”^{^[2]}

“The emphasis is on the word μία, “one.”^{^[3]} Common interpretations include:

A. The man must be married.

B. The man must not have more than one wife at a time (polygamy/concubine).

C. The man can only have been married once (not widowed/divorced and remarried).

D. The man must be faithful to his wife.

Most people dismiss A. because Paul and Timothy would not have been eligible. It collides with Paul’s teaching that marriage is a good and desirable ambition (1 Corinthians 7). In regards to interpretation B., there appears to be good support for this in Paul’s pastoral epistles. As this characteristic heads the list of elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, there is some cause to suggest that marital unfaithfulness was a serious problem in the Ephesian church, at least. One might wonder though why Paul was so vague. He certainly could have said what he meant.

That a man only be married once is also problematic. It overlooks the teaching that Paul previously gave where he encourages re-marriage (1 Corinthians 7; and 1 Timothy 5:14). It begs the question as to why he would withhold that option for Elders. Some divide the issue and suggest that it only refers to divorce, not death. But an honest expositor sees that one must “read that into the text” to arrive at such a conclusion. The best help we can get is actually found in 1 Timothy:

“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.” (1 Timothy 5:9–10, ESV)

Here Paul applies the same qualification of “wife of one husband” to those widows that are “enrolled” in the Church. The precision of the phrase demands that it means the same thing in this Letter. It cannot mean polygamy for the idea of a woman have multiple husbands at the same time is absurd. We are left with two reasonable options:

1. Either Paul was prohibiting remarriage of any nature to the offices of Elder, Deacon or Enrolled Widow; or

2. Paul was emphasizing marital faithfulness.

The esteemed expositor Dr. George W. Knight provides a helpful conclusion:

“This characteristic, like the others, is the result of God’s grace in Christ (cf. especially 3:6, 9) and thus has reference to a man’s status and conduct from the time of his conversion. So just as one is called on to look back on a widow’s earlier life (when she was living with her husband) to ascertain her marital and sexual fidelity in having been “the wife of one husband” (5:9), so also (cf. 5:22, 24, 25) for the bishop (3:2) and deacon (3:12): One must look back over his life from the time of his conversion to ascertain his marital and sexual fidelity in having been “the husband of one wife.”^{^[4]}

In other words, since this man has come to faith in Christ, can his life, single or married be characterized as honoring and valuing of the marriage covenant. You will notice that I add the relationship single for marriage integrity includes the chastity and respect that a single man must exercise toward all women (“Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12, ESV); and “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.” (1 Timothy 5:1–2, ESV).

It is exegetically unsound and impermissible for an interpreter to assume that μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, “one wife husband” denies all eligible candidates to the office of Elder. It requires eisegesis on the part of the interpreter and as noted in previous articles, the issue of divorce and re-marriage is not an absolute prohibition without exceptions. It seems unreasonable that Paul would make it so in the case of Elders. Dr. Howard Marshall writes,

“It is positive in tone and stresses faithfulness in marriage, rather than prohibiting some specific unsanctioned form of marriage.”^{^[5]}

Dr. John MacArthur gives good counsel: “This says nothing about marriage or divorce . . . The issue is not the elder’s marital status, but his moral and sexual purity. This qualification heads the list, because it is in this area that leaders are most prone to fail . . . If there has been a biblically permitted divorce, it must have been so far in the past as to have been overcome by a long pattern of solid family leadership and the rearing of godly children.”^{^[6]}

The most prudent of congregations will examine the life of a converted, qualified man to the office of Elder. If he is single, widowed or biblically divorced (see Articles 1-6) his life ought to reflect a sustained and consistent life of sexual purity and relational honor to the opposite gender. That is the most exegetically faithful understanding of the text.

^{^[1]} The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Ti 3:2). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^{^[2]} The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Ti 3:12). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^{^[3]} Mounce, W. D. (2000). Pastoral Epistles (Vol. 46, p. 170). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

^{^[4]} Knight, G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 159). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

^{^[5]} Marshall, I. H., & Towner, P. H. (2004). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (p. 478). London; New York: T&T Clark International.

^{^[6]} MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1864). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

Wednesday, June 2, 2021

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 6

Paul’s Contribution to the Discussion

In the 4^th Article I attempted to show why Matthew is the key text in the discussion. Paul does contribute to our understanding, but we should be cautious about using Romans 7:1-6 because Paul is using marriage as an analogy, not a point of instruction. His discussion in Romans 7 is limited to the point that he is wanting to establish about the Law. It is not instruction of marriage. We are certainly aware that marriage is dissolved by death and the right re-marry to a new husband is obvious. Paul using the marriage analogy and the death of a spouse to typify the Christian’s marriage to the Law having been dissolved by death and the new Husband, Christ has come. It has no relevance to the determination of whether divorce is sanctioned in the Bible or not.

For more to the point, is Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. He first addresses issues related to marriage, divorce, and one’s lot in life (7:1–24). He then turns to whether the betrothed and widowed should marry in light of the urgency of the times (7:25–40). In this passage Paul deals with a problem not previously discussed. The issue involves a Christian married to a non-Christian. Should the believer leave the unbeliever? No. Let them stay together (v13). Then we read this:

“But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” (1 Corinthians 7:15, ESV)

The NIV translates the verse: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” (1 Corinthians 7:15, NIV). The KJV: “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” (1 Corinthians 7:15, KJV 1900)

So, the case is an unbeliever “separating”, “leaving” or “departing”. It comes from the Greek word χωρίζω (chorizo) which essentially means that. “The present indicative middle form χωρίζεται probably has the force of separates himself/herself, signifying that the subject of the verb takes the initiative in the act of separation.”^{^[1]} That is, if the unbelieving spouse seeks the dissolution of the marriage, then “let it be so”. How is the Christian partner to respond? “Let is be so.” “Paul advises the Christian spouse not to create strife by trying to manipulate reconciliation with an unbelieving spouse who has left the marriage.”^{^[2]}

On what grounds does the remaining spouse to “let it be”? “In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”^{^[3]} The remaining spouse is not “enslaved” or “bound”. What does it mean to “not be bound”? “That is, they are not bound to the ruling given above about maintaining the marriage. Some Corinthians have wanted to dissolve such marriages. Paul has said No. But now he allows that if the pagan wants out, then one is no longer “bound.”^{^[4]} Under Paul’s instruction a person is “bound” to the marriage until death (“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 7:39, ESV)).

Re-marriage is not in view here. The passage simply asserts that the Christian is not obligated to go at great lengths of anguish and struggle to keep the marriage intact if that’s the direction of the unbeliever. But re-marriage is inferred. If in view of Paul the unbeliever leaves and divorces the Christian, the believer is rendered a status not unlike the death of a spouse. It is inferred if the divorce is permissible, re-marriage is also allowable.

The fact that Paul made the abandonment and initiation of divorce by an unbelieving spouse an action whereby the believer need not contest or fight the partner, allowing the divorce does not render Paul at odds with Jesus. They are both addressing different contexts. Jesus is addressing a Jewish community of extremes. Paul is addressing a mixed marriage.

In God’s sight the covenant bond between a man and woman is disbanded by death, adultery and now if an unbeliever leaves, initiating divorce. These then are the only legitimate reasons a Christian can re-marry.

Before leaving Paul’s instruction, we should discuss divorce between Christians. “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:10–11, ESV). As noted in the first Article, the early Church always wanted to leave room for repentance. So, whatever the circumstance if a Christian finds it necessary to separate and divorce their Christian spouse, neither may re-marry.

The final issue that I want to comment on, is the issue of Christian leadership. How does divorce and re-marriage impact the calling of elders and deacons in the service of the Church?

^{^[1]} Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 534). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

^{^[2]} Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 2200). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^{^[3]} The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Co 7:15). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^{^[4]} Fee, G. D. (2014). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (N. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, G. D. Fee, & J. B. Green, Eds.) (Revised Edition, p. 334). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 5

Matthew 19:1–9 (ESV)

¹ Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. ² And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. ³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” ⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” ⁸ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

“Jesus is the new Moses who reinterprets Torah.”^{^[1]} “Matthew wrote for predominantly Jewish readers . . . Jesus interpreted the law in a way these readers did not expect.”^{^[2]}

Scholars have identified several underlying structural motifs in Matthew’s Gospel. The transitional statement “from that time on, Jesus began to …” (4:17; 16:21) creates three main sections:

1. 1:1–4:16—Preliminary events leading up to Jesus’ public ministry.

2. 4:17–16:12—Events of Jesus’ public ministry.

3. 16:13–28:20—Events leading to the rejection and suffering of Jesus.

Chapters 18:1–20:34 communicate the community of Christ the Messiah. Chapter 18:1-35 instruct us the character of that community and Chapter 19 describes family life within the Kingdom (19:1–15).^{^[3]} It is in this context that the Pharisees test Jesus with a question about divorce, He turns the tables on them to stress the permanence of marriage and corrects their misunderstanding about acceptable grounds for divorce.^{^[4]}

A hotly debated difference of opinion existed between the Rabbis Shammai and Hillel (both near-contemporaries of Christ). The Shammaites interpreted the law rigidly and permitted a man to divorce his wife only if she was guilty of sexual immorality. The Hillelites took a wholly pragmatic approach and permitted a man to divorce his wife indiscriminately.^{^[5]} The question comes to Jesus with a calculated intention to place him in opposition to Moses. “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”” (Matthew 19:3, ESV). The religious leaders try to get Jesus to incriminate himself through misinterpreting the law.^{^[6]}

In verses 19:4-6, Christ takes them back to the beginning; back to Creation. His point was to verify that divorce was never God’s plan. The one-flesh union infers indivisibility and inseparability. God established marriage to be indissoluble. That will beg the question from the Pharisees, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”^{^[7]} The only possible place that the Pharisees may be thinking of was what was recorded in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 (ESV),

¹ “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then 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 of his house, and she departs out of his house, ² and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, ³ and the latter man hates 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 man dies, who took her to be his wife, ⁴ then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

First of all, Deuteronomy 24 does not “command” divorce. There’s only one command in the passage: “then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:4, ESV) [Emphasis Mine]. Secondly, one should note that Jesus agreed that Moses had “allowed” divorce, but He did not say that He agreed with that. This seems to follow the familiar pattern of Matthew’s Gospel, “You have heard it said; I say unto you.” I think a correct interpretation of Matthew 19:8-9 is, “Moses did allow you to divorce but I say to you . . ..”

Deuteronomy does indicate an allowance by Moses to divorce when a man “finds no favor” (v.1) in his wife. Only the KJV and NET renders verse 2, “And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” Most translations are similar to the ESV noted above. The wife is not given permission for re-marriage. The case is “if she goes and remarries.”

What is the lack of favor that the first husband finds in his wife? It must be someone other than adultery, which was punished by stoning (cf. Deuteronomy 22:22). The Hebrew word used here, erwah, literally means “nakedness.” John Murray says, “ . . . there is no evidence to show that erwath davar refers to adultery or an act of sexual uncleanness.” The idea of repugnancy or repulsiveness seems uppermost, but not sexual sin. Her divorce from the first man could not have been biblically acceptable although Moses permitted it. If it had been proper, not sinful, that divorce would have freed her to marry the second man without sin.” [Emphasis mine]

This act (of remarriage), should it occur, would be detestable in the Lord's eyes and would bring sin on the land (v.4).[8] Dr. P.C. Craigie writes, “Now comes the specific legislation: under all these circumstances, the first man may not remarry his former wife. After she has been defiled—the language (defiled) suggests adultery (see Lev. 18:20). The sense is that the woman’s remarriage after the first divorce is similar to adultery in that the woman cohabits with another man. However, if the woman were then to remarry her first husband, after divorcing the second, the analogy with adultery would become even more complete; the woman lives first with one man, then another, and finally returns to the first.”^{^[9]}

Jesus admits that Moses “allows” the situation but His “but I say unto you” instruction clarifies and corrects what was happening. He is affirming His teaching in Matthew 5: ““It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31–32, ESV)

Before leaving Deuteronomy 24 it cannot be avoided, as Dr. Carson[10] points out, that a lawful “divorce and remarriage are therefore presupposed by Moses.” An unlawful divorce that results in remarriage is adultery. And so, the conclusion of the matter in Matthew 19 is, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”” (Matthew 19:9, ESV).

So, there is a sense where Deuteronomy 25, plus Matthew 5 and 19 are all saying the same thing. Divorce and re-marriage for any cause other than marital unfaithfulness incurs the charge of adultery. There is no difference between the Gospels and the Deuteronomic passage. It is also inferred that a lawful divorce permits remarriage. Once the marriage has been dissolved by adultery on the terms that Jesus specified, a new marriage is not an adulterous marriage. Lawful divorce by the very nature of the case must allow for the right to re-marry. Otherwise, it is a meaningless word, granting people separation but treating them as married.

How does Paul treat the subject? That, God willing, is the next article.

^{^[1]} Williams, M. (2012). How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens: A Guide to Christ-Focused Reading of Scripture (p. 161). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^{^[2]} Williams, M. (2012). How to Read the Bible through the Jesus Lens: A Guide to Christ-Focused Reading of Scripture (p. 161). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^{^[3]} Whitlock, L. G., Sproul, R. C., Waltke, B. K., & Silva, M. (1995). The Reformation study Bible: bringing the light of the Reformation to Scripture: New King James Version (Mt 1:1). Nashville: T. Nelson.

^{^[4]} Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Mt 19:1–12). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^{^[5]} MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1427). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

^{^[6]} Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1860). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^{^[7]} The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 19:7). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

[8] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Deuteronomy/Exposition of Deuteronomy/III. The Second Address: Stipulations of the Covenant-Treaty and Its Ratification (4:44-28:68)/C. Specific Stipulations of the Covenant-Treaty (12:1-26:19)/4. Interpersonal relationships (21:1-25:19)/e. Family, neighborhood, and national relationships (23:1-25:19)/(2) A miscellany of personal relationships (23:15-25:19)/(b) Marriage, divorce, and remarriage (24:1-5), Book Version: 4.0.2

^{^[9]} Craigie, P. C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy (p. 305). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[10] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Matthew/Exposition of Matthew/VI. Opposition and Eschatology: The Triumph of Grace (19:3-26:5)/A. Narrative (19:3-23:39)/1. Marriage and divorce (19:3-12), Book Version: 4.0.2

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 4

These comments on re-marriage and divorce started in a first article post that I attempted to describe the position no divorce/no remarriage. The next post examined the claim that this position is in fact the historical position. The fact is that it is not the historical position. I followed up with that by addressing the claim that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 pointed to specific issues of incest or unfaithfulness during the betrothal period. The word, I showed in that article was in fact a word that covers a broad category of sexual sin.

Christ’s teaching on this topic is found in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18. It was only Matthew that included the exception clause:

““It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31–32, ESV)

And

“He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”” (Matthew 19:8–9, ESV)

Some critical scholars suggest that Matthew added this phrase. They would say that the exception clause is of human origin. It’s called redactional addition.[1] First of all that conclusion is based on a faulty assumption. The assumption is that Mark and Luke would disagree with Matthew. The reality is that no Gospel is complete in the sense that they give a comprehensive record of everything that Jesus did and said (e.g., John 21:25). Mark wrote to a specific audience as did Luke and John. Matthew’s audience was clearly the Jews.

The Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. “Matthew crafted his account to demonstrate Jesus’ messianic identity, his inheritance of the Davidic kingship over Israel, and his fulfillment of the promise made to his ancestor Abraham (Matt. 1:1) to be a blessing to all the nations (Gen. 12:1–3). Thus, in large part Matthew’s Gospel is an evangelistic tool aimed at his fellow Jews, persuading them to recognize Jesus as their long-awaited Messiah.”^{^[2]}

Divorce was a subject that was being debated and of particular interest to Matthew’s audience. The other Gospel writers mention it in passing (John not at all). It was Matthew’s audience that was interested in the particularities, the parsing, the deconstructing and analyzing of the Law. Therefore, it seems appropriate that Matthew provides an expansive view of the topic.

It is important to note that Matthew is consistent between Chapter 5 and 19. It is also important that both passages are addressing different contexts. Christ is affirming the issue of marriage and divorce within the context of Kingdom living in Chapter 5. In Chapter 19, we are in the midst of Jewish leaders trying to trip up our Lord. “Their "test," here, is probably delivered in the hope that Jesus would say something to damage his reputation with the people or even seem to contradict Moses . . . here it is set in a theological disputation that raises the question of what divorces are allowed.”[3] That to me makes Matthew 19, the logical and proper text to examine, which I intend to do in the next article.

[1] E.G., http://julianfreeman.ca/articles/divorce-exception-clauses-matthews-gospel

^{^[2]} Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1816). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

[3] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Matthew/Exposition of Matthew/VI. Opposition and Eschatology: The Triumph of Grace (19:3-26:5)/A. Narrative (19:3-23:39)/1. Marriage and divorce (19:3-12), Book Version: 4.0.2

Monday, May 17, 2021

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 3

What is the Exception Clause? What Does Πορνείᾳ Mean?

As stated previously there are those that interpret porneia as an “unlawful marriage”. In other words a couple marries and they find that they are too closely related. Another view is that porneia refers to a situation where Joseph finds himself with Mary during the betrothal period. This is called the betrothal view. But these views are difficult to defend and the truth is that porneia embraces a much larger scope as Dr. D.A. Carson writes:

“But it must be admitted that the word porneia itself is very broad. In unambiguous contexts it can on occasion refer to a specific kind of sexual sin. Yet even then this is possible only because the specific sexual sin belongs to the larger category of sexual immorality. Porneia covers the entire range of such sins (cf. TDNT, 6:579-95; BAGD, s.v.; Joseph Jensen, "Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina," NovTest 20 [1978]: 161-84) and should not be restricted unless the context requires it.”[1]

Translation Comparison

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9, KJV 1900)

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”” (Matthew 19:9, ESV)

“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”” (Matthew 19:9, NIV)

Greek Interlinear

Matthew 19:9 (SBLGNT)

⁹ λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ

And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife not for ____?______

καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην

and shall marry another commits adultery And he who her put away

γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.

marries commits adultery^{^[2]}

Strong’s Concordance interprets “πορνεία porneia; from 4203; fornication:—fornication(4), fornications(2), immoralities(1), immorality(16), sexual immorality(1), unchastity(1).”^{^[3]}

Vines interprets “1. porneia (πορνεία, 4202) is used (a) of “illicit sexual intercourse,” in John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:13, 18; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21; in the plural in 1 Cor. 7:2; in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 it stands for, or includes, adultery; it is distinguished from it in 15:19 and Mark 7:21; (b) metaphorically, of “the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to, the Christian faith,” Rev. 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2; some suggest this as the sense in 2:21.”^{^[4]}

Bill Mounce translates porneia: “sexual immorality, fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, a generic term for sexual sin of any kind.”[5]

Conclusion

“But porneia had a broader range of meaning in ordinary usage, referring to any sexual intercourse that was contrary to the moral standards of Scripture, and nothing in this context would indicate that this should be understood in such a restricted sense.”^{^[6]}

Therefore it just isn't good scholarship to limit the exception clause to something particular like incest or unfaithfulness during the betrothal. Pornea has the potential to invoke a divorce and any sexual perversion and marital unfaithfulness.

[1] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Matthew/Exposition of Matthew/VI. Opposition and Eschatology: The Triumph of Grace (19:3-26:5)/A. Narrative (19:3-23:39)/1. Marriage and divorce (19:3-12), Book Version: 4.0.2

^{^[2]}Newberry, T., & Berry, G. R. (2004). The interlinear literal translation of the Greek New Testament (Mt 19:9). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^{^[3]} Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

^{^[4]} Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 252). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.

[5] https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/porneia

^{^[6]} Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1861). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

JAMES A.E. MACLELLAN

Search This Blog