JAMES A.E. MACLELLAN

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.

Sunday, May 16, 2021

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 2

The position that I described in Part 1, the previous article is a typical response to divorce and re-marriage offering that can best be described ‘No Divorce, No Re-marriage”. This Discussion moves into that article and examines its credibility. At times, this position can be described as the traditional orthodox position. Therefore we start by examining that claim.

“A look at the early Church and the patristic fathers garner no absolute concession of understand. Not all have interpreted these passages in like manner. Indeed, some have come virtually to opposite conclusions. Because they were writing largely for men, most of their remarks and illustrations concern women at fault. Generally, however, either directly or by allusion, they agree that what applies to one sex applies equally to the other.”

“The Ante-Nicene Fathers generally permitted divorce on the ground of adultery. Some even required it. At the same time, remarriage was usually forbidden. Not only did it cut off any chance of marital reconciliation, but many in the church regarded marriage as an indissoluble bond which continued unbroken until the death of one spouse.”[1]

Augustine who strongly influenced the Roman Catholic Church wrote, in part, “Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery [himself] . . . Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for the reason other than fornication commits adultery’, undoubtedly we speak the truth.[2]

Notably “like Luther, Calvin saw adultery as the one cause for divorce in Jesus' teachings. As far as he was concerned, the OT penalty for adultery should be enforced, making divorce unnecessary, but "the wicked forbearance of magistrates makes it necessary for husbands to put away unchaste wives, because adulterers are not punished." “Divorce under such circumstances gives the innocent party freedom to remarry, for Jesus' condemnation of remarriage as adultery applied undoubtedly only to "unlawful and frivolous divorces."[3]

So it seems that the Reformers in their study of the matter, primarily to dismiss the sacramental nature of marriage also brought a change of view that permitted remarriage by an innocent party after a divorce because of adultery or desertion. This is represented in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Chapter XXIV. OF MARRIAGE, AND DIVORCE

“V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract, (Mat 1:18-20). In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, (Mat 5:31-32): and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead, (Mat 19:9; Rom 7:2-3).

I find two very compelling thoughts from the very brief sketch of history

1. The Church always recognized that as long as repentance and reconciliation is possible that remarriage should not be permitted.

2. As history progressed the permanence of marriage never lost its necessity, and no divorce was conceivable unless there had been adultery. The view of such is that it brought a type of “death” to the relationship saving the parties from certain charges of adultery.

To suggest the view No Divorce, No Re-marriage is and has been the position of the early and historical Church is simply not correct.

[1] https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_divorce_snuth.html

[2] https://erickybarra.org/2019/08/04/divorce-remarriage-in-the-church-fathers/

[3] https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_divorce_snuth.html

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce - Part 1

One Position

General

The position that I am describing is the position that was long held by the Church. It does not describe the liberty and the conciliation of modern positions on the topic. Although this position is hard to communicate to hurting people, it must be understood it claims to be the posture of Scripture. At the outset it is important to understand that God forgives all sin. “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (Matthew 12:31, ESV). Forgiveness and grace are available for the sins of divorce and remarriage. However the consequence of such sins may limit a person in certain ministries (e.g., “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife . . ..”^{^[1]} )

The Overarching Principle

There is a governing principle in Scripture that gives insight to all less-clear passages. “And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence[2], says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”” (Malachi 2:13–16, ESV)

Genesis 2:21-24 describes the reality that God created marriage and Jesus says that God created marriage for permanence. We read in Matthew 19:4–6 (ESV)

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.” [Emphasis mine]

So the overarching principle in the Bible is that marriage is indissoluble. But there is one exception.

The Exception Clause

Modern writers will take us to Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, but I intend to show that these are not exception clauses in the sense they are using them. The exception clause is really found in Romans 7:2–3 (ESV),

“² For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. ³ 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, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

Summary

The Biblical position is clear: marriage is God’s design; it is a permanent relationship until death. This is the posture that interprets all other passages of some dispute.

Disputed Passages

The most disputed passage that some people go to in order to permit divorce is found in Matthew 19:9 (ESV), “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The ESV translates the word πορνεία (porneia) sexual immorality, as do most other translations. The KJV translates it fornication. The word is only used in one another place in that form and that is found in 1 Corinthians 5:1 (ESV), “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality [πορνεία] among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.” That porneia is clearly incest. Leviticus 18:6-18 describes this prohibition. Jesus is clearly affirming this. In other words if a marriage occurs and it is learned that it is an unlawful marriage (the partners are too closely related) then the marriage is annulled. To give liberty to any sexual misconduct, including adultery, is to move outside the specificity of the text.

Some also give liberty to a believing spouse divorcing an unbelieving spouse if the unbeliever leaves. “If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him . . . 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 7:13–15, ESV). The KJV says the person is not under bondage and the NIV translates it “not bound”. Some interpret this to mean that the bonds of the marriage contract can be broken. However there is no permission granted for divorce and remarriage here. This simply frees the believer from the constant, wearying pursuit of their partner. But it does not sanction divorce or remarriage.

Another common argument that is especially used to permit remarriage is found in Deuteronomy 24.

““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, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 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, 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 24:1–4, ESV)

Rather than give a tacit permission for divorce and remarriage, this passage protects the woman from exploitation by her first husband (requiring two or more dowries). More importantly if a woman was divorced and married another man, she could not return and marry her first husband. When that union was broken by another marriage, adultery was committed. Jesus supports this interpretation when He says, “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 5:32, ESV). Even if she remarried her former husband, adultery was committed because the original union was broken.

Another passage often used to substantiate divorce is drawn from Ezra. When he learned that the priests had married foreign wives, we read: “And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the Lord, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.”” (Ezra 10:10–11, ESV).

Some people take that command “separate yourselves” to mean divorce. The Hebrew word is בָּדַל “badal” which means to separate and can mean “make a distinction”. It is likely that these wives were to dwell separately unless, perhaps, they came to know the God of Israel. Ezra did not want their foreign gods to be in the homes of the Israelites.

Conclusion

Marriage is a lifetime covenant until death. There is no permission in the Scriptures for divorce or remarriage. Jesus said that “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8, ESV), but He gave no such allowance. Only a hard-hearted, sinful person would ever initiate divorce.

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

[2] Probable meaning (compare Septuagint and Deuteronomy 24:1–4); or “The Lord, the God of Israel, says that he hates divorce, and him who covers