The Family Thanksgiving Meal.

Our Canadian Thanksgiving is just around the corner.  Countless of families will meet either on Sunday or on Monday of this upcoming weekend, for a great meal and a great time together.  A common Thanksgiving dinner will include of roast turkey, turkey stuffing, mashed potatoes, gravy, green beans, corn, dinner rolls, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie.  Some people say that this is enough to kill a person.

Play a little game with me.  Let’s assume you really love this family Thanksgiving time together.  Perhaps you can recall some great holiday meals.  The idea of forgoing or skipping Thanksgiving this year would be the furthest thing from your mind.  You can even taste the pumpkin pie.  Now let me take this little story in a different direction.

What if a family member called you and said, “I’m sorry, but I have other things to do.  I’ll try to get there next year.”  How would you feel?   I mean the meal was about family. It’s hard to have a family meal when all the family is missing?

What if another family member called and said, “I’m out of the country.  I’ll try to SKYPE you sometime. Sorry I can’t make it.”  Well, that hurts.  There’s not much you can do about it.  But that hurts.  On-line family Thanksgiving – well it’s not the same.

“I’ll be eating at home,” says another.  “No doubt, I’ll be thinking of you all gathered there, but I’ll just eat my own meal at home.”  Mmmm, it’s not a family Thanksgiving, is it? 

Sadly, every Lord’s Day, professing Christians miss the Sabbath feast that God prepares for them with their brothers and sisters.  It’s a Family Dinner.  Some find better things to do.  Some eat their meal digitally.  Some just make their own dinner.  Any way you carve the turkey, it doesn’t seem like a Family Meal.  The feast that the Lord prepares for His people is full of bounty and manifold provision.  It’s a pre-cursor to a great and glorious feast with the Lamb of God in the eternal future.

You can have the feast, but if the family isn’t present, it’s hard to call it a Family Meal.  What will cause you to miss the Meal this Sunday?

    

The Validity and Right Use of Scriptural Implications

The Validity and Right Use of Scriptural Implications

James A.E. MacLellan

“Give me chapter and verse!”   That is a statement that I certainly have used and have heard used numerous of times.  It is a good and proper requirement.  The Bible, precisely interpreted, becomes our infallible and authoritative instruction in faith and in life.  The question that I’m seeking to answer is this: “Can Biblical inferences also provide an infallible, authoritative instruction to our life and faith?”  What I propose in this paper is that the Bible is also a valuable revelation of principles that when assembled properly do provide Divine guidance. Plainly speaking, a collection of Biblical truths, held together, can lead us to sound convictions. Stated in briefer terms, rather that establishing conclusions on induction[1], they can arrive by implication[2].

 In non-moral decisions this is a recognized manner of discerning wise choices.  Often the selection of a place of study for a university student is the result of bringing several factors or principles together and arriving at a decision.  The fact that this paper is addressing this topic is not to say that it is new.  In fact, the assumption is that we all do this all the time whether we categorize it this way or not. The question is, if we assemble several biblical implications can we understand the conclusion as authoritative.

 The Church has come to important conclusions solely based on Scriptural implications.  For example, there is no one word in the Bible for Trinity. Yet we arrive at the conclusion of the Trinity by affirming our God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4 and in that “oneness” there are 3 distinct personages. There are three persons all called God in different places in the Bible (i.e., Father — Galatians 1:1; Son — John 20:28; and Spirit — Acts 5:3-4).

 Other topics could also be concluded by just following through the implications of Scripture.  One that the Church deals with from time to time is the issue of Church Membership.  A careful study of Scripture (Adding the recognizable distinction of members of Israel to the practice of the early church through God “adding” to the number (a number that was known and quantifiable[3]) to the sad reality that this membership could also include excommunication[4] leads to only one implication: the visible community of believers is a known, quantitative, unique, identifiable group, i.e., Members. Another very important topic that we use the implication of Scripture to aid a conclusion is the death of a pre-born or young child, or the death of someone without the faculties to adequately understand the Gospel.  Most evangelicals embrace the realties of God’s mercy, the necessity of accountability, etc. to believe that people in that condition must be recipients of saving grace. (John MacArthur has written a comforting book on this: ‘Safe in the Arms of God’ and he solely uses the implications of Scripture to conclude that babies or those without the faculties or abilities to understand the Gospel are destined for glory.)

 

One can argue that even Jesus used the tools of implication in His teaching.  In Matthew 22:31–32[5] (ESV) we read:

“³¹ And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ³² ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.””

 

Jesus is referring these men (who disbelieve in the resurrection but believe the Mosaic Law) back to Exodus 3:6 where God is talking to Moses from the burning bush.  It was not God’s purpose to discuss resurrection truths with Moses, but when God says to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus picks up the implication of that and argues to these Jewish leaders: Is God the God of the living or the dead? Therefore, there must be life after death!   My point is that Jesus is employing implication to present His argument. “The Apostle Paul also derives theological principles by use of such reasoning when he uses the Mosaic prohibition of muzzling oxen who tread grain to prove that pastors and missionaries deserve remuneration for their labours (1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Timothy 5:8)”⁹.

Here’s another example:  John the Baptist was in prison.  He heard about the ministry of Jesus.  He sent his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” Matthew 11:3 (ESV).  Here’s Jesus answer:

“Go and tell John what you hear and see: ⁵ the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. ⁶ And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” Matthew 11:4–6 (ESV)

Jesus quoted to this prophet the selected words of Isaiah 26, 29, 35, 53, and 61 all pointing to the fact that He was the promised Messiah.  Jesus was clearly amassing texts to imply to John that He was the One.  Do you know what Jesus didn’t say?  “The opening of the prison to those who are bound.” Isaiah 61:1 (ESV.  Would Jesus be leading John toward the implication that he is going to get out of jail?   Is that why Jesus said, “Blessed is the one who is not offended by me”? 

 As I stated earlier, this ability to study God’s Word and assemble principles that point to a conclusion is not new to the Church. The Westminster Confession of Faith contains an excellent statement on this topic.  In chapter 1, paragraph six, the Westminster divines stated that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture ...”[i] [Emphasis mine] That is a tremendously important phrase: the good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture.

 It neither nullifies nor demeans Holy Scripture to study it with due care and prayerful diligence and identify “good and necessary consequences” derived by implication.  But at the same time it should be done with caution.  The warning that seems appropriate is summed up in something we all know “it is possible to read anything into the Scriptural text.”  That may be an overstatement, but it contains truth.  A liberal pastor once quoted to me this text: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7, ESV). He then said, “Anyone who loves is a Christian.”   Let me suggest some cautionary principles to follow when arriving at an implied conclusion from the Bible.

 1. What is your heart motivation?  There is a subtle and deadly difference between studying Scripture and accumulating principles simply to arrive at a conclusion you have already pre-determined (That is called “proof-texting”) as opposed to studying Scripture and allowing the noted texts to point to a conclusion that does not originate with you.  Is your motivation pure and God-centered?  The scalpel of the Holy Spirit is necessary to keep one’s motivations pure.  We should ask, “Am I trying to read a conclusion into the text?” Or, “Am I trying to make the Scripture say what I want it to say?”  Better to be humble and upon studying diligently noting the multitude of texts that point to an important implication.

 2. Consider the Law of Non-contradiction. There can be no deduction from Scripture that is also contradictory to the clear and plain revelation of Scripture.  This principle goes without discussion.  For example the collection of evidence pointing to women in ministry (from Deborah to Phoebe) cannot be stated in a way that contradicts Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy 2:8ff.  Therefore, if we assemble some texts that seem to point to an implied conclusion, that conclusion must be handled in submission to the rest of Scripture.  For example someone might careful note the multitude of occasions in the Bible where polygamy is practiced.  One cannot deduce that this is by implication permissible for it contradicts what is plain and prohibitive.  

 3. Peer review[6] is more than a wise secular notion.   The proliferation of “expert” news and social media prognostications,  with absolutely no peer review during the last seventeen months is a good example of this.  The Bible asserts a principle in Deuteronomy 19:15 that extends throughout the Canon, that matters should be determined by more than one person. Practically speaking this means that if a student of God’s Word arrives at a deduction by implication, that conclusion should be tested by those who are workmen (women) that rightly handle the Word of God.  The early Church (at least for the first 400 years) was known for working out its theology in community.  It is wise and prudent to follow their example. The words of the Sage are relevant: “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14, ESV).  In this day when self-publishing abounds, there is no end to so-called Christian literature totally lacking peer review.  One should count it a red flag when someone arrives at a conclusion that is new to the history of the Church, new to highly respected theologians and new to brothers and sisters within the local, visible Church. 

 4. Lastly, test the characteristics expressed in the Westminster Catechism.  This may be the most difficult.  The authors of the Catechism showed immense wisdom in authoring the phrase, “good and necessary”.  We must learn to decide between “good” and “necessary” consequences and those that are imaginative and unnecessary. This is an extreme example, but many years ago a man in my Church exuberantly wanted me to watch a video that had gotten him very excited.  The so-called Bible “teacher” made the implication that as mankind was originally given dominion over animals, even naming them, that in the age to come, redeemed people will be restored to a communicative relationship with birds, animals and fish.  The law of “unnecessary” rules. (I actually used less sophisticated language at the time.)

 Paul helps me in this when he writes about our daily conversations with one another. He wrote, “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” (Ephesians 4:29, ESV). I think we should show evidence that this implication we have drawn from Scripture is good and necessary. There can be a fascination with the marginal, a unnecessary interest in the bizarre.  “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.” (1 Timothy 1:3–4 (ESV))

 So I conclude: The careful, studious, prayerful study of God’s Word that leads the reader to observe an implication of such study, neither nullifies nor demeans Holy Scripture when it stands in harmony with the Bible, is clarified and embellished by inviting healthy critique and it, in fact, leads people to “good and necessary consequences”. It such cases they can be considered binding upon the conscience.  When done properly, the end result of sound Biblical implications is just as authoritative as a “chapter and a verse”. 

 I have attempted to develop these thoughts for the benefit of my fellow Elders.  To them I encourage to be men of the Word, familiar with a much as possible.  Most importantly we should know the clear and dogmatic truths contained within.  We should also, in time, be able to amass principles that lead to God-glorifying conclusions.  One that is on the table for discussion is in regard to the Biblical requirement for Members who sin publicly.  That entire topic finds it’s conclusion in the assembly of Biblical principles that all lead to a “good and necessary consequence”.

 Here’s a test case to be considered.  The Bible gives no specific, (chapter/verse) statement of the age of a child must be before taking Communion.  Could you arrive at a conclusion based upon a plurality of principles in the Scripture?  Or, here’s another one to think through: is there a principial order to the events of repentance/belief, baptism, church membership and participating in the Lord’s Table?

 

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV)

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The process or action of bringing about something.  In Scriptural interpretation it is called the “inductive” method or the exegetical method.

[2] The conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.

[3] Acts 2:47; 4:32, etc.

[4] Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:4-5

[5] I am indebted to my friend and colleague, Pastor Jeff Jones, Grace Church of Cochrane, for pointing this out to me.

[6] Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.

---

[i] “VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 7 Final

 

Previous Articles

1. The No Divorce / No Remarriage Position.
2. The contribution of Church History
3. What is the "exception clause"?
4. Why Matthew is the key text?
5. Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce and Re-Marriage
6. Paul’s Contribution to the Argument

 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.

Discussion on Marriage and Divorce – Part 6

Previous Articles

1. The No Divorce / No Remarriage Position.
2. The contribution of Church History
3. What is the "exception clause"?
4. Why Matthew is the key text?
5. Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce and Re-Marriage

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

Previous Articles

1. The No Divorce / No Remarriage Position.
2. The contribution of Church History
3. What is the "exception clause"?
4. Why Matthew is the key text.

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