On page 233 he discusses the meanings and usages of porneia and moicheuo in light of Jeremiah 3:8-10 and Hosea 2:2-5a. Here's a quote from the bottom of the same page:
In both of these passages, porneia and the related verb... refer to the breaking of Israel's marriage covenant with Yahweh by way of spiritual "immorality," whereby the juxtaposed terms porneia and moicheia are mutually referring. Not only is there no sharp distinction between these two expressions, there is in fact essential continuity between them.In his concluding paragraphs Kostenberger says the following on page 257:
Unless one is very certain, therefore, that Scripture absolutely prohibits divorce and remarriage under any and all circumstances (only remarriage in the case of the death of one spouse excepted), it would seem wise to err on the side of mercy and to allow for divorce and remarriage in the cases of adultery and abandonment, lest people are held to a standard that may be higher even than the biblical one.What do you think?
11 comments:
Kostenberger suggests that there is "essential continuity" between porneia and moicheia. I disagree with that assertion, but will have to make the case with some length at another time.
For now, let me simply pose a question: Is allowing divorce upon adultery or abandonment really erring on the side of mercy? Mercy to whom? Not to the one who sinned, but to the one who was sinned against. Yet what are our marriages supposed to be pictures of? Christ's faithfulness to a sinful church. Everyday we experience Christ's mercy as He keeps His covenant despite our many sins against Him. So also, we are to show mercy even to adulterous or abusive spouses by not breaking our covenant with them - being faithful to them even though they are faithless.
This is not to say that God hasn't made a provision of mercy for the one sinned against - He has. First Corinthians clearly allows the victimized spouse to leave and be separate. But not to break the covenant - in the prayerful hope that reconciliation can take place.
So God's way shows mercy to both the sinner and the one sinned against. Just a thought.
Thanks for the thoughts, Justin.
Yes, I think allowing divorce b/c of adultery or abandonment errs on the side of mercy. Of course, I would counsel such a person just as you have above.
It is also mercy to the one who has sinned because he/she is not stoned upon being found guilty.
Our marriage should be a picture of Christ's relationship to His people. But, it's an imperfect one. Your argument carried out doesn't do justice to Christ's love for His people either (in regards to separation and hope for reconciliation). For Christ's Spirit dwells in us and nothing can separate of from God's love in Christ.
Jim,
You're right. Neither perspective perfectly displays Christ's relationship with the church. However, let me point out that the mercy I'm talking about is from one spouse to another - not from an outside authority. In other words, the "no exception clause" perspective sees mercy in the fact that the victimized spouse chooses to remain in covenant with the unfaithful spouse (i.e., a picture of Christ's mercy to us.)
You suggest that the exception clause view has mercy on the sinner too - in that he has not stoned. This is true, but it is mercy from a different source - not from the spouse, but from the governing authorities. For example, if a wife is caught in adultery, in most cultures today she is allowed to live. But being forgiven by the state is not the same as being forgiven by your husband. We are to see the relationship between Christ and His Church not primarily in our relationship with the state, but in our covenant relationship with a spouse.
I hope you see what I'm saying - namely, that the kind of relationship that marriage is intended to portray is the kind that continues in covenant faithfulness even when the other person has been unfaithful. Not being stoned by the town elders is not the same thing.
I might as well throw in one more thought on this issue. I have not read Kostenberger's book, so I cannot really address his argument. However, based on what I studied before I disagree with him. Either way, I have another question. Whether you allow for divorce or not, let's say one spouse leaves (abandons) the other one and remarries. Do you (Justin) allow for remarriage at this point? I have always said no, but I also would not think they would be reconciled at that point either. It was just a thought as I read through your discussion.
Randy,
To be honest, remarriage is really the issue in Matthew 5. To get a legal divorce does nothing to our marital covenant - they remain as valid in the eyes of God as before our divorce. A county judge cannot dissolve what God has created. Whether you and your spouse are in the same house or separated by a million miles, you are still bound together with a portion of the Spirit in your union. It is remarriage that Jesus calls adultery (not divorce, or separation.)
I see no exegetical gounds anywhere in Scripture to allow remarriage. Even if I accepted that Matthew's exception clause was for the Gentiles (which I don't), the exception cause still only applies to divorce - not remarriage. There is no verse in any biblical passage that I know of that condones remarriage. It is called adultery in every synoptic Gospel.
So what about the abandoned person whose spouse has remarried? I would encourage you to listen to the message that Pastor Piper preached a few months ago - the second of his two messages on divorce and remarriage. It addresses this issue in a way that I think is both faithful to the Bible and compassionate to the abandoned.
Justin,
I agree with you. I see no place in Scripture for remarriage either (except in the death of a spouse). I do not think the exception clause is for Gentiles either. I would like for you to clarify something though. Dealing with Matthew 5, are you arguing that it is dealing with the betrothal period? That is the interpretation that I have understood this to be. That Matthew includes this to point to how Joseph would have been a "just man" (Matthew 1:19).
Randy,
Yes. I think the reason Matthew includes the exception clause while Mark and Luke do not is because Matthew was writing to the Jews, and he was addressing their practice - which included the practice of nullifying a marriage if "porneia" - sexual immorality - took place during the betrothal period.
I'm not so sure that Matthew is trying to justify Joseph in chapter 5. Rather, I think he was using porneia as the common term used among the Jews to refer to premarital sexual activity. Certainly the word can have a broader meaning than that, but the contextual clues indicate that this is probably its meaning here.
For more, go to the mhmbc.net sermons page - Other Sermons - Divorce and Remarriage. I preached this message when we came to Matthew 5 a couple of years ago.
Justin,
I messed that last one up. I will check out your sermon, but that is the same thing that I was saying. I may have said it wrong by saying that Matthew was showing how Joseph was a "just man." What I meant was that the inclusion in Matthew 5 of the "exception clause" was not an exception for ending a marriage. Rather, it was for ending the betrothal period as Joseph could have done as a just man.
JN,
Good point about mercy from outside the covenant.
You said, "the "no exception clause" perspective sees mercy in the fact that the victimized spouse chooses to remain in covenant with the unfaithful spouse (i.e., a picture of Christ's mercy to us.)"
But that's not exactly true is it? He/she doesn't choose to stay in covenant... it is required, right?
I agree that it is a better picture of Christ to stay in the relationship, but it doesn't seem required (remember, I'm still working through a lot of this).
Jim,
Thanks for having this conversation with me. Logic and critical thinking were not taught in the public schools I attended, and yet I've found them to be indispensable tools for effective pastoring. Our conversations provide opportunity to think and rethink about propositions, and help me to think more Biblically. So again, thanks for the opportunity for edification.
Now, I'm struggling to understand exactly what you mean by the word "required". You seem to be suggesting that (in the No Exception view) our faithfulness in marriage is required, while Christ's faithfulness to His Church is not (i.e., He is voluntarily faithful, not forcibly so.)
Have I understood you right? I made need some clarification. It seems to me that Jesus is morally required to be faithful to His Church just as we are required to be faithful to our spouses. The only difference is that the law which requires faithfulness of us is OUTSIDE of us, whereas the law that requires faithfulness from Christ is INSIDE of Him - for the law is His very nature.
I also think that Jesus voluntarily and wholeheartedly exercises faithfulness to His Church, and husbands and wives who are Christians being shaped into the image of Christ will voluntarily and wholeheartedly exercise faithfulness to their spouse. The law to be faithful is not just imposed on Christians - it's written on their hearts, and through the sanctificaiton process is developed within them so that forgiveness and mercy and faithfulness are virtues they delight to exercise, not duties they must be outwardly compelled to perform.
Post a Comment