Is the Divorce Horse Dead Yet?

If not, I'll beat it just once more. But this will probably be my last post on divorce and remarriage for a while.

I wanted give some dialog about the points raised in Justin's sermon on divorce and remarriage. In it he acknowledges the objection:

In the Gospel of Matthew, doesn’t Jesus say that if one spouse commits adultery, the marital bond is broken, and the faithful spouse is now free to divorce and remarry?

Then, he lists 10 reasons why he disagrees with the one who answers 'yes' to this question. Here are the 10 reasons and my responses.

1. If the word “porneia” (sexual immorality) means “adultery” in these verses, then our marriages will not reflect Christ’s union with His Church. If our marriages are to reflect His bond with us, should we not also remain faithfully committed to our spouses even when they are not committed to us?

I don't take the word to mean "adultery." It is a general term indicating "sexual immorality." There seems to be good support for this in Kittel. In the OT and intertestamental period the use of "porneia" is a general term which may include adultery. Also, the Post-Apostolic Fathers distinguished "porneia" from "moicheia," but "moicheia" was a form of "porneia." Also, taking the word as "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in the context of Mt. 19 seems like the better option. We should also note that "fornication," even in English, is a general term that sometimes includes adultery.

Nonetheless, the objection remains. Our marriages should reflect Christ's union with his Church, yes. But the marriage bond is between two imperfect people. Christ always treats his Church graciously and he is never injured by our unfaithfulness. The analogy of Christ and the Church, and man and wife eventually breaks down. Ex: Christ is the head of the Church as man is head of the wife, but the man is not perfect and he shouldn't be obeyed as Christ is obeyed. We should remain committed to our spouses even when they are not committed to us. Separation is permitted and not commanded.

2. An understanding of Jewish marriage practices in the first century provide an adequate explanation for what Jesus meant when He said, "except for sexual immorality."

I would agree that Jesus' teaching certainly includes premarital sex (being found with some indecency during the betrothal or at the consummation) as a reason for divorce, but in the context, it doesn't seem to be what Jesus and the Pharisees are talking about. Rather, they are discussing marriage in general. If they were talking exclusively about premarital sex and divorce during the betrothal period, we should expect there to be more evidence of this. The straight-forward reading of the text reveals that marriage in general and sexual immorality in general is the issue at hand.

3. Jesus could have used the word for adultery (“moichea”) if that is what He intended to say, but he chose not to. Also include points 4, 5, and 6, here, as they are all related to the use of "porneia."

No complaints here. The use of the word "sexual immorality" can include immorality before the marriage (without prior knowledge), during the betrothal period, and after consummation. If he would have used the word "moichea," it would not include unknown sexual immorality before the marriage.

7. The betrothal view makes sense because it would specifically apply to Matthew’s Jewish audience and not to Mark or Luke’s Gentile audience, which explains the omission of the exception clause there.

There is no contradiction in these verses according to the majority view. Scripture interprets Scripture. Therefore, when something doesn't seem to jibe or make sense, you go to the fuller teaching and let that interpret the other verses. In this case, the Matthew text is fuller, so we should use that to inform our readings of Mark and Luke. Similarly, Luke informs a proper reading of Mark on the divorce issue, applying it to the woman also. Mark and Luke lay out the general rule. Matthew gives the general rule and provides an exception to it.

Examples:

General Rule: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).
Exception: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

General Rule: Teacher: If anyone leaves this classroom before the test is over, he will receive a failing grade
Exception: Teacher: If anyone leaves this classroom before the test is over (except for an emergency), he will receive a failing grade.

Those two statements are not contradictory. Both have the general rule, but one explains that there is an exception in case of an emergency. If these two statements were read or heard in a classroom, we would not see a problem with it. We would allow the fuller statement to inform the general that appears absolute.

8. For those who would argue that betrothal is not in view in Matthew 5 or 19, I should point out that they are exactly right. Indeed, that seems to me to be the whole point. Jesus is saying that “porneia” - sexual immorality before a husband and wife come together in marriage – is not what He’s talking about.” That is the whole point of the exception clause.

I guess this is where some speculation comes into play. We're trying to figure out what the hearers would hear... or what the readers would read. How would the Jewish readers take this teaching? And I just don't see it the same way you do. "Porneia," as mentioned previously, was used as a broad term denoting sexual immorality. It doesn't seem like that the "hearers/readers" would automatically think "betrothal period" when Jesus uses the word "porneia." It seems more likely to me that they would think of general sexual immorality.

Let me say also that this would not open the floodgates for divorce. Jesus has already said that the original intention for marriage is one man and one woman in a lifetime of marriage. He has also said that divorce was permitted because of "hardness of heart." That's the context for this exception. The general rule is "no divorce." The exception is sexual immorality.

9. Just before Jesus teaches on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19, He speaks on the issue of forgiveness, calling us to forgive others not seven times, but seventy times seven. How would the view that adultery is grounds for divorce square with this?

We should forgive one another, no doubt. In marriage, husband and wife should live sacrificially for one another, seeking the fulfill the needs of the other. But it also seems divorce (reserved for extreme circumstances) may be the most loving thing in some circumstances. It is not God's original intention, but he permits it because of the hardness of hearts.

Also, forgiveness doesn't mean that there are no consequences for certain actions. In the Old Testament, the consequence for sexual immorality would be death. That's not very forgiving. Further, unconditional love and forgiveness is not only required of married couples, but of everyone who follows Jesus. Forgiveness doesn't negate consequences.

10. If your spouse commits adultery, which would better display the character of God? Choosing to divorce your spouse and marry someone else, or choosing to be faithful and forgiving towards your spouse no matter how unfaithful he or she may have been to you?

Forgiveness would better display the character of God. That should always be the default reaction to unfaithfulness. But, can't you see how divorce might be the loving thing for extreme cases (severe abuse, child molestation, serial and continual adultery)? And if we allow it for one of these extreme cases, our discussion changes. Then it becomes about what is and isn't permissible divorce, and avoids the argument that divorce is never permissible (Also see Doug Wilson's article, Time to Walk.).

But isn't this already the case from 1 Cor. 7:15? In your sermon, you say:

If the unbelieving spouse wishes to separate, let it be so... Note, saying that the husband and wife can separate - even if this is taken to mean divorce - does not mean that their spiritual bond is broken. It is God who creates the bond, and it is only God who can destroy it. In order that there may be peace and that Christ's union to the Church not be blasphemed, the couple is allowed to separate.

Doesn't that contradict what you'd said earlier in the sermon?

Therefore, just as we believe that Christ would never break nor defile His union with His church, nor should any person seek to break or defile the marital union with his or her spouse. To seek a divorce is to try (unsuccessfully) to break the union which God created; to remarry is to defile that union. I think Scripture and love for Christ prohibits both.

I'll add that one's view of "covenant" will determine his/her view of the marriage covenant. Can some covenants be broken/annulled? If you say 'yes' then you are more likely to say that divorce is sometimes, regrettably, allowed. If you say 'no' then you're more likely to say divorce, being a covenant, is never allowed. It seems, though, that those who hold to a "divorce never allowed" view, impose that view onto their view of "covenant."

John Newton on Marriage

This letter from John Newton to a newly married woman is filled with pastoral insight into the purpose and value of marriage.

April 13, 1776.

Dear Madam,

I am rather of the latest to present my congratulation to you and Mr. **** on your marriage, but I have not been unmindful of you. My heart has repeatedly wished you all that my pen can express,, that the new relation in which the providence of God has placed you may be blessed to you in every respect, may afford you much temporal comfort, promote your spiritual progress, and enlarge your sphere of usefulness in the world and in the church.

By this time I suppose visits and ceremonies are pretty well over, and you are beginning to be settled in your new situation. What an important period is a wedding-day! What an entire change of circumstances does it produce! What an influence it has upon every day of future life I How many cares, inquietudes, and trials, does it expose us to, which we might otherwise have avoided! But they who love the Lord, and are guided by his word and providence, have nothing to fear; for in every state, relation, and circumstance in life, he will be with them, and will surely do them good. His grace, which is needful in a single, is sufficient for a married, life.

I sincerely wish Mr. **** and you much happiness together; that you may be mutually helps meet, and assist each other in walking as fellow-heirs of the hope of eternal life. Your cares and trials I know must be increased; may your comforts be increased proportionally! They will be so, if you are enabled heartily and simply to entreat the Lord to keep your heart fixed near to himself.

All the temporal blessings and accommodations he provides to sweeten life, and make our passage through this wilderness more agreeable, will fail and disappoint us, and produce us more thorns than roses, unless we can keep sight of his hand in bestowing them, and hold and use the gifts in some due subserviency to what we owe to the Giver. But, alas! we are poor creatures. prone to wander, prone to admire our gourds, cleave to our cisterns, and think of building tabernacles, and taking our rest in this polluted world. Hence the Lord often sees it necessary, in mercy to his children, to embitter their sweets, to break their cisterns, send a worm to their gourds, and draw a dark cloud over their pleasing prospects. His word tells us, that all here is vanity, compared with the light of his countenance; and if we cannot or will not believe it upon the authority of his word, we must learn it by experience. May he enable you to settle it in your hearts, that creature-comforts are precarious, insufficient, and ensnaring; that all good comes from his hand, and that nothing can do us good, but so far as he is pleased to make it the instrument of communicating, as a stream, that goodness which is in him as a fountain. Even the bread which we eat, without the influence of his promise and blessing, would no more support us than a stone; but his blessing makes every thing good, gives a tenfold value to our comforts, and greatly diminishes the weight of every cross.

The ring upon your finger is of some value as gold; but this is not much: what makes it chiefly valuable to you is, that you consider it as a pledge and token of the relation you bear to him who gave it you. I know no fitter emblem of the light in which we should consider all those good things which the Lord gives us richly to enjoy. When every thing we receive from him is received and prized as a fruit and pledge of his covenant-love, then his bounties, instead of being set up as rivals, and idols to draw our hearts from him, awaken us to fresh exercises of gratitude, and furnish us with fresh motives of cheerful obedience every hour.

Time is short, and we live in a dark and cloudy day. When iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes cold; and we have reason to fear the Lord's hand is lifted up in displeasure at our provocations. May he help us to set loose all below, and to be found watching unto prayer for grace to keep our garments undefiled, and to be faithful witnesses for him in our places! O! It is my desire for myself and for all my dear friends, that whilst too many seem content with half profession, a name to live, an outward attachment to ordinances and sentiments and parties, we may be ambitious to experience what the glorious Gospel is capable of effecting, both as to sanctification and consolation, in this state of infirmity; that we may have our loins girded up, our lamps burning, and, by our simplicity and spirituality, constrain those who know us to acknowledge that we have been with Jesus, have sat at his feet, and drank of his spirit.

I am, &c.

For More Info On The Betrothal View

1. For an Academic Perspective, Listen to David Jones' Message on the Subject Here.

2. For a Church's Perspective, Read This Statement from 10th Presbyterian in Philly.

3. For a Pastoral Perspective, Read John Piper's Position Paper Here. (Or pick up his book What Jesus Demands From The World).

For a different take on "porneia" in Matthew, consider the relevant portion of this essay. (I am not in agreement with this essay, but want to point out another example of a minority interpretation that harmonizes Matthew with Mark and Luke.)

The Best J. I. Packer Book Ever!

Knowing God was good. Rediscovering Holiness was better (though apparently out of print). But no Packer book beats A Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. This book is a must read - I've read its various chapters on numerous occasions. It is full of great quotes and illustrations, and though its academic, it cuts straight to the heart.






The book has six sections, each containing three chapters:
1. The Puritans in Profile
2. The Puritans and the Bible
3. The Puritans and the Gospel
4. The Puritans and the Holy Spirit
5. The Puritan Christian Life
6. The Puritans in Ministry

I have told many people before that I consider this one of the top 5 books I've ever read. If you haven't read it, do so soon.

The Nature of Faith

"It is the nature of faith to believe God upon His bare word.... It will not be, saith sense; it cannot be, saith reason; it both can and will be, saith faith, for I have a promise."

- John Trapp

The Great Divorce Debate

Okay, so not really a debate as much as a few views articulated about Jesus' teaching on divorce. Here's the rundown:

1. David Instone-Brewer wrote the article, What God Has Joined, explaining what seems to be a very permissive view.
2. John Piper (who holds to the "betrothal view") writes a response, Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce.
3. Andreas Kostenberger clears things up agreeing with both Instone-Brewer and Piper at points, and briefly outlining what he views as the option that is exegetically most defensible and pastorally most sensible, in Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce.
   

Update: Kostenberger posts reader questions and his responses.

Here's one of the more interesting Q&A:

Q: How do you account for the lack of exception clause in Mark and Luke? Does that not lend support to the “betrothal view”?

A: Ultimately, I don’t know why the exception clause is not in Mark and Luke. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you he does (he’s lying). I believe we’re left here with reasonable inferences. In God, Marriage & Family, on p. 242, I quote Instone-Brewer at length, who notes that there are times when it is reasonable to infer from scriptural silence on an issue that people commonly agreed on this issue. If this is true in the present case, Mark and Luke may have felt they did not need to state an exception that was commonly agreed upon, namely, that adultery constituted a legitimate ground for divorce, and Matthew included this only as a side comment, as it were. Having said that, I believe that even having the exception clause—not once, but twice in Matthew—only in one Gospel requires us to obey what it says, and we should be careful not to try to explain it away or “harmonize” it with Mark and Luke just because these Gospels do not include it.

The Sovereignty of God

"The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this expression? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psa. 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator's original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Psa. 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is Sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe which He has made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i. e., that He may mold that clay into whatsoever form He chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. We affirm that He is under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no obligation to give an account of His matters to any."

- A. W. Pink (this was written and preached in the 1920's).

What are you guys preaching in the next few weeks?

Thought I would get a little discussion going that will lead to some specific prayer for each other.

I'm in Gal. 6:1-5 this Sunday.

-Justin C.

Coming Soon...

100 Daily Meditations on Colossians from Sam Storms.

posted by Justin C.