R & R Fellowship: The Great Divorce Debate

Friday, October 19, 2007

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:

David Instone-Brewer wrote the article, What God Has Joined, explaining what seems to be a very permissive view.
John Piper (who holds to the "betrothal view") writes a response, Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce.
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.

18 comments:

Justin Nale said...: It bugs me that Kostenberger and others still cast off the betrothal view as "contrived". Considering how Matthew uses "porneia", his Jewish audience, and his narrative about Joseph almost divorcing Mary, the betrothal view continues to make the most sense of the passage. Especially compared with Mark and Luke which outright forbid all divorce. But I noticed another thing in Kostenberger's article: I don't think he understood Piper's take on the Deuteronomy passage. Piper doesn't disregard those verses, but he recognizes that Jesus has overridden them. What Jesus says in Mark must shape how we read Deuteronomy. Jesus clearly overrules Moses and makes everything clear: What God has joined together, let not man separate.; October 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: While “contrived” may not be the best term, the betrothal view does require a series of extra-textual assumptions before it can be accepted. However, this is not the principle problem with the betrothal view. The thing that makes that view untenable from the text of Matthew 5 and 19 where the exception clause is found is the following: if the words of 5.32 and 19.9 are not referring to the termination of a marriage but merely the end of an engagement contract then this statement is entirely out of context with the passage. The context of both Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 is the subject of ending the marriage contract as it was currently being practiced. (Matthew 5.32 “That whosoever shall put away his WIFE”, Matthew 19.3 “Is it lawful for a man to put away his WIFE for every cause”, Matthew 19.5 “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE”, Matthew 19.8 “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your WIVES”) These passages make explicit reference to Deut 24.1-4 where the wife cannot be a betrothed woman but must refer to a woman in a full marriage relationship. (Deut 24.1 “When a man hath taken a WIFE, and married her”) Matthew 5.32 and Matthew 19.9 are statements in which Christ speaks directly to improper usage being made of Deut 24.1-4 in support of the unrighteous divorce practices of that time. In Matthew 5.31 and 5.32 the meaning of the term “wife” cannot have different meanings and both remain relevant to each other and to the principle issue be raised for the purpose of corrective instruction. Likewise in Matthew 19, the meaning of the term wife in verse 9 cannot mean something different than its meaning in verses 3, 5 and 8. If it does refer to a different relationship, that of betrothal rather than that of marriage, then two things have happened. First, the subject has been suddenly changed and no direct contrast is being made by Christ concerning his teaching and the popular view of divorce in his day. Secondly, the formula “it hath been said” 5.31 “but I say to you” 5.32 requires direct equivalence or it becomes meaningless. Matthew 19.9 provides the additional difficulty of having a dual meaning in a single statement – according to the betrothal view “wife”, “marry another”, “whoso marrieth her” must refer to two distinctly different relationships within one continuing thought – the verse becomes “Whosoever shall put away his fiancée, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth a fiancée which is put away doth commit adultery.” This concluding statement of Christ’s teaching in contrast to the divorce practices of his day cannot be what he was trying to rebuke and correct.

I think that Piper and others are incorrect when they make the following assertion “Jesus did in fact reject, for his disciples, what Moses commanded (Mark 10:5) or permitted (Matthew 19:8) in Deuteronomy 24:1.” (Piper from “Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce”) I do not think that Jesus changes the Old Testament law in his teaching about divorce. The OT law nowhere establishes the practice of the divorce. The commandment of Deut 24.1-4 is a command restricting a particular practice associated with divorce, that is, the remarriage of a divorced man and woman after they have divorced from each other and married other people. THE CONDITIONAL CLAUSE: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that 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 from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against 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 husband dies who took her to be his wife,” THE COMMAND “then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.” The commandment (Mark) was this limited restriction. The permission (Matthew) was the silence in addressing other evil practices in reference to divorce. The OT refers to the formal practice many times but does not command the practice and especially not in Deut 24. Christ elevates marriage to its proper place, the place intended for it from the creation of the world and never commanded by God to be any other way.; October 25, 2007 at 10:05 PM
R and R Fellowship Member said...: Let me respond with three brief points:

A. It does not help to stress the word wife as if only fully married couples were considered husband and wife. Mary is called Joseph's wife in Matthew 1 even though they were only betrothed at the time. I think part of the confusion over these matters is that we approach New Testament engagements as if they were like our own. They were not. A betrothed couple were considered husband and wife from the time the man presented the dowry to the woman's father.

B. Your point that Jesus is not talking about divorce in the context of a betrothal in Matthew is exactly the point Jesus is making. The exception clause and its reference to porneia is the way Jesus explains to those listening that He is not talking about divorce in the context of porneia (pre-marital sexual immorality).

3. As for Jesus changing the law of Moses, I'm afraid that gets into a whole other discussion about the continuity / discontinuity of the Mosaic (Old) and New Covenants. That discussion is much too big to take place here in the comments section of a post. However, since I'm getting the opportunity to teach on that subject in a few weeks (and since I did promise some time back that I would post a discussion of dispensationalism vs. covenant theology vs. new covenant theology), I will try to post my notes within a couple of weeks.

For more on the divorce / remarriage issue, see

http://www.mhmbc.net/site/dbpage.asp?age_id=140004169&sec_id=140004087; October 26, 2007 at 4:27 PM
R and R Fellowship Member said...: Oops. I didn't mean for my points to be labeled: A., B., 3.!; October 26, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Matthew 1 proves the exact opposite. The word wife appears three times - v.6 "Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah", v.20 "do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife", and v.24 "and took Mary as his wife".
It is while Joseph is betrothed to Mary and "planned to send her away secretly" v.19 that he was told "do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife." Far from being unclear the word plainly refers to the fact that this engaged woman should become at some future time his wife. This happens in v.24 when he marries her. Where is the confusion of terms in Matthew 1? You need to create the problem of confusion so that you can solve it with the betrothal theory. The word wife appears about 35 times in the gospels. Where is there any instance that the meaning is uncertain or in which the clear reference is to an espoused woman unless it is in one of the disputed cases concerning divorce? Certainly engagement entailed much more than our practices today. Where does the find expression in the NT usage of the word "wife"?

"It does not help to stress the word wife" - the issue is not stress or not stressing the word wife. The issue is whether or not the term deviates into various meanings within a single line of thought. "It was said" "but I say to you" does not allow such a distinction. If "wife" does not have the precise meaning in v.31 as v.32 then the "I say" is not a direct answer to "it was said".

Issue - It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS MARRIED WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE' 5.31
Answer - But I say to you that everyone who divorces his betrothed wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced during betrothal woman commits adultery. 5.32

Question - Is it lawful for a man to divorce his married wife for any reason at all? 19.3
Answer - Whoever divorces his betrothed wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. 19.9

"its reference to porneia" - the difficulty with framing a position concerning divorce based solely on the difference in the words "fornication" and "adultery" is that is requires a distinction that the words themselves will not support. There is no question that the broader term "fornication" includes things adultrous, the difference being whether or not the person is married, not whether there is any difference in behavior. It is the most natural thing to say "if you commit sexual sin then you commit adultery" and there is nothing unnatural about the language of Matthew 5 and 19. The problem is that you can do no more than speculate that there is some intended difference in the words. It can never be proven that "fornication" was used to indicate premarital sin in distinction from "adultery". Since the behavior of a married person can be referred to and is often referred to as "fornication" then its usage does no more than leave a remote question which cannot be answered from the text.; October 27, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Justin Nale said...: Anonymous,

I'd love to know who you are. I see that you are wanting to engage in a serious discussion, and I apologize for trying to type something up on the fly earlier. I appreciate your last response - maybe we can both learn from each other.

1. As for whether a betrothed couple was called husband and wife, you quoted Matthew 1:6, 20, and 24, yet somehow missed verse 19 where Joseph is called Mary's husband (during the betrothal period.) This period was a period of separation - in some senses a period of testing - before the couple came back together to consummate their marriage and to begin their lives together. Yet during this time Joseph is called Mary's husband, and Mary is called Joseph's wife in verse 24 though he did not "know" her until after Jesus was born. Verse 19 alone proves the point.

(I'm sure you realize as well that the words translated husband and wife ("aner" and "gunaika") are actually the words for "man" and "woman". Thus, Joseph was Mary's man both during the betrothal and afterwards, and Mary was Joseph's woman both during the betrothal and afterwards. Also, don't miss that if Joseph had put Mary away before the consummation of their mariage, it would still have been called a divorce. This shows that their status during the betrothal period was much more than just, say, boyfriend and girlfriend or fiancees.)

So, to make the point, divorce was an issue not only for Jewish couples after the marriage had been consummated, but before.

2. How should we read the line of reasoning in Matthew 5:31-32?

"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife ("gunaikas" - woman), let him give her a certificate of divorce.'"

So far this is pretty easy to understand. If a man wants to put his wife away, Moses says that he can do so by giving her a certificate. This cannot mean simply AFTER the marriage has been consummated, because as we've already seen men and women were considered husband and wife BEFORE consummation. Jewish men (like Joseph) who were betrothed to a woman (like Mary) could only end that betrothal through divorce.

Nothing in 5:31 limits the question only to post-consummation relationships. Instead, the question concerns any man wishing to divorce his wife.

So then comes verse 32 and the exception clause: "except on the gound of porneia".

Of course, "porneia" is a broad term that most basically means "Sexual immorality". But there are several clues that "porneia" here is referring specifically to premarital sexual immorality:

1. 2. If, as you suggest, porneia here is used in its broad form to refer to sexual immorality in general, then Jesus' answer raises more questions than it answers. After all, there are all sorts of different kinds of sexual immorality, and it would be a shame for a couple to divorce because one person had a lustful thought. In the minds of Jesus' hearers, "porneia" must have meant either "adultery" or "premarital sex". Which idea was Jesus intending to convey?

2. If Matthew had wanted to convey the idea of "adultery" (as many people seem to think he is doing here), then why would He not have used the word "moichea" (adultery)- just as he does in 15:19 (and in a way that is clearly distinct from "porneia", which he also uses in 15:19). There is no evidence that "porneia is ever used in the N.T. to refer particularly to adultery.

3. Yet "porneia" IS sometimes used to refer to premarital sex, as is clear from John 8:41, where Jesus is being not-so-subtedly accused of being a bastard child.

3. Moreover, if I'm right and Jesus was intending here to refer to premarital sex, then He used the appropriate Greek term. There was no other commonly used word to refer to premarital sex. "Porneia" was the word to use to refer to pre-marital sex.

4. If "porneia" means pre-marital sex, then the Matthean passages fit perfectly with the corresponding passages in Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke were writing to Gentiles that did not have a custom of divorce for betrothed couples, and therefore the exception caluse was not needed. But since Matthew was writing to the Jews, and since they had been taught since Moses that a betrothed couple could divorce if it was found out during consummation that the woman was not a virgin, Jesus is making clear that His "no divorce" policy does not apply to this situation. Since the marriage covenant had not been fully made, the couple was free to divorce. But once the marriage was consummated, and a portion of the Spirit was put in with the union of the man and woman, divorce is no longer an option.

I can't imagine how Mark could include Jesus' statement "What God has joined together, let not man separate" and leave out the exception unless he really believed the exception didn't apply to his audience. Moreover, if you believe (as I do) that every marriage is really an "arranged" marriage under God's providence, and that our lives together are to demonstrate Christ's faithfulness to His Church, then divorce just isn't an option.

In Christ,

JN; October 27, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I fear we often cannot see the forest for the trees. I know I often have that problem. There are some fundamental assertions that arise from the betrothal view which need to proven. If these assertions cannot be proven or are incorrect then much of the discussion about the details does not matter and becomes much ado about nothing.
In order to maintain the betrothal view you must assert that the in the eye of God, a man and women who have not met the universal elements of marriage are bound in a permanent unbreakable union. In Matthew 19 Christ begins to answer the question by asserting what should be the decisive overriding principle that trumps all practices, traditions or cultures. He does that in verses 4-6 by stating the unbreakable bond of union for a man and woman established at creation. A marriage bond is created when a man and a woman leave their father and mother, hold fast to each other and become one flesh. The issue is not whether the society of that day had particular customs and practices or what their view of the permanence of commitments during betrothal were, the issue is whether or not God views them as having passed beyond some point in their relationship from which there is no possible return. Is Christ setting a new standard for having entered marriage different from that established at creation? Can a couple who have not left their father and mother, not held fast to each other and not become one flesh be in an unbreakable union that no earthly circumstance or authority can separate? Does the teaching of Christ only have relevance in the narrow historical and cultural practices of his day? Is Christ stating a universal principle that henceforth governs all man/woman relationships and is applicable to us as well? Must we rethink engagement in light of the fact that Christ indicates that the marriage union can be fixed by actions less than leaving father and mother, holding fast to each other and becoming one flesh? If Christ is addressing only circumstances of a particular time and place, is he setting precedence for this and other issues to be reevaluated in light of current cultural norms?
This is particularly relevant to Matthew 5 where the sin that is explicitly addressed is the future adultery that will be committed through subsequence marriages. The man unjustly divorcing his wife will “make her commit adultery”. If the betrothal view is correct then the assertion is as follows: A man who divorces his betrothed but unmarried wife causes her to commit adultery – “except on the ground of sexual immorality”, that is according to this view except for a premarital sexual act – if she ever marries in the future. This means several things – 1) when a women who has never left her father and mother, never held fast to her husband, never become one flesh with her husband, never committed fornication, never committed adultery but is unjustly divorced prior to marriage, maybe by an unrighteous, unprincipled, deceitful, foolish, evil, etc, etc, etc, young man, then she can never enter marriage in the future without entering into adultery because she is joined in an unbroken bond in the eyes of God. 2) if however she has been unfaithful – guilty of fornication but not adultery – she can be righteously divorced, the union is dissolved, a future marriage is not adultery as this is specifically excepted as a condition that creates the particular sin in view. This seems to turn the world upon its head and cannot be what Christ has in view.
An assertion is being made about the certainty that “sexual immorality” excludes adultery. This “betrothal only” exception can only be validated by “sexual immorality” referring exclusively to premarital sexual activity and never ever referring to sexual activity after marriage. If even once it includes marital infidelity, then the betrothal view evaporates. This is tremendous burden to overcome given that it is universally acknowledged that “fornication” is a broad term including adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, prostitution and other sexual practices and is considered by many exegetes to be equivalent in meaning to “adultery” in many cases.
Another important thing to consider is that Christ is making an incredible new assertion when he permits divorce in the case of adultery. The Jewish practice did not allow for divorce for adultery. The OT is law is clear that the act of adultery is punishable by death. Deut 24 makes no reference to adultery – “then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce” – so the reference specifically to sexual sin as grounds for divorce is a new concept not in the minds of those asking “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"; October 28, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Justin Nale said...: Friend, I feel as if you are making the case for me without realizing it. Let me simply clarify that the betrothal view does not assert that "in the eye of God, a man and women who have not met the universal elements of marriage are bound in a permanent unbreakable union." Rather, the betrothal view says that a betrothed man and woman have NOT entered into the unbreakable union, which is WHY Jesus includes the exception clause.

And yes, Jesus is laying down a principle that applies to all people in every place and time. That principle is that marriage is a solemn union created by God which we should not break.

I need to correct a couple of things you said concerning the betrothal view (which sees "porneia" as relating to premarital sex.)

You say that according to my view "when a women who has never left her father and mother, never held fast to her husband, never become one flesh with her husband, never committed fornication, never committed adultery but is unjustly divorced prior to marriage, maybe by an unrighteous, unprincipled, deceitful, foolish, evil, etc, etc, etc, young man, then she can never enter marriage in the future without entering into adultery because she is joined in an unbroken bond in the eyes of God."

This is exactly backwards. We who espouse the betrothal view would say that this woman absolutely MAY get married in the future, since she never entered into the marital union the first time. In this example, you say towards the beginning that she has never become one flesh with her husband, but at the end that she is now joined in an unbroken (unbreakable?) bond. Yet we do not at all claim that being betrothed means that you have entered into the unbreakable bond. This is exactly why the exception clause exists - to say that those who are called husband and wife but have never become one flesh (i.e., those who are betrothed and not yet married) may divorce since doing so will break no union.

Then you give a second example: "If however she has been unfaithful – guilty of fornication but not adultery – she can be righteously divorced, the union is dissolved, a future marriage is not adultery as this is specifically excepted as a condition that creates the particular sin in view." Let me simply say again: Being betrothed does not create the one-flesh union. This takes place through the marriage consummated through the sexual act. So for a man to divorce his wife during the betrothal period because of her fornication does not dissolve a union at all - they never had one.

You also say: "This “betrothal only” exception can only be validated by “sexual immorality” referring exclusively to premarital sexual activity and never ever referring to sexual activity after marriage. If even once it includes marital infidelity, then the betrothal view evaporates."

But this just isn't true. Different people use words different way in different contexts, and I know no one who believes that porneia can only refer exclusively to premarital sexual immorality. As I stated in the previous post, we all recognize that porneia is a broad term meaning sexual immorality. The question is what kind of sexual immorality is meant in Matthew 5 and 19. He cannot mean ANY form of sexual immorality. Many think Jesus is using the word to refer particularly to adultery. Others think He is referring to premarital sex. A few think He is referring to incest. I've tried to give reasons for why the second option is to be preferred. But everyone argues that porneia can mean all of these (for they are all forms of sexual immorality).

As for your last paragraph, the response of the disciples in Matthew 19 should suffice to show that Jesus was not laying down a more lenient rule, but rather a more strict rule.

I hope that brings a little clarity to the issue. Sadly, I don't think we're making much progress here, and I'm heading out of town and therefore will not be able to continue this discussion. I would encourage you to read some of the articles I linked in the latest post (as well as the sermon at www.mhmbc.net).

But dear friend, even if we continue to stand on different positions, I hope we can stand together on the Gospel of Jesus. I do not intend to throw stones at any who have divorced and remarried. Rather, I intend to be the first to confess my own sinfulness and the great salvation that is in Christ. The Gospel must be central in all our lives. I trust you agree.; October 28, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Apparently I have totaled failed to state the point at which the betrothal view fails to square with Christ's words and the difficulty which I have yet to hear addressed by advocates of the betrothal view. And your last response is making the case for me, stating as true the thing that is the fundamental problem. So let me try again and you can think about it on your trip.

Question - "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?"

Answer per your above comment - It is not lawful for a married to person to divorce - period. It is lawful for a betrothed person to divorce for any cause.

Christ's answer - "whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

These are two very different answers.

What is the significance of a distinction between marital and premarital infidelity if the one provides no grounds for divorce for a married woman and the other presents no barrier to future marriage for an unmarried woman?

Per the betrothal view, how is "sexual immorality" relevant to the question asked? It has nothing to do with answering the question concerning a married woman since no exception applies to her and all future marriage results in adultery. It has nothing to do with answering the question for the betrothed woman because she can be divorced for any reason and future marriage will never result in adultery so no exception is needed. (From your last comment – “This is exactly why the exception clause exists - to say that those who are called husband and wife but have never become one flesh (i.e., those who are betrothed and not yet married) may divorce since doing so will break no union.”) In fact an additional difficulty is raised – why does Christ except the most serious breach of a betrothal relationship – the most obvious thing that one would think – rather than lesser offenses that might be viewed more harshly as sufficient grounds for ending a betrothal?

The exception clause as explained excepts nothing at all.

Matthew 5 is even more difficult.

"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.”

Per the betrothal view Christ is saying –

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his married wife makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery – and this with no exception.
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his betrothed wife makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced betrothed woman commits adultery – except on the ground of sexual immorality.
Again the exception is completely meaningless if the betrothed woman can be divorced for any cause and still marry without committing adultery.
Per this view part of Christ teaching has dramatic and profound consequence and significance. The exception clauses however have no significance at all. They mean absolutely nothing. They except nothing since a betrothed woman is under no bond relevant to the sin of adultery.
Finally, you say “As for your last paragraph, the response of the disciples in Matthew 19 should suffice to show that Jesus was not laying down a more lenient rule, but rather a more strict rule.” To say that it is a more strict rule is the understatement of the millennium. Christ says that every reason for which practice divorce is invalid. The only valid reason is one for which you do not divorce your wives – sexual immorality. I believe you will find that Jewish husbands did not divorce their wives for adultery. This was a sin punishable by death so a divorce for sexual infidelity would be transacted on the basis of some lesser cause.
Please explain how the betrothal view does not annul all the meaning of the exception clauses. What practical real life implications do they have for real people in real life per this view? What would be different at the end of the day if they were struck from the biblical record? Please explain, apart from a convenient fit for this theory, how the word porneia can be understood to have the specific and extremely narrow meaning that is required to support the superstructure which is being built upon it.
And yes, I do agree that the gospel is the central thing – and every divorce a fresh declaration that we need Christ.; October 28, 2007 at 10:30 PM
TheBeastMan said...: I think what Anonymous is speaking to is consistency.

In Matt. 5:31, it appears the quote from Deut. 24:1 is discussing marriage... a husband and wife in a consummated union... "take as wife" (cf. Mt. 1:20... to Joseph, "don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife.")

Why would Jesus, without notice, switch from the betrothal to the consummated marriage? It doesn't make sense.

And Matthew has the language for "betrothal," for he uses it in 1:18. If that's what he intended for 5:31-32 and 19:1-12, he could have used it to explain Jesus' teaching. But he doesn't.

Anonymous' argument makes sense. If there is no "one flesh" union, why does the person who sends away a betrothed partner cause her to commit adultery? Why would marrying a betrothed woman who was sent away be adultery?

The same goes for the Mt. 19 passage. The context of the discussion is a consummated marriage ("one flesh"). We must agree here that Jesus is talking of not the pledge to be married, but an actual consummated marriage.

Then the Pharisees point back to Deut. 24:1-4 where the context is when a man "takes a wife and marries her."

The switching back and forth does seem quite contrived.; October 29, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Justin Nale said...: Jim,

Okay, I'm getting ready to head out on my trip, but I just couldn't keep myself from responding to this.

"Why would Jesus, without notice, switch from the betrothal to the consummated marriage? It doesn't make sense."

Jesus isn't switching at all. The quote from DT. is about a married man (not a betrothed man)wishing to divorce his wife. Moses says that he can do so by giving her a certificate of divorce. Jesus says that to divorce your wife makes her commit adultery. Like in Mark and Luke, Jesus is laying down a principle of no-divorce. But here He includes an exception - "except on the ground of 'porneia'", which I contend is here best taken to refer to premarital sex. Moses had taught that if a woman was discovered not to be a virgin at the time of marital consummation, she was to be stoned to death. However, many men were like Joseph - not willing that the woman die. Therefore, they could simply divorce the wife without have her sentenced to death (as Joseph was going to do till he had his dream.) So when Jesus is laying down His no divorce policy, He includes the exception clause to make clear what He is and isn't referring to. To divorce your wife is to make her commit adultery - except for in the case of premarital sex. This wasn't needed for a Gentile audience, which would help explain why Mark and Luke leave the exception clause out.

"And Matthew has the language for "betrothal," for he uses it in 1:18. If that's what he intended for 5:31-32 and 19:1-12, he could have used it to explain Jesus' teaching. But he doesn't."

That's because Jesus isn't talking about betrothal - he's talking about premarital sex. This position is called the betrothal view because it recognizes the betrothal custom - a couple was separated for a period of time and then brought back together to consummate their marriage, during which if fornication was discovered a man could legally divorce his wife. But Jesus isn't giving a discourse on betrothal - He's giving a discourse on lust and adultery, and contending that divorcing your wife makes her commit adultery. He simply includes the short exception clause to clarify that He was not indicting ALL divorce as adultery -only divorce within a marriage. Today, we do not have other forms of divorce than marital, so the exception clause no more applies to us than it did to the Gentiles Mark and Luke were writing to.

"Anonymous' argument makes sense. If there is no "one flesh" union, why does the person who sends away a betrothed partner cause her to commit adultery? Why would marrying a betrothed woman who was sent away be adultery?"

Didn't we just go over this? Once again, you've stated the argument exactly backwards!! It's because there is no "one flesh" union that Jesus says sending away a betrothed partner does NOT cause her to commit adultery. That's why we call it the EXCEPTION clause.

Let me be as clear as possible. According to Jesus, a man MAY divorce his wife on the grounds of porneia, just as Joseph was going to do. In doing so, he would not have sinned.

"The same goes for the Mt. 19 passage. The context of the discussion is a consummated marriage ("one flesh"). We must agree here that Jesus is talking of not the pledge to be married, but an actual consummated marriage."

Of course Jesus is talking about divorce within the context of marriage. That's the whole point of the exception clause - to clarify what He's talking about. He IS talking about divorce within marriage. He IS NOT talking about divorce for porneia (premarital sex, typically discovered on the wedding night.) Again, that's why it is called the EXCEPTION clause.

In the last three comments (the last two from anonymous and then the one from Jim), you guys have held up certain propositions as being a part of the betrothal view and then proceeded to question them. The problem has been that in each comment many of the propositions you are arguing against are also the exact opposite of what I and other betrothal-view espousers hold.

So before I head to D.C., let me clarify:

We do NOT believe that a man divorcing his wife before marriage makes her commit adultery.

We DO believe that a man divorcing his wife after marriage makes her commit adultery.

We do NOT believe that Jesus is saying that a man may divorce his wife before marriage for any reason.

We DO believe that Jesus is saying that man may divorce his wife if she is found to be guilty of fornication on their wedding night. And of course this makes sense - if she has slept with another man, then she has entered into a one-flesh relationship with him and to marry another would be adultery. So divorce for fornication during the betrothal period is not only acceptable - its the right thing to do.

We do NOT believe that porneia only and always means "premarital sex" or the like.

We DO believe that porneia CAN mean premarital sex and is used with that particular meaning in other Biblical passages besides Matthew 5 and 19. We also DO believe that porneia makes more sense in light of the Mosaic law, the example of Joseph, the comparison with Mark and Luke, etc.

Kostenberger warns against trying to harmonize Scripture. But if we believe that the Bible has one Author and one consistent message, then we must strive to interpret it in such a way that its message does not contradict itself. In my view, telling husbands that they may divorce their wives for sexual immorality DOES contradict both the Old Testament's teaching about the marital union AND the New Testament's teaching about the grand purpose of marriage (cf. Eph. 5)

So if you haven't already, check out the articles linked to in the most recent post, and get the full story of what I believe (as an espouser of the betrothal view) at mhmbc.net.; October 29, 2007 at 7:23 PM
TheBeastMan said...: I'm sure I'm missing something, 'cause that just doesn't make sense to me.; October 30, 2007 at 8:19 AM
TheBeastMan said...: I should clarify that in my last comment I'm not trying to be contentious. I really don't follow. One of the main parts I'm missing is your argument in point #8 of your sermon.

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.

Is there a way you could phrase it that makes it clearer or more precise?; October 30, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Justin Nale said...: Here is how Piper says the same thing:

"A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage not betrothal. The point is pressed that "except for fornication" is irrelevant to the context of marriage.

My answer is that this irrelevancy is just the point Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication is not an evil "divorce" and does not prohibit remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew's readers would take this for granted.

Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for us to exclude "the case of fornication" (since we can't see how a betrothed virgin could be "made an adulteress" in any case), it may not be pointless for Matthew's readers. For that matter, it may not be pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, "Every man who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress," a reader could legitimately ask: "Then was Joseph about to make Mary an adulteress?" We may say this question is not reasonable since we think you can't make unmarried women adulteresses. But it certainly is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for Matthew to make explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal."; November 1, 2007 at 9:46 PM
TheBeastMan said...: Two Questions about that:

1) Can't "porneia" include fornication, but also be an even more general term "sexual immorality," which could include immorality outside of marriage and inside a marriage?

2) Would the interpretation you just gave mean that "fornication" during betrothal was an exception, therefore, if the reason for the break-up was other than fornication, they'd be committing adultery if they remarried?; November 2, 2007 at 8:28 AM
Justin Nale said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; November 2, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Justin Nale said...: 1. This is hermeneutically possible, of course, but it brings about a lot of problems: Are all forms of sexual immorality in a marriage grounds for a divorce? How about a lustful thought? Why do Mark and Luke not give this teaching to the Gentiles? How does this square with the faithfulness of Christ to His unfaithful bride?

As I mentioned before, almost nobody treats porneia in the Matthean divorce passages as a broad term. The traditional view has typically interpreted it as adultery (but why didn't Jesus use moichea?); our view interprets it as fornication.

2. No. However we must recognize that betrothals were much more serious than our engagements. We all know of people who broke off their engagements for silly reasons. But betrothals were such serious business that they could only be broken through a divorce granted by the city elders. Though there may have been other reasons the elders would have granted a divorce, it seems that the only prominent reason was fornication.

If, say, the elders granted a betrothed couple a divorce for a reason OTHER than fornication - that is, both husband and wife have remained virgins throughout the betrothal period - then their divorce would in no way prevent either of them from marrying someone else. (It would not be a "remarriage", by the way. Betrothal was a strong from of engagement that could only be broken by divorce and in which the man was called "husband" and the woman "wife", yet betrothal is not the same thing as marriage, which was only became a spiritual [and legal?] reality after consummation.)

If a woman was divorced by her husband during the betrothal period for some reason other than fornication, then her marriage to another man would not be adultery, since she would not be breaking a previous "one-flesh" relationship.

Hope that helps.; November 2, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...: That answer by Piper sadly does not address the real question. The question is not, as stated above, whether or not the betrothal view makes "fornication" irrelevant to marriage. It is true that it is a problem so severe that it brings, all by itself, the whole betrothal explanation into question. However, the problem is that divorce for fornication, as something requiring a special exception, is not relevant to anyone's view of betrothal annulment. No view - liberal or conservative - disputed this idea nor is it likely that anyone on the street would either. It is a meanless statement. Of course "fornication" is grounds for ending a betrothal. Who in all of Israel thought otherwise?
We are called on to make two conflicting assumptions. First - we must assume that porneia completely excludes adultery and that everyone would have known that it excludes adultery and was relevant only to circumstances prior to marriage - so clear that no clarification is needed to turn our understanding completely from divorce to annulment. Second - with that well defined concept in mind, we are to assume that these same people are not clear what premarital infidelity means and that they are completely in the dark concerning how it would relate to an unconsummated marriage. What possibly could explain anyone thinking that betrothal annullment based on fornication would "cause" future adultery? How could an unconsummated marriage create such a circumstance and who would thought so and why? This is the problem of relevance, context and consistency.

I disagree with this statement "As I mentioned before, almost nobody treats porneia in the Matthean divorce passages as a broad term. The traditional view has typically interpreted it as adultery (but why didn't Jesus use moichea?); our view interprets it as fornication." I have never heard this stated. I have always understood it to include homosexuality, molestation and other things which might not technically be called adultery but amount to the same level of perversion and unfaithfulness to marital fidelity - and including adultery. Who says it has the narrow and exclusive meaning of adultery? Adultery would most often be its meaning in the context of marriage but I don't recall commentators trying to narrow it to such a precise meaning. Maybe I missed something.

It seems to me that a better understanding would be to see Christ moving the question immediately away from cultural norms, social practices and contemporary customs – including current Jewish practice and debate. Instead he immediately moves the issue/question to eternal abiding principles rooted in creation. He does this by “haven’t you heard” (M19), and “but I tell you” (M5). In effect he says “Why are you debating disputes about divorce apart from the most relevant and obvious principle that should frame your thinking” (M19) and “you have heard from various sources but as a teacher of absolute spiritual authority and integrity I say to you” (M5). The answer/teaching is moving away from contemporary to universal principles. So an unexplained sudden shift to betrothal annulment – 1) a legal, contractual, and man establish practice, not an eternal bond and 2) a practice that is not related to the sin of adultery - is surprising and unexpected. Why would Christ have to be careful to address a situation which does not lead to adultery in the context of a discussion which centers around preventing the sin of adultery by those who either willfully or innocently depart from righteous marriage practices? That the sin of adultery is at the heart of the matter is clear – “makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (M5), “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (M19). Breaking the consistency of thought into a new direction is even more difficult to understand since the exception – if it applies only to betrothal annulment – has no meaning in reference to either marriage (he makes no exception) or betrothal (no exception is needed). It makes no sense to say “You may not do this on Sunday, except on Tuesday”.; November 2, 2007 at 12:02 PM

R & R Fellowship

Churches

Blogs

Blog Archive

Popular Posts

Friday, October 19, 2007

The Great Divorce Debate

18 comments: