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."