Remarriage Issue

Larry, I have been quite reserved in this discussion. I have tried to speak directly to the point without bringing in emotions or personalities.

Why does Matthew include the exception when Mark and Luke don't?

Larry (and others like-minded) would say:

Mark and Luke are to be read in light of Matthew.

I would say:

Jesus was introducing a new law, separate from the mosaic. He completely wiped the mosaic instruction away. Sexual immorality is the only time divorce is permitted. Now, if divorce is because of a hard heart, and the only acceptable divorce is because of sexual immorality, and no Christian has the right to have a hard heart, what are you left with?

The exception is about those "marriages" which are forbidden. Consider this interpretation with what Christ said in Matthew 19 and the reaction of the disciples.

This would make perfect sense in every circumstance.

Further, Mark and Luke are absolute statements with no wiggle room.

Matthew is the only one who mentions the story of Joseph and Mary. To not include the exception would be to damn Joseph when earlier he called him righteous. Note that Joseph was allowed to divorce Mary under the law and was righteous because he sought to do it privately instead of making a spectacle of Mary.

 

But I have. Here are the words of Christ:

Matthew 19:4-8 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

You, like the Catholics when discussing baptismal regeneration, are reading into the passage that which is not there. The passage says that the person is not bound. It says nothing about being free to remarry. That is an assumption on your part. You are reading into the Scripture--like the Catholic who says that there were infants in the household of the jailor. Your reasoning is the same.

You miss the point completely. We are not under the Old Testament law; but rather the commands of Jesus, who rightly interpreted the Old Testament for us. He fulfilled the law.
Yes, I made the assertion that divorce and remarriage is living in adultery. But so did Jesus. I was only quoting His Word. Basically your argument is with Christ who said:

Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
--There is no exception clause. Divorce and remmariage equals adultery. Those are the words of our Lord.

"God gave stipulations..."
"But for the hardness of their hearts," God gave them stipulations. He gave them divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. But from the beginning it was not so. It was never God's will for man to divorce--was not, is not, never will be. He allowed it, but never sanctioned it. He allowed polygamy too. Funny how you never addressed that issue.

And I will make the same point again. God never allows for divorce, that is, it is never his perfect will. You refer to Ezra 10 for a refutation. This was not a case of divorce. Again, study the chapter. They were to put away their strange wives. It was a matter of purity of the nation. They were also to put away their false gods. Does that also mean "divorcing" their idols? They were to separate themselves from everything that would cause them to go after false gods. Go back to the book of Numbers. The sin is called the sin of Balaam. He caused the Israelites to sin in the same way. Is the slaughter of foreign wives "divorce" as well?

Numbers 25:6-9 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

God condoned divorce in Ezra 10 as much as he condoned murder in Numbers 25. That is how much you have taken Scripture out of its context. Your example is not relevant to today. It is not even speaking of divorce.

Not according to the best of lexicons. Words have meanings. Adultery and fornication are used in the same verse for apparent reason.

In 1Cor.5, the case was incest. Though one party was a married woman, the other was unmarried. The unmarried committed fornication; the married committed adultery.

The exception clause is plainly translated "fornication," which has a plain meaning of illicit sex before marriage, demonstrated in the relationship between Mary and Joseph. I don't see how things could be made any clearer, except to say that these words don't really mean what they say.

Certainly. It is not a sin for an unmarried person to marry. That is all that Paul was referring to. Perhaps the overall context would help in this case. The entire chapter is set in the context of the persecution of the Christians in Corinth under the emperor of Rome. They suffered greatly. That is why Paul, throughout the chapter, advises that "they remain even as I," or single. A parallel situation today would be an engaged couple having to make the decision whether to marry immediately or defer just before a young man goes off to war, knowing full well he may never return again. These Christians were living with a death sentence hanging over their heads. In that context the verses can be better understood. Seek not to be married. Often the young men were hauled off (by zealots such as Saul was) to jail, and never came back. It was better had they never married in the first place. Thus the first verses make more sense in this relation also.
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1 Corinthians 7:26-27 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

Note in verse 26 how Paul refers to "the present distress." He is referring to a time of persecution. Thus he advises one who has "been loosed from a wife not to seek a wife, or to remain sngle.
In harmony with other Scripture (such as Romans 7), the only way one could be free to remarry was if the spouse died. Then he/she would be free to marry. No doubt Paul was referring to the death of one killed in persecution. If you are freed from your marriage it is still not good to seek a wife, but to remain single. But if you marry you have not sinned. He speaks within the confines of the Scripture which he himself has written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not contradict itself.

Certainly divorced people can burn with passion. So can people with many wives. Did that legitimize the action of Solomon for taking 1000 wives? It doesn't change the truth of Scripture. Divorce and remarriage are wrong (as is polygamy) because the Bible teaches us that it is wrong, in spite of what are passions may be.

I already addressed this. They were commanded to put away their idols too. Is that also divorce?? Divorce is never condoned by God; neither is polygamy.

I have already given a clear exception. He doesn't have to repeat himself. What he says is absolutely true, the "exception clause" notwithstanding. The exception clause only could apply in Jewish culture as already demonstrated.
DHK

 

Considering that virtually every major work on the subject of marriage and divorce has been out of print for a good many years, and are usually found only in large university libraries, I doubt that you have read them. Perhaps the truth is that you have read several of the recent works on marriage and divorce written by modernist writers. But whatever the case may be, you have certainly devoted more hours to studying the subject than have many others, and for that I commend you. Now that you have dipped your toe in the water, may I suggest that you get your feet wet? Some of us have been swimming in the water for a long time, are very well acquainted with your views on divorce and remarriage, and know them to be absurdly false.

Moreover, there are some things about your posts that I raise serious questions in my mind:

• You frequently refer to “Craig’s” interpretation as though the interpretation that I was presenting was unique to me when in fact, prior to 1960, the interpretation that I was presenting was not only the dominate interpretation for 1900 years, but for 1500 years was virtually the only interpretation on record.

• Your arguments in favor of exceptions to divorce and remarriage are all very new arguments that are academically untenable.

• There are several old (but more recent than 1500 A.D.) and well established arguments in favor of exceptions to divorce and remarriage that are academically tenable, but you never even mentioned one of them.

• Your approach to exegesis is what I would expect from a kid in middle school rather than a man with a seminary education.

• Your hermeneutic is, as I have already posted, nothing but a crude hodgepodge, a mixed conglomeration of distortions, partial truths, and outright error permitting you to come to conclusions that contradict the explicit teachings of the Bible. You commented that this is not a gentlemanly thing to say, but this expresses the truth of the case as fairly, honestly, and accurately as I know how to express it

• Your posts expressly deny the clear and explicit teachings of Jesus and Paul on the subject of divorce and remarriage, and you argue your point of view on the basis of the somewhat ambiguous teachings of Paul (not the same ones that are clear and explicit), the exact opposite of good hermeneutics, and thereby distort the teachings of Jesus and Paul to be teaching of licentiousness.

• And not only are your exegesis and hermeneutics grossly substandard, the position that you are arguing for is the very position that has brought the Christian church to a very decadent and depraved condition where half the body is divorced, the homes are divided, the children are desperately crying for love, and the adults are bitter, angry, confused, hateful, discouraged, and looking for answers that the church can no longer provide.

From my point of view, and from the point of view of most of the evangelical Church prior to 1960, you are arguing against Christ and His teachings. And you think that my conduct is less than gentlemanly! What would Christ say to you and how would he say it if He were on this message board?

 

DHK,

Thank you for your participation in this thread and for your well thought-out and informative posts. I have not been ignoring them, but have read them very carefully with enjoyment, and I very largely agree with them. However, I believe that your comments on the meaning of the word πορνεία are probably too restrictive. I just got through reviewing the discussion on this word in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume VI, pp. 579-595, and Hauck and Schulz feel as I do. Nonetheless, that Matthew used the word πορνεία rather than μοιχάω (assuming the exception clause to be Matthean), and that it was Matthew and only Matthew who used it, your interpretation can not be shoved under the rug as untenable as Larry tried to do. However, I lean toward the view that the exception clause is not Matthean, nor a genuine teaching of Jesus, but rather a scribal gloss from Matt. 5:32. But both of our views are the only two views that have been brought forth in this thread in which all of the verses dealing with the subject are in perfect harmony.

One issue that has not yet been very well addressed in this thread is the attitude of, “What can I get away with?” The better attitude, of course, would be, “What would be most pleasing to God?”

DHK,

May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ bless you with the fullness of His mercy and grace.

 

Synoptic writers often include info in one that is not in the others. That doesn't undermine the truth. The question is, Did Jesus say this? I think he did; others think it was an insertion by Matthew as a parenthetical explanation. To me, that rides on conjecture.

If Christ said it, he said even if Mark doesn't say it. I assume at this point that you think it is a Matthean addition, not an authentic statement of Christ. But in any case, the exception is still there.

As I pointed out, porneia does refer to married sexual infidelity and thus that cannot be ruled out.

 

DHK, I am trying to shorten these up both for space and time so I won’t refer to all of it. I will just hit the highlights (as I see them).

First, I agree that man should not separate what God has joined. Divorce is never the best option, nor is it God’s plan. I completely and totally agree with that.

Second, to accuse of me of reading something into Scripture as the Catholics do baptismal regeneration is unfair to me, and I think you know that. To read “not bound” as “not bound” is completely legitimate. The question is, What are they not bound to? If you have studied this, then you know that the two major options are “not bound to try to hold the marriage together” and therefore you can accept a divorce that the other person pursues. The second option is “not bound to the marriage any longer” and therefore free to remarry. I happen to think that the language is plain enough for the second option, but as a last resort.

But again, I say, you are missing the point. You said God never condoned divorce and remarriage was always adultery. The OT Law (even though we are not under it) shows that “never” is too strong. God clearly allowed divorce and remarriage because of the hardness of man’s hearts (and that hasn’t changed … men’s hearts are still hard). The stipulation that I refer to are the cases in which remarriage is not possible. When you read Deut 22 and 24, you see that remarriage is forbidden in certain cases. That is clear teaching that there are cases in which remarriage was not forbidden. I am not suggesting that those reasons apply to us. I am merely pointing out that “never” is not true.

You just made two contradictory statements. To say it is not his perfect will is true. But to say that he did not allow for it is not true. The OT shows plain cases where he did allow for divorce.

Again, a self contradiction. Putting away of a wife is divorce, as Mal 2 shows us.

Yes, did you read v. 4??
Numbers 25:4 The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel."

The execution of guilty parties in the harlotry were to be killed.

In addition, the Law specified death as the penalty for adultery.
Leviticus 20:10 'If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Not sure what you mean by the “best lexicons” but the standard ones agree with one. BAGD says exactly what I have said. TDNT says exactly what I have said, as do I believe LSJ and MM. The two can be distinguished but they are not always distinguished, as the “best of lexicons” point out. Look up the word in the lexicon and do a word study on it and you will see what I am saying.

Probably not incest, but rather a step mother. And it was adultery.

I agree with this.

I don’t think you can treat it so lightly.

 

As you are aware, major works supercedes previous major works, building on their work and citing them where necessary. There are few old works that are still considered major in any category, at least broadly speaking. But yes, I have interacted with some of these.

Your list of excuses is very misguided. You attack my exegesis simply because you don’t like it. But you know that my exegesis is tenable and defensible, though certainly not ironclad. The fact that you do not acknowledge that my position is at the very least defensible from the text shows that you are misguided in your thinking. I can’t imagine that someone who claims the background in this topic that you have does not know these things.

As for the historical issue, you are again trying to assert history as authority. I have already referenced a church father who allowed for divorce and remarriage. Therefore, you cannot say that it was the only position in the church prior to 1500. I suspect that were we to do honest research, we could probably come up with more examples.

The position that I have espoused is the majority position today, but it has not always been. Truth is found in Scripture, however, not history.

Yes, not because of your content, but because of your demeanor. Even in this post, you have attacked my knowledge, my education, my approach, etc. Why?? Again, if you have studied as much as you claim, you know the solid basis on which my case rests, even though you differ. For you to attack me is out of line.

I won’t presume to speak for him, but I do believe that I have honored his word in my position and have reconciled all the passages of Scripture.

I didn’t shove it under the rug. I gave exergetical evidence why it is an untenable position. I showed actual usage of it as such. TDNT devotes a number of pages to this, as you are aware since you looked it up.

And this is a very troublesome issue. You claim that I am denying the teaching of Jesus and Paul, using the method that “Jesus didn’t really say it.” To write it off as a scribal gloss is a serious matter. You cannot simply do away with Scripture you don’t like.

Not true.

On this I completely agree and in fact in counseling couples, I have explicitly told them that divorce is not an option for them, even in the case of adultery.

 

Matthew often has two of things that the others do not. Matthew was written for a much different purpose. One must take into account Jewish culture when reading Matthew. It is called historical context.

Exegesis is always in light of the historical context. The words of scripture do not always agree but the message does. For example Matthew has two demoniacs whereas Mark and Luke have one. In the OT you will find some different dates. But we know the dating had changed during the time of the OT.

 

You are going beyond scripture. In the gospels the issue of divorce and adultery is addressed. It is an easy task to deal with people who want to stay married. I never recommend divorce but at times have recommended separation.

Every sin is adultery. Adultery is anything that deviates from God plan. If you look in a concordance and look up adultery you will see James calls his readers adultereses. There are other places where God’s people have committed adultery against God.

Porneia is a general term for any sexual misconduct. It includes anything that deviates from what God wants. It is not limited to those who are marriage. It can include single people and animals and anything else that is sexually immoral.

 

Marcia said:

Have you learned anything other than there are many opinions on this matter???

 

How? God's plan is for them to stay married, to repent and forgive. Divorce is only an allowance for the hardness of their hearts.

No, not really. Adultery is unlawful sexual intimacy. There is a broader use of it as you reference, but that is not in view in this discussion.

 

Larry, whether it is a matthean insertion or the words of Christ have no bearing on the interpretation as it is still Scripture. I personally don't have an opinion regarding it.

It is very important why Matthew included it though.

Mark and Luke are absolute statements with NO wiggle room. You (and those of your position) reduce Mark and Luke to a synoptic issue. It isn't. Don't forget that not everyone had access to all the gospels right away.

In essence, you could have various views on remarriage just because of having a different gospel. Come on.

The issue I am most concerned with in this debate is remarriage. Even if divorce was still permitted, remarriage isn't. It is clear that remarriage is adultery unless the spouse is dead. That is explicitly what Paul argues in I Cor. 7 and Rom. 7.

 

DD, The statements of Mark and Luke have no "wiggle room" only if Matthew is not inspired Scripture. If you took your approach to the resurrection accounts, for instance, you would make total mincemeat out of the story. If Christ said what is recorded in Matthew, then he said it, regardless of who else writes it down. If you took just John, you would have no position on divorce and remarriage. So if not everyone had the same gospel account, then some would have a deficient view. I simply find that untenable.

As for remarriage being permitted, I think the exception clause extends to both divorce and remarriage, based on its placement. If Christ had wanted to limit it, he likely would have said it differently.

 

Larry,

Now, you have attacked ME and falsely accused ME. I did NOT attack your exegesis simply because I don’t like it. I attacked your exegesis because it is very poor and I explained why it is very poor. But I did not attack you.

By attacking me personally you have broken the rules of this message board! If in other places I have actually attacked you personally, I am sorry for that.

This is a blatantly false statement. I have never asserted history as authority, whatever that expression is supposed to mean. What I have said, however, is that God has not changed, the Bible has not changed, but interpretations have changed from one period of history to another due to social prejudice, highly influential preachers and writers, etc. Any interpretation of Scripture that is a true interpretation will be found throughout the history of the Church by men who focused on the Scriptures rather than on the social prejudices and highly influential preachers and writers, etc. Those interpretations that are clearly a response to the social prejudices and highly influential preachers and writers, etc., and are therefore, found only is one period of history, are false interpretations. Several of the interpretations that you have presented to us fall into this latter category.

I missed that reference. Could you please post it again, providing us with an exact quote in context along with the author’s name, the work in which it is found, and details as to where in the work it is found?

Your “suspicions” are not data. And do you not think that we did not notice your use of the word “honest,” and the implications of the word in this context. Larry, such things as this characterize your posts. I have seen this in very many of them, and it makes it extremely difficult to address your posts in a purely academic manner.

 

In the Scriptures dealing with the subject of divorce and remarriage, we find an exception clause that, if it is genuine, radically affects the rest of the Scriptures dealing with the subject. We do NOT find an exception clause in the accounts of the resurrection. Where do you come up with these ridiculously outlandish ideas that shed absolutely no light on the matters being discussed?

 

Larry, the two have nothing in common. Here is the point:

1. Mark and Luke have NO remarriage allowed.
2. Matthew has no remarriage allowed.
3. Matthew allows for a particular kind of divorce (which is debatable).
4. Paul allows for NO remarriage unless the former spouse is dead.

Mark and Luke are subjected to a lessor authority because Matthew includes the exception. They all have equal weight. You just conveniently ASSUME that porneia = adultery. If Christ meant adultery, why didn't he just say so?

 

Where??? I certainly did not do this that I know of. If so, then I apologize.

ThD in ancient languages have consistently said you are wrong. Commentaries based on the original language texts say you are wrong. You think my exegesis is poor becuase it disagrees with your conclusion.

You have argued that because the first 1500 years of the church had one interpretation, therefore, it is the authority. I dispute your assertion about the first 1500 years of the church and I dispute your method. You have done this on other occasions and I brought it up then. You are doing the same thing now and the problem is still the same. Fallible men are not the test of truth. While their opinions might be weighty, they are not determinative. They may have indeed missed the truth because of their own social prejudices. EVeryone has them.

I disagree. No one is ever free from social prejudices of their times. But I cannot help but notice the implication that we on this side are not focused on the Scriptures. NOthign could be further from the truth. In fact, the debate on this issue in the last century have brought solid exegesis and concern out of the woodwork on both sides.

It is a quote by Ambrosiaster cited in Wenham's article in Churchman 95, in 81. If you are so familiar with this subject, how do you not know this already? You certainly have a very firm opinion about it and you have attacked me for not knowing enough. But turns out, you are behind on some things. This is referenced in several works, including a couple of journal articles I looked at this morning. I don't have the exact reference in front of me, but Ambrosiaster allowed for the the remarriage of an "innocent" husband in AD375.

I agree.

It shouldn't make it hard. I am very skeptical of your methods and conclusions because of your willingness to overlook evidence that doesn't agree with your conclusion. I cannot accord "honest" research to that, though perhaps the word I should have used would be "objective." I am not impugning your honesty. I am questioning your objectivity. You are determined to find only one conclusion and any text that disagrees with that, you will ignore or dispense with without solid reasoning. For instance, you assertion that the exception clause is a scribal addition is an example of a very inadequate method of exegesis. It smacks of "I don't like the teaching so it must have been added by someone." That would receive an F in any legitimate seminary course. It is untenable.

You have yet to deal with my comments in an academic fashion. You have simply asserted that I am a poor exegete and student, that I don't know what I am talking about, that I have a crude hodge podge of a hermeneutic, that I haven't really studied the issue, that I am not tellign teh truth, that I am distorting the Bible, that people who hold my position are merely ear ticklers, and I could go on and on. Those kinds of comments are why I say you are out of line. That is not an academic dealing with the issue. Surely you know that.

 

You have alleged that the exception clause creates a contradiction because it has "more information" than the other accounts do. In the matter of the resurrection, many critics of Scripture have noted the differing accounts and accorded errors to the text. These differences radically affect the other resurrection accounts and their truthfulness.

Where did I have an ridiculously outlandish ideas that shed absolutely no light on the matters discussed. Please cite that occurrence for me and I will address it. So far, I have brought nothing that fits this description into the conversation.

 

I assume by "the two" you are referring to the analogy between this and the resurrection. They actually have a lot in common. In both instances, you have radically different accounts/teachings about the same subject. In both accounts, you have the words of Christ at stake. In both accounts, you have seemingly contradictory statements.

You should be more precise and say that they do not include the exception clause. Why they didn't is a matter that is not conclusive.

IF your interpretation is correct. Most agree that it is not. If no remarriage was permitted, Christ picked a strange way to say it.

No really debatable at all. He does allow for the divorce.

If you rule out the other legitimate explanations.

In other words, everything you just said depends on accepting your prior conclusions about the text. Most do not accept those conclusions.

You are according Matthew less weight because it includes the exception. In other words, you are explaining away Matthew because of what Mark and Luke say.

I agree. The question is, How do they fit together?

I didn't assume that. I showed it from the various lexicons.

He did. As I and Craig have shown, porneia includes adultery. It is broader and refers to all kinds of sexual sins. If one commits adultery, they have most certainly committed porneia.

I don't accept your interpretation of the various passages. I do not think you have dealt in any substantive way with the teachings of the OT on this matter. You know my view on Christians and the Law, but you cannot simply right off the instruction. It was given for our learning.