Sections
Categories
Recent Articles
The subject of divorce and Bible teaching on divorce seems to be one of those topics, among many, upon which Christians are divided in their understanding. If this is so, and there is ample evidence that it is indeed so, a question naturally comes to mind: Why was the Bible fashioned in such a way as to obscure the message God apparently wants us to have? I believe there is an answer to this seeming conundrum.
The Bible is a literary tapestry wherein God is seen speaking and then acting. His speaking and then acting is often seen as occasional. The systematic and organic unity to his speaking and then acting is often obscure to the casual observer. However, as the weaving of the tapestry broadens the pattern is indeed there for the diligent seeker.
Consider the difference between the reporting of a military campaign during its execution and a critique of that campaign by an analyst after the campaign has concluded. In the former there are elements of uncertainty, reports of a fragmentary nature, and accounts of tactical successes and failures, all reported as events unfold in step with time marching forward. An account of the same military campaign written afterward would be entirely different. The occasional nature of the reporting would change, becoming more systematic and focusing upon those elements of the campaign having the most significance. Further, the post-campaign report would include: commentary as to why something worked and other things didn’t work, commentary as to what was gained and what was lost, and commentary upon the mistakes made and what should be learned from those mistakes. It would describe the strategic significance of the key elements of the campaign.
The Bible, as it comes to us from centuries past, contains elements of both types of reporting, but is largely composed of communications like the reporting of the military campaign during its execution rather than the post-campaign analysis of the campaign. This permits us (as well as the people of God of all ages) to experience living through the same experiences as those whose experiences are reported in Scripture. We live it, in a manner, as they lived it. We then, like they, receive a word here, a word there as occasion served to call forth those words and actions on the part of God. That same pattern continues into the New Testament—a word from the Lord Jesus, a word from Peter, a word from Paul, and a word from John as the occasion demanded it.
Sometimes those words are obscure, fragmented, separated, partial, and disconnected in accord with the occasion that prompted those words. Gaining understanding is left to us through study, through analysis, through synthesizing fragments, and through reflection so as to get to the right meaning—to the truth of Scripture and to the message and guidance that God has for us. He has given it to us in such a way that we can come to an understanding through diligent study while experiencing it much like those who were actors on the stage as it unfolded—connecting us emotionally to them and to their experiences, to make them our own, and so on with God’s people of all ages. The Bible message is sometimes obscure, only yielding meaning upon detailed reflection—a meaning that is intended to be understood or worked out, however, in our own lives.[1]
Let’s consider first the account of the Pharisees questioning the Lord Jesus concerning lawful divorce.
Mat 19:3 And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?
Mat 19:6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
The Pharisees want to know if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever. The Pharisees were asking this question as a means of testing Him. They no doubt knew that under the Law of Moses divorce was not sustained simply for any reason at all. Consider the following provisions for divorce:
Deu 24:1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
Deu 24:4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The husband could “send his wife away” with a paper of divorcement for sufficient cause, but could never take her back again as his wife.
Now let’s look at the account by Mark.
Mar 10:2 And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him.
Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mar 10:5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mar 10:10 And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter.
Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her:
Mar 10:12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.
Both Matthew and Mark are writing of the same situation, but each is including different details about that situation. Both observe that the Pharisees are asking the question to test Jesus. But the Lord Jesus turns their question against them suggesting they did not really know the Law of Moses. He said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man separate.”
The question being raised was "Is it ok under the law to set aside a marriage for any reason whatsoever?" (19:3) Skipping the intervening sentences for a moment, the answer is given in 19:6 that man should not separate what God has joined together. Let me now paraphrase what I think is being said in verse 5. The reason a man is to leave father and mother is because the husband and wife are to become a unit--a unit is by definition an elementary component, indivisible, else it is not a unit. "Becoming one flesh" is an idiom for becoming a unit. A man who has not left father and mother cannot become one unit with another. In other words, it was God’s intention that a man be joined to his wife as a unit. The use of the metaphor “one flesh” draws upon the idea that “one flesh,” representing one body, is not separable. You cannot divide a living body without destroying the life of the body. So the use of “one flesh” as a metaphor perfectly expresses both God’s intention for marriage as well as the problem of separating what God had joined together.
Matthew records that the Pharisees, no doubt seeing an opportunity again to trap Jesus, ask, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?” It was because of the inability of man in living up to God’s ideal that Moses permitted them to divorce. He continued, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.” So the Lord Jesus continued His response to the Pharisee’s question concerning lawful divorce for any reason whatsoever. Except for fornication on the part of the person being divorced such divorce is contrary to the Law of Moses.
As mentioned earlier both Matthew and Mark are writing about the same situation even though Matthew includes some details that Mark omits. For example, Mark omits the discussion about fornication (Greek: porneia – Strongs, 4202) being an exception, and Mark includes the account (that Matthew omits) of the disciples questioning Jesus further upon entering the house. So even though Mark does not include all of the details that Matthew includes (and similarly Matthew excludes the discussion with the disciples in the house), the same discussion is in view and, consequently, Jesus was not ruling out a just cause permit to divorce, and neither was he ruling out a right to remarry upon such a divorce. So though Mark does not mention the exception, his account is not inconsistent with Matthew’s account.
The Mark account has the disciples continuing to question Jesus after leaving the Pharisees and upon entering the house. Mark, having not included the exception clause in his account, has the disciples continuing to question Jesus about the same matter as asked by the Pharisees after leaving the Pharisees (evidently) and entering the house. Jesus’ reply to the disciples repeats what was said to the Pharisees previously according to Mark’s account, leaving out the part about the exception when fornication is part of the situation (that Mark did not include earlier in his account). Mark’s account focuses strictly upon “the any cause whatsoever” as asked by the Pharisees and continues the same issue raised by the disciples upon entering the house. The answer is the same. Divorcing results in adultery being committed against the divorced spouse (not by the divorced spouse).
Notice that Jesus cited fornication and not adultery as the “just cause” that permitted lawful divorce. Under the Law of Moses, death was the penalty for adultery—death of both parties involved. (Leviticus 20:10) He uses the Greek word “porneia” that is rendered in English as either “fornication” in some translations and as “sexual immorality” in others.[2] The key thing to note is that the Lord Jesus affirmed that there was (and is) a divorce and remarriage right when one spouse is guilty of “porneia.”
Let’s pause here and make an observation. Many believe “porneia” in Greek (viz., fornication in English) and “moicheuo” in Greek (viz., adultery in English) each pertain exclusively to sexual immorality. The difference, some would say, being that “porneia” applies to the unmarried while “moicheuo” applies to the married—the act being the same. A little thought and reflection should make evident that such is not the case at all. Were this true, “porneia” would have been the wrong word to use since the discussion pertained to married individuals. Therefore, such a claim is simply not true.
If “sexual immorality” was what the Lord Jesus had in mind, the appropriate word would have been adultery, not fornication since the discussion pertained to married individuals. Thus, it is evident that His intention was to express a broader range of departures from marital faithfulness than only sexual infidelity as just cause permitting divorce and remarriage.
Paul distinguishes between fornicators and adulterers in the following passages of Scripture.
1Co 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
and
Heb 13:4 Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
All of these things make it clear that “fornication” is not the same as “adultery.” Some uses of the word “fornication” could include sexual immorality. However, the word “fornication” as used in the Bible is sufficiently broad that its use need not include reference to sexual immorality in a particular situation. In the passage of Scripture cited (Matthew 19:9), as said earlier, had “fornication” as used been intended to denote marital infidelity, then the appropriate word would have been “adultery” since those involved were legally married.
Since He didn’t use “adultery” as the exception, something much more encompassing was in view. His use of “fornication” suggests marital unfaithfulness that is much broader than sexual sins—including immoral behavior and choices that serve to deny the marriage covenant. “Adultery” unlike “fornication” does not express other types of unfaithfulness. Fornication includes behavior that is expressly inconsistent with the marriage covenant. So, no Christian must remain in a marriage with a person who is murder, a thief, a liar, a slanderer, or one who is abusive, hostile, or violent. There is no biblical basis for believing that a man or a woman must remain in a marriage that is abusive of the moral standards of God.
In his letter to the Corinthians the apostle Paul responds to some issues about which they had written Paul.
1Co 7:10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
1Co 7:11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
1Co 7:12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
1Co 7:13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
1Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.
1Co 7:16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Paul mentions the same general principle, using other words, that the Lord Jesus had spoken about with the Pharisees—what God has joined together let not man put asunder; therefore, a husband or wife should not leave their spouse. However, if she did leave, she was to remain unmarried. Paul recognized that in that culture she could remarry, but she should not. Rather they should seek to be reconciled. The implication in this situation is that he was discussing a divorce situation that lacked just cause.
Next Paul addresses the situation wherein an unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage (i.e., divorces the believer). Paul’s judgment is that “a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.” (1st Corinthians 7:15) So Paul views the one divorcing their spouse as a case of abandonment, an instance of just cause, for the divorced spouse resulting in the right of that person to remarry. There is no mention of sexual infidelity. Therefore, abandonment would be included within the semantic range of the word fornication.
The sin committed by Israel in the high places is called fornication. Fornication as used of Israel refers to unfaithfulness to God. Individual Israelites did indeed commit all manner of sins including adultery, but Israel’s fundamental sin was unfaithfulness toward God. Fornication was a continuing problem with Israel after the flesh. (Isaiah 23:17; Ezekiel 16:26—41). In each situation there is little question, but that Israel’s sin included individual Israelites committing adultery with the women of the nations around them, in many instances in connection with the high places. Israel’s unfaithfulness was called fornication while Israel was termed a harlot. Both “fornication” and “harlot” are used figuratively in depicting the same thing, Israel’s unfaithfulness to God.
These figurative terms are used in the context of Israel being God’s wife—in a figurative sense as well. (Jeremiah 3:14) Israel’s unfaithfulness resulted in God divorcing her because of all of her sins and backsliding. (Jeremiah 3:8) It wasn’t simply sexual misconduct that was Israel’s problem. Sexual misconduct was simply a symptom of the problem. The fundamental problem was unfaithfulness that was expressed in many different ways. Israel had broken covenant with God. (Jeremiah 11:10) To use a figure, it was this breaking of the covenant of marriage between God and Israel through Israel’s unfaithfulness that resulted in God divorcing Israel. Sins of a sexual nature were only one manifestation of Israel’s departure. There were many other manifestations. (Jeremiah 7:9)
Israel’s many departures from faithfulness to God resulted in estrangement and divorce from God. Those departures were manifested in many ways including sexual relationships by individual Israelites with those of other nations. However, it was Israel’s unfaithfulness that resulted in the divorce, not any particular manifestation of that unfaithfulness. Likewise, a husband’s or wife’s departure from the marriage covenant can be manifested in many ways. Sexual unfaithfulness is one way, but there are many other ways, all included within the semantic range of “fornication.”
Had the Lord Jesus intended sexual unfaithfulness to be the only just cause for divorce He could have used the more limiting word, adultery, instead of fornication which He did not do. The word adultery would have been an especially suitable word, had sexual unfaithfulness been the primary idea in view since the consequence was divorce (i.e., the offending party was married). His use of the broader term, fornication, implies that marriage does not destroy every human right that a person has been given by God. A person cannot be forced to live within a relationship with another person that is not consistent with the morality of God and our being joined together with Him as sons and daughters.
Consider the account in Hebrews of Esau.
Heb 12:14 Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord:
Heb 12:15 looking carefully lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled;
Heb 12:16 lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright.
Heb 12:17 For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind in his father, though he sought is diligently with tears.
Esau was deemed a fornicator and a profane person. (Hebrews 12:16) However, there is no indication in Scripture that Esau was guilty of sexual immorality. He took multiple wives, but so did Jacob and others that were designated as great men of faith. Why is there no record of Esau being involved in sexual immorality? Evidently, either he wasn’t involved in sexual immorality or if he was, it was not the key element associated with his being deemed either a fornicator or a profane person simply because it wasn’t deemed sufficiently significant for the inspired writers of Scripture to record.
His being a fornicator and a profane person connects with that which Moses was divinely inspired to write about him. There seem to be two features of Esau that are given especial prominence. First, he despised his birthright. (Genesis 25:32—24) Second, he despised God’s way—he sought out wives among neighboring tribes. (Genesis 26:34; 27:46; 28:1, 8—9) Esau was a person with a heart of hate and murder. (Genesis 27:41) These are the characteristics of Esau that were deemed important to record. These are the things that made Esau a fornicator and a profane person.
No Christian must remain within a marriage to a murder, a thief, a liar, a slanderer, an abusive, hostile, or violent spouse (or any other immoral attribute) merely because that spouse has not committed sexual sins against them. We have been called to peace, not to remain in bondage. (1st Corinthians 7:15) There is no reason to limit the values of marriage to sexual faithfulness alone. There is no biblical reason to believe that a man or woman must stay within a marriage that is abusive of the moral standards of the God Who instituted marriage.
Whether it is criminal behavior, an unjust divorce abandonment of the marriage, a loss of relationship rights, deceitful living, a selfishness that attacks the individuality of the spouse, an emotionally abusive environment, a rage filled, peace thwarting climate or sexual immorality, Christians have a right to be free from bondage and to be at peace—Christians have a right to divorce from such a person and the right to remarry. Marriage is intended to be a relationship in Christ, not a life sentence to the immoral choices of a spouse.
The point at which a spouse’s conduct reaches a point of constituting fornication is a matter to be determined by the person in the relationship, not for someone outside of the relationship to determine for them. It is a matter that each individual should have the right to determine for themselves, not a right for someone else to exercise for them. We must each bear the consequences for our actions, and, therefore, must bear the responsibility as well for our decisions and choices. We may, and probably should, receive counsel from others for in the multitude of counselors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14; 15:22) There is no reason to receive counsel from a multitude if an authority figure provides the only acceptable, orthodox answer for us. The decision is ours as are the consequences of that decision.
A Christian has the right to be free from impositions of biblically unsound interpretations that result in rules to be applied in a legalistic manner (often applied, not to themselves, but to others). Such impositions serve to bring Christians back into bondage rather than to set them free. There is always a danger that a person can fall prey to another who believes they have been provided the word of the Lord for others, and, beyond that, believes they have a mandate from God to ensure that you follow their understanding of that Word. Christians should be vigilant in not falling prey to such charlatans.
Christians have been set free and are admonished not to return again into bondage. (Galatians 5:1) The context of this passage of Scripture is, of course, addressing the tendency of the Galatians to want to return to a form of bondage by continuing to practice Jewish physical rites. Following the understanding of others, rather than our own understanding, amounts to the same thing. It is contrary to faith. What says the Scripture? “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1st Thessalonians 5:21) We should walk in our own understanding; hence, by faith, not in the forced understanding of another. The imposition of the beliefs or values of one or more individuals upon another speaks both of pride as well as arrogance.
The Lord Jesus expressed His disdain for such people:
Mat 23:4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
My words in this paper are intended as nothing more than a sharing of my understanding of what the Scriptures teach without any thought of imposing that understanding upon others. In the final analysis, it is your right to determine for yourself what is correct and your responsibility to evaluate what you hear (either from me or from others) and to walk in your own understanding of what God’s word teaches.
We who are Christians each have the same source material, the Bible, and the same Spirit to guide our understanding. The Scriptures tell us that “every joint supplies.” (Ephesians 4:16) It is, therefore, prudent to gather whatever insight from others we can. Having availed ourselves of that, we should each walk by our faith, not that of another. The just shall walk by his [own] faith. (Habakkuk 2:4) I simply offer these things for your consideration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may contact me at:
davidmc41@gmail.com
Other studies may be found at my personal web site:
http://sites.google.com/site/davidmc41
[1] The English word for this phenomenon, though not often used, is ‘noema.’ [2] The American Standard Version, the King James Version, and the Revised Version use “fornication” while the International Version uses “sexual immorality.” Strangely, the New King James version uses both. In Matthew 19:9 “sexual immorality” is used while in Hebrews 13:4 the word used is “fornicators.”
Recent Comments
Recent Blog Posts
Recent Forum Posts