• Home
• Comments and Discussion
• Ask Jack Hammer
• Chronology
• Links
• Whaddya Think?
• About Us

What God Hath Put Together: The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage (part four) May 30, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Divorce/Remarriage , 6 comments  Print This Post  Email This Post

I thank Pastor Mallinak and appreciate his willingness and spirit to engage in public debate on divorce and remarriage. It was my month to choose topic and I knew we differed. In my opinion, he makes the best arguments for his side. He generally opposes divorce, which is my bottom line for separation. I would be happy to persuade anyone of what I believe on this and at least to influence toward a similar practice.

Hermeneutics and the Passages on Divorce and Remarriage

To advocate the position that Scripture teaches divorce and/or remarriage on occasion requires, I believe, a faulty hermeneutic beset by numerous contradictions. The flaws are exposed by an examination using basic laws of interpretation.

• Scripture interprets Scripture (the analogy of faith)—No part of Scripture is to be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is already taught elsewhere in Scripture. For example, if there are two interpretations of a passage and one of them goes against the rest of Scripture, then the harmonious interpretation should be chosen.

The Campbellites (COC) regularly violate this law. Instead of interpreting in light of one homogenous whole, they pull separate teachings from various related passages. As a result, they get a hodgepodge of points tossed into an incongruous mix. God’s nature is such that we should get one coherent teaching in Scripture. Contradictions come only with clear Divine directive and normally match a new dispensation, such as the ending of the Old Testament dietary restrictions in Acts 10.   Pastor Mallinak presents a position wrought with incompatibility, forcing contrasting snippets from various times and texts into one eclectic quilt.  This results in a mixed message about divorce and remarriage.

The Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 10 (Scripture) interprets Deuteronomy 24 (Scripture) by using Genesis 1 and 2 (Scripture). The Lord’s interpretation of the Old Testament stands authoritative. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 (Scripture) agrees with the Lord’s teaching in Mark 10 (Scripture). This brings the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Epistles into one message. To break through this chain, there should be something very conclusive. Pastor Mallinak doesn’t provide anything close to something conclusive.

• Interpret the obscure (the unclear) in light of the clear.—Scripture sets precedents which should be followed.

Consider these clear statements of Scripture.

Malachi 2:16, “For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away.”

Matthew 19:6, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Mark 10:9, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

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.”

Luke 16:18, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

1 Corinthians 7:39, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

Romans 7:2, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.”

If there is no clear reason to deviate from those clear statements, those plain passages, then they should stand as the Scriptural teaching. We have good explanations of other more obscure passages that harmonize with these verses.

Pastor Mallinak, on the other hand, that I know of, gives zero response to what I wrote on Mark 10 and the companion 1 Corinthians 7. He did deal with Mark 10 in his first post. He attempts to debunk the Mark 10 position by writing this: “We can conclude from this that Mark is saying if a man puts away his wife in order to marry another, even if his cause for divorce was fornication, he has committed adultery” (EMPHASIS HIS). He explains this edition of Mark 10:11 by saying, “Mark emphasizes the importance of a pure heart in approaching this subject. Mark reminds us to look at divorce as something we should never seek or want.” His explanation might be true if Mark had actually said what Pastor Mallinak first wrote, the PMV (Pastor Mallinak Version). Look above at Mark 10:11, 12 in the quote box. Does Mark write, “…put away his wife in order to marry another”?   No.  Pastor Mallinak supplied a whole lot of words not in the Greek text or in the KJV to find his position there.  In other words, he put it in to get it out.  I have no idea where he gets this novel interpretation of Mark 10. I can assure you it isn’t in the Greek. I also have no clue where he gets his position that someone who commits adultery is at that moment divorcing his spouse. You have to believe that to take his position, and it isn’t something anywhere in Scripture.

• Interpret in the light of the context of the passage.—A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book, and even biblical context.

We have looked at the context of the Matthew 5 and 19 passages. We looked back at Matthew 1 as an explanation for the exception clause. Joseph was going to divorce Mary justly during the betrothal period because of perceived porneia. We understand Matthew itself to be a Jewish book in fitting with a betrothal view, which explains the absence of the exception clause in Mark and Luke. These are all true about the Matthew text. I’m not reading those into Matthew. Those are there unlike the invented adultery-equals-divorce position. On the other hand, Mark and Luke are not Jewish books and so do not have the exception clause. That is tell-tale.

The reaction of the disciples is in the post-context of the Matthew 19 text. They reacted like Jesus was forbidding divorce and remarriage.

• Determine carefully the meaning of words.—The better we understand the individual words used in a Biblical passage, the better we will understand the total message of scripture. Proper interpretation looks at the words used and the way the words are used. We determine what the original readers understood it to mean.

Pastor Mallinak accuses me of redefining words to make my position, especially in the Ezra passage and in the meaning of porneia in Matthew. It is a baseless accusation. I lay out the study for all to see in a blatantly transparent manner. The truth is that he gives a whole new meaning to the word yashub in Ezra 10 in order to come to his position. The original readers would not have believed that yashub means marriage. When it comes to porneia, I show a word study, and he shows name-calling, that is, “my” definition is “wooden.” We could just reduce it to name-calling, and what would that accomplish? It would sound like this: “Wooden–elastic—wooden—elastic—wooden—elastic.” We could be debating paper or plastic.

The usage of porneia is only pre-marital, and the passages Matthew 15:19 and John 8:41 both come into play. We have an exception clause. We have an important word in the study. I do the heavy lifting of studying the usage. What does he do? He thinks you should just believe him because he says it is “general sexual uncleanness.” We actually have a word for general sexual uncleanness, and it is the word “uncleanness” (akatharsia, Colossians 3:5). If you take his definition (which he includes in his part 4), all you have to do to divorce your wife is to look at pornography. I don’t endorse porno, but be careful glancing at the J. C. Penney mailer, as that could constitute divorce in the court of Pastor Mallinak.

Pastor Mallinak didn’t say much, if any, about the douloo and deo debate.  Mainly Brother Art carried that water in the comment section.  Pastor Art made the point that they were the same essential meaning.  I hesitate somewhat to report that this really does look facetious to someone who studies the original language of the New Testament.  They do not have a related root.  They relate in root only in that they start with the same letter.  The comparisons end there and that one commonality means nothing.  One must notice that douloo (”is under bondage”) is used in 1 Corinthians 7:15 to describe something that is entirely different than the passages where deo (”is bound”) is used, like in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2.

• The Bible does not contradict itself.—This rule accompanies a high view of inspiration. The truthfulness and faithfulness of God become the guarantee that he will not set forth any passage in his word that contradicts any other passage.

This is the most obvious problem for Pastor Mallinak’s divorce and remarriage viewpoint. He allows for glaring and unexplainable contradictions in Scripture. Let me list the ones that I notice.

1. Jesus never in one instance sides with the Pharisees.—With Pastor Mallinak’s position, Jesus sides with the Shammai school over the Hillel school.
2. On every single occasion that Jesus says, “Have ye not read?” He contradicts the religious leaders to whom He speaks.—In Pastor Mallinak’s position, Jesus agrees this one time with the religious leaders and takes one of their positions.
3. Pastor Mallinak says that Ezra wants divorces for the reason that these were idolatrous pagans.—He contradicts his own divorce position that says the only exception is sexual immorality (no problem with him as long as divorce is allowed).
4. Porneia is used only pre-marital in every usage and only pre-marital in Matthew—In this one place, in Pastor Mallinak’s view, it is post-marital.
5. God hates divorce and nothing is ever lawful in Scripture that God hates—Now, according to Pastor Mallinak, God says go ahead and do what I hate.
6. Jesus says let no man put asunder—Later, in Pastor Mallinak’s view, He says, “Well, go ahead and put asunder, certain men, in certain instances.”
7. Paul says “until death”—In Pastor Mallinak’s view, not until death but until sexual uncleanness of any kind.
8. Paul writes, “Love endureth all things”—In Pastor Mallinak’s view, love doesn’t endure adultery.
9. Paul writes, “Love never faileth”—In Pastor Mallinak’s view, it does fail if adultery occurs, which is too much for love.
10. God will never divorce His church despite spiritual adultery and the marriage relationship love is like God’s relationship with the church (Eph. 5)—God doesn’t divorce for adultery but we can, even though our love is supposed to be like His.
11. The Matthew account says divorce permissible—The Mark and Luke account say that divorce is not permissible.
12. The Deuteronomy account says divorce permissible—The Mark and Luke account say that divorce is not permissible.
13. The Ezra account says that divorce is permissible—The Mark and Luke account say that divorce is not permissible.

I do not take any doctrinal position that contradicts itself and other plain teachings of Scripture. No one should.  Pastor Mallinak’s view dies the death of over a dozen contradictions.

In light of proper hermeneutics, the right interpretation of Scripture, with full consideration of the principles mentioned above, I must reject Pastor Mallinak’s divorce and remarriage for the tenable and orthodox no divorce-no remarriage position.

The Case for Lawful Divorce, Part 4 (The Rebuttal) May 28, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Divorce/Remarriage , 12 comments  Print This Post  Email This Post

As the month has progressed, the lines on both sides have been clearly drawn, and for the most part the debate has centered on Scripture and the meaning of the appropriate passages, rather than mere arguments.  That is something I appreciate about this debate.  Both sides want to take up their stand on Scriptural ground, and both care deeply about what Scripture says.

There are very few areas where I differ with Kent, and when I find myself on the other side of an issue, I don’t take it lightly.  Kent and I share a great respect for God’s Word and for each other, and I for one count it an honor to be considered his friend.

When we started this debate (which was Kent’s idea), I did not have any allusions about changing Kent’s mind, or Thomas’ mind, or anyone else’s mind who already took the “no divorce” position.  To be honest, I prefer to not change your mind about it.  I prefer that position to all others (including mine).  I wish I could find it in the Bible.  I wish that I could agree with the position.  But that doesn’t mean there is no agreement between us on this issue.  Do they want divorce to end?  So do I.  Do they want couples to make reconciliation the first option?  I do too.  Do they hate divorce?  So do I.  But I cannot agree that the Bible never allows it under any circumstance.

The only way one can hold the “no divorce ever” position is either by re-defining or greatly restricting the meaning of “fornication.”  If fornication means “sexual uncleanness” in general, than all bets are off.  If “fornication” can be restricted to mean something else, then we can still hold firmly to the “no divorce” position despite what Jesus said (or perhaps in accordance with what Jesus said).  The interpretation of the two passages in Matthew then must be key to our understanding of this issue.  And, our interpretation of these two passages will influence how we read every other passage on divorce, particularly the 1 Corinthians 7 passage, which begins with a summary of Christ’s teaching.  Consequently, if we are to accept Kent’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 we must first accept his interpretation of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.  But if fornication means “general sexual uncleanness,” then his whole argument falls apart.

Kent argues the definition this way:

Early in Matthew (1:19), Joseph resolves to “put away” (the same word for divorce as Matt. 5:32 and 19:9) Mary, thinking that she had committed fornication. Joseph and Mary are clearly not married, but betrothed, even though engagement was much more serious back then than it is in this culture. In John 8:41, Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia; in other words, since they didn’t accept the virgin birth, they assumed that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of that act. So then why were the exception clauses included in the Matthew account (and not Mark and Luke)? Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience familiar with the betrothal issue. As Matthew was penning his gospel, he found himself in chapter five and then later in chapter nineteen needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for a divorce like the one Joseph envisioned with his future wife, whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). As a result, Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to acquit Joseph, but also in general to show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue in a betrothal period on account of fornication is not included in Jesus’ absolute prohibition.

From this, we can conclude that Kent believes “fornication” in Matthew to be “pre-marital sex” rather than “general sexual uncleanness.”  Before we examine the definition of “fornication,” we should first examine Kent’s reasoning as quoted above.  When the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of being born of porneia, they were not accusing Joseph of fornication.  They were accusing Mary.  In fact, the book of Matthew has already demonstrated that Joseph was minded to put Mary away privately.  As such, Joseph needed no defending.  Matthew had already demonstrated that Joseph was not the fornicator.  It is a stretch to say that Matthew 19:9 or Matthew 5:32 were written to acquit Joseph.  In fact, it isn’t even demonstrable.  This is what Kent so fondly refers to as “reading into the text.”  There is no substantiated connection between the accusation that Christ was born of fornication and the statement that “divorce, except it be for fornication, is adultery.”

Not only that, but Kent in an earlier comment said that divorce during the betrothal period was never adultery.  It was never wrong!

I don’t ever say that someone who divorces in a betrothal period and marries another is committing adultery (but I think you know that and have some point coming), because people in a betrothal period are not married. The Bible never says that betrothal is marriage.

So why would Christ need to clarify that divorce, except for divorces that occurred during the betrothal period because of fornication, is adultery?  Why would Christ need to say that it was okay to divorce during the betrothal period if it was because of fornication?  Divorce during the betrothal period was never adultery.  No matter what the reason.  Divorce during the betrothal period was always permitted, no matter the reason.  So Christ did not need to say “except it be for fornication.”  Again, it may just be my lack of Greek skills, but I can’t get my seatbelt to click around this one.

It is an interesting argument.  Christ said,

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

And somehow, when he said “except it be for fornication,” he suddenly shifted from talking about actual marriages to talking about proposed marriages.  In context, the word wife meant “wife,” but in the little clause, wife meant “betrothed.”  And how do we know that this is what is meant?  We don’t.  There simply is no warrant for concluding that in this passage, Christ all of a sudden threw in that divorcing your betrothed because of fornication was not to be considered adultery.

Kent added,

That is why the exception clause falls after “put away his wife,” instead of somewhere else in the sentence. The exception clause is about the “putting away.”

As I understand it then, Kent is arguing that since the exception clause follows the phrase “put away his wife,” that Christ is referring to all kinds of “putting away” (including for betrothal).  And that certainly is possible.  But in context, the discussion was not about betrothal, it was about marriage.  And there never was a question about whether Joseph could re-marry if he put away Mary, so there needn’t be an explanation for it.  In fact, the Bible never mentioned that Joseph was considering re-marriage to someone else.  The verse says “put away his wife” not his betrothed.

So, Kent’s explanation for the particular purpose of Matthew’s exception clause isn’t floating.  Joseph needed no acquittal.  Nobody accused him of considering adultery when he considered divorce. In the betrothal period, he could have put her away for any reason.

Far from defining porneia by the context, this definition is forced on the context.  From beginning to end, Matthew 19:9 is a discussion about divorce amongst married people.  The Pharisee’s question to Christ was whether it were lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.  As has been pointed out by Kent, it was lawful for a man to put away his betrothed for every cause.  So, if Christ was saying “no” to the Pharisees, then he couldn’t have been referring to betrothal.  Christ did deny that it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.  As Kent said, when Christ said “have ye not read,” he was taking a stand against the Pharisees.  Christ referred to the marriage ordinance as the standard for marriage.  And when the Pharisees asked why Moses “commanded” that a man give her a writing of divorcement and put her away, Christ responded by saying that Moses “suffered” (as opposed to “commanded”) them to put away their wives, but from the beginning, it was not so.

Again, nothing in here about betrothal (which was Jewish custom at the time of Christ).  Christ says that it is not lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Now, if we substitute Kent’s definition for porneia into the passage, then we run into problems.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for pre-marital sex, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If “pre-marital sex” is the definition, we still can’t insist that the putting away is also pre-marital.  In order to come up with that interpretation, we have to read it into the text.  We have to say that the text is actually saying (tucked neatly away between the Greek letters) “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except he put her away before they were married for pre-marital sex, committeth adultery…”  I’m thinking that we won’t find that reading in there, not even in the Greek.

So, given the context, the definition doesn’t work.  Though I can understand the insistence that we accept that particular definition.  To be honest, Kent is the first person I’ve read who held the “no divorce ever” position who didn’t try to ignore Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, or try to tell us that those verses don’t hold equal authority with say Mark 10:11-12.  Kent, as he always does, takes up his position on defensible ground.  But it should also be noted that his position only works if fornication means “pre-marital sex.”  And while fornication certainly includes pre-marital sex, that is not the limit of its meaning.

True, fornication and adultery are distinct terms.  But fornication is to adultery what a rectangle is to a square.  Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.  Similarly, adultery is always fornication, although not all fornication is adultery.  Fornication is general sexual uncleanness.  It includes adultery, but is a much broader term than adultery.   Fornication encompasses every kind of ludeness, including pornography (a word we get from the Greek for porneia) while adultery is sexual uncleanness in violation of a marriage bond.  These terms are used this way consistently throughout the New Testament, and there is no requirement that we accept the “wooden” (i.e. overly restrictive) definition that has been demanded.  Divorce, as Christ said, is adultery, saving for the cause of fornication.  In those cases, the fornication is the adultery.

Having attempted to flesh out the natural meaning of each passage pertaining to divorce, and understanding that there is more than enough disagreement to keep us debating for the rest of our lives, let me say that I wish there were no divorce.  I am against divorce.  I do not want to persuade anyone to get a divorce.

Divorce is never pretty, never good, never desirable.  Whenever there is divorce, there is always sin.  I wish that every husband was against divorce.  I wish that every wife was convinced that divorce should never be an option.  I wish that every divorce court in the nation would close up for lack of business.  I wish that we would all cut the word “divorce” out of our dictionaries.  Or better yet, I wish that we would need to look the word “divorce” up in a dictionary because we’ve forgotten what it means.  I wish that the word were not a part of our vocabulary.  I wish that every marriage had a conviction that divorce was never allowed.

A few years ago, I encountered a man who adamantly opposed divorce in any case.  He absolutely rejected it for any reason ever.  He forbid his wife to even mention the subject.  He was convinced that the Bible never allowed divorce.  He told his wife that she was never allowed to divorce him.  Showed her from the Bible that divorce was forbidden.  She had to stay married to him no matter what.  It did not matter that he was leaving work early to go sleep with his neighbor’s wife, she was never to divorce him.  It did not matter that he would wake up around three in the morning to rendezvous with his neighbor’s wife in the back of his Mini-van.  He told her all about the affair, told her that he was going to leave her for a while to spend the next five nights at a motel with his honey, and then told her that she was never to divorce him.  “Don’t even think about it,” he said.  He rented an apartment in town, and moved in with his new babe, drained the family bank account, defaulted on the mortgage, failed to pay the utilities, made his wife go on food stamps so she could feed their children.  But he insisted that she was never to divorce him.  “I expect you to be right here whenever I come home,”  he said.  And she was.

He came home on Thursday night of the first week, and she was there.  He stayed a few hours, boxed up some food, took what he wanted from the refrigerator, slept with his wife, packed up some more clothes, and then left again.  Oh yes, and he reminded her that divorce was always wrong.  The next week he came home on Tuesday, but this time only for about thirty minutes.  He didn’t need any food, he was just bored with his other chick.  He needed a little “variety.”  The next week it was Friday night before he came home, again for about thirty minutes.  The next week it was Monday.  Each time, he was careful to remind her that he was against divorce.  You might call it family devotions he was having with his wife.  Always reminding her that she couldn’t do anything about it.

As an opponent of divorce, as one who is convinced absolutely that divorce is always wrong, I must say that I wish his wife would have done the right thing.  He had divorced her.  He had put her away.  He had broken the marriage covenant.  Why didn’t she recognize that? Why didn’t she seek justice from the civil government?

Perhaps one of our difficulties on this issue comes from attempting to show marriage to be metaphysical rather than covenantal.  We speak as if, at the point of marriage (assuming that it is a legitimate marriage), there is some sort of metaphysical bond that cannot possibly be broken.  But if that were the case, then the man who divorced his wife and married another is a polygamist.  If that were the case, then said man, should he convert, must put away the second wife (after all, polygamist marriages are illegitimate, so they are shacking up).  If that were the case, then the first wife isn’t really divorced anyway, because man cannot break asunder what God has put together.

But man can break it.  And men do.  If it is possible for men to break the marriage covenant, then we must recognize that marriages are contracted unions, not mystical unions.  A contract can be breached.  A covenant can be broken.  And when the covenant has been broken, the contract is over.  Sometimes, we need the magistrate’s help to give justice to the injured party.  That seems to be Christ’s point.

What God Hath Put Together: The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage (part three) May 25, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Divorce/Remarriage , 6 comments  Print This Post  Email This Post

Jesus Interprets Moses

Scripture is plain. I can understand it. So can you. However, if I want to understand a passage, I would elevate what Jesus says about it far above what I think it says. I certainly wouldn’t give special consideration to what unconverted, religious hypocrites thought it said. Neither would Jesus. God established marriage to be a lifelong union. In Mark 10, in response to the ungodly, unscriptural teachings of the Pharisees, Jesus calls for a standard of faithfulness by pointing back to the design of God. That is the approach Jesus took, so it is the one that all of us should take too. In verse six He quotes Genesis 1:27 to trace the meaning of marriage back to the design of God in the very beginning when God created mankind. The implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees’ use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God’s original intention in creation. In other words, Jesus rejects the use of Deuteronomy 24:1 by those who teach that divorce is permissible under certain exceptions—that was the Pharisaical viewpoint, not His. The issue of divorce and remarriage, He says, is not primarily about the way God regulated the hardness of heart; it is mainly about the meaning of marriage designed by God in creation. What Jesus does is take us back behind the law and say, “God created man male and female.” This is the basis of marriage—God’s action. Marriage is an act of God that only God can end.

In Mark 10:7, 8, Jesus then makes the explicit and adamant connection between God’s creation of male and female and marriage by quoting Genesis 2:24. He says that, for this reason, that is, because God created man male and female with a design for marriage (Gen. 1:27), the union between a husband and a wife is permanent. In other words, the leaving of father and mother and the cleaving to each other to form a new family unit is God’s idea rooted in the way He created and designed man as male and female.

Based upon those two verses in Genesis, in verse nine He gives one of the most important and powerful declarations and commands in the Bible. The declaration is that marriage is the work of God. The union of marriage is something that God does—it is not just a human decision, or a human tradition. This is true even for people who don’t believe in God—marriage is something God does, not just man. Therefore, we see that God designed it in Genesis 1:27, described it in Genesis 2:24, and then He did it the day you got married. Marriage is a work of God and gets its meaning from God. Jesus ends His answer to the Pharisees with this powerful command, so that it is clear that the joining is God’s and the separating is to be God’s, which is death only.

Paul Agrees with Jesus

In 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, when Paul says that this charge is not his but the Lord’s, He means that he is aware of a specific saying from his God and Savior which addressed this issue. These verses match up with Mark 10:11-12 because there both the wife and the husband are addressed and remarriage is excluded by verse eleven the same way it is excluded in Mark. Paul knows separations will occur, whatever the situations, despite the fact that they are wrong. However, he says that in such cases someone feels constrained to separate, he should not seek remarriage. He should remain single. He reinforces the authority of this statement by saying that this is from the Lord Jesus Christ. When Paul summarizes the Lord’s teaching on divorce, he does not include any exception to the total prohibition of divorce by Christ (1 Cor. 7:11). In this context of unbelieving spouse, we would even more expect the possible commission of adultery, exacerbating the need for an immorality exception if one existed. This, therefore, says that Christ taught the indissolubility of marriage and that whatever He meant by porneia (”fornication”) in Matthew was an uncommon meaning. Otherwise, we would expect Paul to include an exception to divorce in his summary. He doesn’t. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but when it occurs, the person who divorces should not remarry.

1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry, but that the Christian is not bound to wrestle in order to stay united. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it. The phrase “is not under bondage” should not be construed to mean “is free to remarry.” Marriage is an ordinance of creation binding on all of God’s human creatures, irrespective of their faith or lack of faith. The word used for “is under bondage” (douloo) in verse fifteen is not the same word used in verse thirty-nine where Paul says, “The wife is bound (deo) by the law as long as her husband liveth.” Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; l Corinthians 7:39) or to one’s betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27), but when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in l Corinthians 7:15, he selects a different word (douloo), something we would expect if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same liberty to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (1 Cor. 7:39).

The last phrase of verse fifteen (”God hath called us to peace”) works best if Paul is saying that a deserted partner is not in bondage to fight with the deserting unbeliever to get him or her to stay. The peace to which God calls us is the peace of marital harmony. The believing partner is not in bondage to live in unending conflict with his unbelieving partner that insists on departing. He or she is free just to let him or her go without that belligerence. This certainly fits with 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, where divorce does not result in the right of remarriage.

Conclusion

These are passages where we get actual plain and propositional teaching on divorce and remarriage, not just speculation about what the will of God is. We should take the passages where we get doctrine concerning divorce and remarriage and then conform the other passages to what they say. For instance, there is a controversy in Ezra 8 through 10. We should not be seeking a teaching on divorce and remarriage in a context of exceptional situations and usages of words. None exists. In Ezra God forbids certain relationships. He doesn’t teach divorce. He doesn’t teach an exception resulting in a permission of divorce. God hates divorce.

The Case for Lawful Divorce, Part 3 May 22, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Divorce/Remarriage , 18 comments  Print This Post  Email This Post

Ezra 9-10 is a dilemma for those who argue that divorce is never allowed in Scripture. If the marriages were illegitimate in the first place, then why did it take four men from January to April to complete the “putting away” (Ezra 10:15, 16-17)? And if the marriages were legitimate, then why was God pleased with Shechaniah’s solution? Whether anyone admits to the legitimacy of these marriages or not, Ezra required an official putting away. When Schechaniah gave his recommendation to Ezra (10:3), he said “let it be done according to the law.” If the marriages were not legitimate, then the men would simply send these women packing. But Schechaniah called for these women to be put away in accordance with the Law of Moses.

A combination of two arguments have been offered in order to show that these marriages were illegitimate. First, because Israel was under theocratic rule, and second, because the Hebrew for “putting away” is different here than in other passages on divorce. Now, we should note that both premises are true. The Hebrew for “putting away” is unique to this passage, and Israel was under theocratic rule, just as Israel was a theocracy in the time of Boaz. If marriages to heathen wives were considered illegitimate, then Boaz was under no obligation to Ruth the Moabitess as kinsman redeemer. After all, the marriage didn’t count, so Boaz need not hash things out with the nearer kinsman first. But of course, Ruth’s first marriage to the son of Elimelech was a legitimate marriage, which is implied in the fact that Boaz had an obligation to marry her. The idea that we can arbitrarily declare some heterosexual marriages legitimate and others not is itself an illegitimate idea. Scripturally, there is no warrant for selectively declaring one marriage illegitimate and another legitimate, unless said marriage should be punished by death (as in the case of homosexuals). The Bible never calls marriages to foreigners illegitimate (consider Deut 21:10-14), nor does the Bible give any guidance as to when such a marriage should be considered illegitimate (or “not a marriage”). Certainly, the Bible never indicates that the marriages in the Ezra 9 and 10 passage were illegitimate.

Nor does the different term for “putting away” in this passage indicate that the marriages themselves were illegitimate. The different Hebrew term could indicate that this “putting away” was an unusual case, and that these wives were put away for unusual reasons and in unusual ways. This certainly was a unique case. But it would be difficult to prove that the marriages were illegitimate on the grounds that yatsa is not normally used for divorce. For one thing, the term for wife, found in Ezra 10:2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 44, is ishshah, the first and most common term for wife found in the Bible. The passage says that these women were strange or foreign wives (ishshah). So, the natural understanding would be that these strange ishshah were legitimately married to these Israelite men, and there is no indication that the marriages were illegitimate. For another thing, yatsa is a term for sending out or sending away. Though yatsa is not ever used for divorce in any other passage, the idea of putting the wife out or sending her away is the same. Perhaps the difference in terms can be explained by the fact that these wives, when put away, were sent out of the country as well — an unusual manner of dealing with “putting away” to be sure. The idea of yatsa certainly is synonymous with “putting away” in other parts of Scripture. We might say that yatsa is to shalach what “putting away” is to “divorce”.

Besides, whether we view this case dispensationally or not, and whether or not this divorce was unique because of the theocratic government in Israel at the time, God still hated divorce. Whether the Hebrew word for “putting away” in this passage is the same as that in other passages on divorce or not, these men had “taken wives.” And that phrase is used other times in the Bible to refer to legitimate marriages (Jeremiah 29:6; Deut 22:13; Deut 25:5, 7). God’s wrath was appeased by the actions of these men to put away their wives.

The other side in this debate has also argued that polygamous marriages have never been considered legitimate marriages in all of Scripture. I certainly can understand why it is essential to their case to say so. They would argue for divorce in cases of polygamy, which would undo their position unless polygamous marriages are illegitimate. But if polygamous marriages are always illegitimate, then Jacob, David, and Solomon lived in open adultery without rebuke. David had already taken multiple wives when he committed adultery with Bathsheba. Not once was he rebuked for his polygamy. After David killed Uriah, he took Bathsheba to be his wife. From that marriage came Solomon, whom God made the next king of Israel. It was a legitimate marriage, though Bathsheba was added to David’s harem. The point is that we cannot be so quick to claim illegitimacy for certain marriages that don’t fit in our little box.

Of course, those who differ will argue that a homosexual marriage would be an illegitimate marriage, and they would be right. Homosexuality is punishable by death. In a nation that does not honor this Biblical requirement, homosexual marriages must be ended immediately and legally, by whatever means necessary. We run into problems when we try to guess which marriages were legitimate in Scripture, and which were not. We wind up assuming what we should be proving, rather than simply accepting the plain meaning of the texts.

Vows mean something, and in Scripture, a covenant between two people was legally binding, even when the covenant was made with the heathen (Joshua 9:18-20). God hates truce-breaking. Period. So, either way, the guilty in Ezra 9 and 10 did something that God hated. And their actions in putting away their wives appeased the wrath of God.

The issue in Ezra is introduced to us in chapter 9:

Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied.

God’s people had intermarried with the heathen, “doing according to their abominations.” Clearly, this was in violation of God’s law. Throughout the Pentateuch, the people were warned of the consequences if they should join the heathen in their abominations. In Leviticus 18:24-30, God said that those who committed these abominations were to be cut off (see esp. v. 29). In Deuteronomy 12:29-31, God warned against inquiring curiously after the wicked practices of these heathen. In Deuteronomy 18:9-12, we are told that God drove the heathen from the Promised Land because of their abominable practices (see also 2 Chronicles 33:2). In Deuteronomy 20:17-18, the people were commanded to cut off these heathen, “that they teach you not to do after all their abominations.” A brief glance at these passages will reveal what some of these abominable practices were, including sodomy, bestiality, witchcraft, infanticide, and various other immoral acts along the same vile vein.

In response to the princes’ revelation, Ezra went to God and confessed the sin (Ezra 9-10), specifically acknowledging that they had violated Deuteronomy 18:9-12. After all the mercies of God (v. 13), they still “joined in affinity with the people of these abominations” (v. 14). Their sin was more complex than simply intermarrying with the heathen. The passage stresses that these heathen wives continued in their abominable practices, and that was the true cause of the wrath of God. Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, one Shechaniah came forward with a plan for the people to put away this sin. In Ezra 10:3, the congregation of Israel made a covenant to put away these wives along with any that were born of them, and to do so in accordance with the Law of Moses. The congregation further declared that any who would not put away these wives were to be put away from the congregation (v. 8 ). The choice was simple: divorce your heathen wives, or divorce yourself from the congregation. Then, from verse 18 through the end of the chapter, Ezra goes to the trouble of naming all those who put away their wives. This was serious business. 

APPLICATION

As it pertains to divorce (and, of course, it does), this passage is instructional. That is not to say that the passage presents a new or separate law, only that this passage gives some guidance and instruction in handling unique cases. As New Testament Christians, Ezra must be interpreted in light of the instruction in 1 Corinthians 7. 1 Corinthians 7 presented three basic scenarios, which were discussed in Part 2 of this topic. In the first scenario, the unbelieving spouse of a convert willingly lives within the covenant of marriage, and the believer is told to stay. In the second instance, the unbelieving spouse wishes to leave the marriage, in which case the believer allows the divorce without contest, and the believer is then free. In the third case, if the believer puts the unbeliever away, then the believer should not re-marry.
1 Corinthians does not deal with cases where the unconverted spouse does not seek divorce, and yet lives in open fornication or some other open sin over which the church would discipline, such as abuse, neglect, public crimes, etc. In these cases, Ezra 9-10 helps us to determine what will please God. As has been noted already, we see in Ezra an instance when divorce pleased God, appeasing His wrath. Though it has been argued that when God hates something, universally there is never an instance when God is pleased with it, we might note at least one instance when that argument can be disproven. God hates lying, yet when the Shiprah and Puah lied to Pharaoh in order to protect the Hebrew babies, God was pleased (consider that these midwives “saved the men children alive,” but told Pharaoh that the Hebrew women delivered their own babies – see Exodus 1:15-20). And because of this lie, God dealt well with the midwives. So, there are exceptions. If we believe the Bible to always be true, then we have no need to explain away what happened here. We simply accept the story as told.

The same would be true for the instance in Ezra 9-10. The same God who hates putting away (Malachi 2:15-17) was appeased when these Israelite men put away their heathen wives. The Israelite men put away these wives because of their abominations. Note that the passage does not say that they put away the heathen wives because they were heathen. There are plenty of Old Testament examples of Hebrews who married heathen wives. They put these wives away because of their abominations. The wives were obviously unrepentant. The abominations that these heathen wives committed carried the death penalty. These wives should have been executed. So essentially, the requirement that they be put away was a mercy. Since they were being released rather than executed, their husbands could put them away without sin. The heathen wives should have been executed, and their husbands were permitted to treat them as if they were in fact dead. These heathen wives joined their husbands in the congregation of Israel, and simultaneously continued in their abominations. Therefore, Ezra demanded that they put these wives away.

The demand was that these wives be put away from the congregation. Should the Israelite husband choose, he could put himself away from the congregation with her, rather than putting her away (see Ezra 10:8). So, there was no absolute requirement that the marriage be ended. Rather, there was a requirement that the abominable women be put away. The husband could put her away, or he could join her in being put away from the congregation.

Based on this passage then, divorce can be rightly sought when Biblical laws that carry the death penalty are violated. In this nation, we always delay and often refuse to execute murderers. But that does not require the murderer’s wife to remain married to the murderer. He should be dead, and she is allowed to recognize that by seeking legal release. If America were a Christian nation, then witchcraft and adultery would be punished by execution. The fact that we no longer recognize the authority of Scripture on a civil level should not stop us from recognizing the authority of Scripture on an ecclesiastic level. When the death penalty should have been executed, the believer is free to view their spouse as dead.

If death releases a spouse from marital obligation, then so does any crime that carries the death penalty. In light of this, and when we consider that God’s wrath was appeased and his favor restored by the putting away of these wives, we can also make the case that there are times when it would be wrong to refuse to put away a spouse. But we must proceed with caution in this. For instance, we must remember that the Corinthian believers were married to idolators. Yet Paul tells them to stay married as long as the unbeliever stays faithful to the marriage vows.

The best advice that we can give in all these cases is that we should never be looking for a reason to divorce. We should hate it, always.

What God Hath Put Together: The Bible on Divorce and Remarriage (part two) May 16, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Divorce/Remarriage , 9 comments  Print This Post  Email This Post

What About Exceptions?

The standard of marriage is God’s original intention for marriage, that is, none of us should try to undo the “one flesh” relationship which God has united. The Lord Jesus Christ rejected the Pharisees’ use of Deuteronomy 24:1. But should that be qualified by the exception clause (”except for fornication”) in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9? The exception clause in those two locations should be understood in the light of the absolute statement in Matthew 19:6, especially since the exception clause is not found in Mark 10 or Luke 16. In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the exception clause uses the word “fornication,” which is not the word for “adultery.” The proponents for a post-marriage exception often say that Matthew uses porneia (”fornication”) because it is a general word for all forms of sexual perversion. But is that how we see that it is used in the New Testament and especially how it is used in Matthew? Besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the only other place Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia (”adultery”). In other words, Matthew differentiates between porneia and moicheia. The most important contextual evidence for the meaning of porneia comes from the book itself, and in the book of Matthew, porneia excludes moicheia. The normal sense of porneia in the whole New Testament is fornication or incest (1 Cor. 5:1). Pre-Christian Jewish literature maintained a very strict distinction between porneia and moicheia. In the lexicon, porneia may reflect various kinds of forbidden carnal relations, but we can find no outright examples of the use of this word to denote a wife’s adultery. With these circumstances—Matthew, the New Testament, and Pre-Christian Jewish literature—we should not think that “fornication” even refers to “adultery.” We should think that it does not mean “adultery,” especially since Matthew distinguishes between the two terms. Fornication is not adultery.

Early in Matthew (1:19), Joseph resolves to “put away” (the same word for divorce as Matt. 5:32 and 19:9) Mary, thinking that she had committed fornication. Joseph and Mary are clearly not married, but betrothed, even though engagement was much more serious back then than it is in this culture. In John 8:41 Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia; in other words, since they didn’t accept the virgin birth, they assumed that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of that act. So then why were the exception clauses included in the Matthew account (and not Mark and Luke)? Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience familiar with the betrothal issue. As Matthew was penning his gospel, he found himself in chapter five and then later in chapter nineteen needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for a divorce like the one Joseph envisioned with his future wife, whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). As a result, Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to acquit Joseph, but also in general to show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue in a betrothal period on account of fornication is not included in Jesus’ absolute prohibition.

This interpretation of the exception clause conforms to Jesus’ practice of never once siding with the Pharisees on occasions when He refers them to God’s Word by asking “Have ye not read?” It agrees with the Lord’s endorsement of the original design of marriage. It is in fitting with the Lord’s unequivocal statement, “What God hath put together, let no man put asunder.” It concurs with the meaning of porneia (”fornication.”). It also corresponds to God’s plainly stated hatred of divorce (Malachi 2:16).

Jesus prohibited divorce (Matthew 19:6) and then all remarriage after divorce (19:9). To the Lord’s disciples this seemed like an intolerable prohibition (19:10), essentially closing off every possibility of remarriage, making marriage so risky that it would be better not to, since they would be obligated to live as a single person the rest of their lives or interminably stuck in a bad marriage. The Lord does not deny that this task would be difficult, but in the subsequent verses He promises that God could enable it’s fulfillment (19:11, 12). Their reaction to Jesus’ teaching along with His commentary concerning it, in addition to all the other considerations above, harmonize with the Lord’s prohibition of divorce and remarriage.

The Apostle Paul agrees completely with the teaching of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2 say explicitly that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

No exceptions are mentioned that would suggest she could be free from her husband to remarry on any other basis. The point is, of course, that only God, not man, can end a marriage relationship [by death] (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). This is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: He assumes that the first marriage is still binding (Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11).

Is Adultery the Same Thing as Divorce?

A common argument from those who allow divorce and remarriage is that adultery is essentially the same thing as divorce. They believe that adultery is included in the “fornication” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. That isn’t the understanding one gets from a study of Scripture, but that is what they believe. Then they go on to explain that the party who commits adultery has already divorced his spouse by doing so. How? He violates the one flesh relationship by becoming one flesh with someone else. They mainly take this idea from 1 Corinthians 6:16, “What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” Their conclusion is that the first one flesh relationship is ended by the second. Is this true? No. The main problem with this teaching is that it isn’t found anywhere in the Bible. It is extrapolated from a verse like 1 Corinthians 6:16, which doesn’t say anything about divorce in it. Fornication isn’t marriage.

Second, a major message of this view is that anyone who wants free from his present marriage need only commit adultery. If a man wants a divorce from his wife, his wife could say, “I can’t divorce you, unless you commit adultery.” Since he has already committed adultery, it won’t make any difference if he does it again. The wife, on the other hand, can’t remarry without committing adultery. This position elevates the physical act to the decisive element in marital union and disunion. However, a man and a woman do not become married sheerly through a physical relationship. Marriage requires more than that. If a man and a woman avoid fornication, they won’t have the physical aspect until after marriage. The term “marry” (ba’al) in the Hebrew includes the realm of possession, which is a legal requirement. A transfer must be made between one family to another, when the man takes possession of his bride. This possessing is also seen in Ephesians 5, where Genesis 2:24 is quoted (Eph. 5:31), and it is more than something physical, but spiritual, emotional, and intellectual as well.

If man can’t put asunder what God has brought together, then he can’t put asunder his wife through adultery either. Man might allow divorce because of the hardness of his heart, but this doesn’t mean that God does. Even when someone commits adultery, God still sees that person as married.

The Case for Lawful Divorce, Part 2 May 12, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Divorce/Remarriage , 17 comments