The "Exception"
Part Three of a Series on Marriage
Read Part One: How Long Does Marriage Last?
Read Part Two: A Nation of Adulterers
No doubt the crowd that was gathered around Jesus that day felt like they were trying to drink water from a fire hydrant. For years they had been living under the life-draining traditions that the Pharisees held up as the epitome of a law-abiding citizen. Now Jesus was promising them new life as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. But instead of releasing them from the laws God had established thousands of years earlier, He was raising the standard. He was going right to the heart of each law. When Jesus came to marriage, He had this to say:
“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Matthew 5:31-32
Just as in the other laws, Jesus was raising the standard for how the people had come to view marriage. We saw that both Mark and Luke recorded this teaching in their Gospels. For a specific reason, however, Matthew is the only one who additionally recorded what is often referred to as “The Exception Clause.”
Jesus intentionally used the word “fornication” when He explained that a man could “put away his wife” for this cause alone. In the same sentence, He used the word “adultery” twice. It’s clear, then, that Jesus was not saying that adultery was a justifiable cause for divorce. In order to understand to what Jesus was referring when He made this statement, it’s helpful to consider the real-life illustration where this is exhibited. Please notice that it is also recorded only by Matthew in his Gospel. Only a few chapters before, Matthew penned the following:
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Matthew 1:18-20
According to Jewish custom, if a man who was betrothed wanted to call off the marriage, he had to “put away”/divorce his “wife.” In essence, Jesus’ teaching gave legitimacy to the intentions of Joseph (and any other man who found himself in the same situation) by saying that if a betrothed man found his wife (as she was called) guilty of fornication, he was justified in putting her away. A betrothal was held to be as legally binding as a marriage. The difference is that a betrothed couple had not yet physically consummated their marriage, thus they had not yet been joined together for life by God.
Apparently the Pharisees either weren’t in the crowd when He gave His sermon or they just didn’t get it. Either way, we see them approaching Jesus later on this same subject:
“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
Matthew 19:3
I’m not sure what they were expecting Jesus to say, but He took them all the way back to the beginning:
“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.”
Matthew 19:4-6
Once a man and his wife are physically united, they become “one flesh.” God has joined them together for life. Jesus affirmed the marriage covenant as originally instituted by God. It is unbreakable by anyone or anything, except death. In violation of God’s law, man may “put [it] asunder” by initiating a separation, but as we have seen, this entitlement contrived by man even still does not end the marriage itself in God’s eyes.
Dissatisfied with His answer, the Pharisees pressed the issue:
“They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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. 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.”
Matthew 19:7-9
Jesus continued to affirm the life-long marriage covenant as instituted by God in the beginning. To do anything else would have been to destroy the original law that God had given concerning marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus Himself said:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Matthew 5:17-18
Thus we can see that Jesus was, indeed, upholding the law of God, not providing an exception to it.
8 Comments:
Ahh... I needed that... ;-)
I think your exegesis is faulty on the word "porneias", which is the word Jesus uses, and is translated variously "fornication" or "sexual immorality", etc. I can do no better than quote Wilson, a much better Greek scholar than I.
[begin]
The word translated here as "sexual immorality" is porneias. It means sexual uncleanness or fornication. It is not the specific word for adultery used later in this passage, although adultery would certainly be included as a type of porneias. Such behavior includes immorality before marriage that the other person did not know about. "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly" (Matt. 1:19). Although Joseph was mistaken about the facts of the case, and although the marriage was not yet consummated, the passage is still instructive. If a man thought he was marrying a virgin, and three months into the marriage she turned up six months pregnant by another man, the porneias clause would apply.
Porneias is a general term. It applies to sexual immorality before and after marriage...
Because marriage is a covenant surrounding the sexual relationship, sexual immorality strikes at the heart of that covenant. In such a case, the innocent party may, without sin, divorce his spouse. But if there is any opportunity for a godly reconciliation, it should certainly be encouraged.
[end] Emphasis original.
With regard to your exegesis of the word "porneias", I think you make a non sequitur leap of logic. Your reasoning appears to be this: 1. The word Jesus uses for "fornication" is not the same word He later uses for "adultery." (No problems yet; this is obvious from the Greek text. Even I, a very poor Greek scholar, can make this out.) 2. Therefore, the meaning of the two different words must be mutually exclusive. (Here's the problem.) 3. Therefore, since the meaning of the word for "adultery" is not included under the meaning of the word for "fornication", adultery is not what Jesus had in mind. 4. Therefore adultery is not grounds for legal divorce.
The argument would be perfectly sound, were that second step not faulty; but I think it is. Wilson is not the only person who has mentioned the generality of the word "porneias."
Wilson goes on to describe the two other grounds for divorce: covenantal desertion, and divorce by means of execution. Here are Wilson's comments on 1 Cor. 7:12-16, which *ahem* you still appear not to have addressed. Is that one post away? :-) He follows them with comments about divorce by execution.
[begin]
The issue in this passage is covenantal desertion. If the non-Christian is willing to live within the Christian understanding of the marriage covenant (as well as a non-Christian can; that is to say, externally), then he is sanctified. This means that he receives an external blessing as a result of external conformity to God's standard. It does not mean that he can be saved without placing his faith in Christ. But if he decides to desert his spouse, the Christian is not bound. What is more, the Christian is forbidden to fight the divorce. This means that the Christian is free - free to remarry, free to stay single, and free to reconcile with his partner (as long as there has not been another marriage in between [Deut. 24:1-4]). Not bound means not bound.
The third class involves the violation of biblical laws that carried the death penalty. For example, in a just society, a mass murderer would be put to death. In ours, this frequently does not happen. Where does this leave the murderer's spouse?
If the civil government were doing its God-appointed task (i.e., punishing the wrongdoer with the sword [Rom. 13:4]), then divorce would have occured by means of execution. But if the civil government fails to do its appointed task, then the two remaining governments (family and church) have a choice to make.
The fact that godly executions do not occur should not deter those governments that do not have the power of the sword. The church should excommunicate, and a godly spouse may divorce. Both actions are not a removal of the offending party from the appropriate covenant. They are a legal recognition that the person has already removed himself.
This is not mere theory. The Bible gives us an example of families and the church taking action in just this way. In Ezra 9:1, it states, "When these things were done, the leaders came to me, saying, 'The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, with respect to the abominations of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.'"
Ezra was appalled, and in the next chapter he requires the Israelite men who had sinned in this way to put away their foreign wives. It is important to note that the issue was not the race of the wives (remember Ruth and Rahab). The issue was the abominations or detestable practices. Because the returned exiles were under the legal authority of the Persian empire, the civil penalty required in Old Testament law for such practices was not applied. But this was no reason to keep the church and families from applying it, and, in the book of Ezra, that is what they did.
[end] Emphasis original.
Replying to some of your comments later: the example of Joseph has the spin you put on it, viz. "The difference is that a betrothed couple had not yet physically consummated their marriage, thus they had not yet been joined together for life by God. [Emphasis added.]" only if one accepts your exegesis of the Matthew passage.
Regarding the Pharisee passage, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" The ESV says, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" Think about that question for a minute. What exactly are they asking? What is the historical context? Well, in regards to the Deuteronomy prohibition, the context might well be that people (read: Pharisees) were marrying one woman one day, the next week divorcing her and marrying someone else, the week after divorcing that woman and remarrying the first one... and on and on. Then they could self-righteously declare that they were only married to one woman at a time. The Deuteronomy passage prohibits this, obviously. So they want to know if this practice is acceptable. What they probably want to hear is that it's ok to divorce for any and every reason. Then their practice would be fine. In that context, what's the only possible answer? No!
Now regarding the second question the Pharisees ask Jesus, you seem to be ignoring a significant issue: Moses did allow divorce in some cases. Are you saying Moses sinned in allowing it? What does divorce mean here? I do not think I can accept your definition of divorce in this context as "a separation initiated by men."
The Matthew 5:17-18 is a great verse, is it not? Quite the antidote to modern ideas of "Savior but not Lord," or antinomianism. Alas, people ignore this verse, and concentrate solely on verses such as "We are under grace and not under the law," (loose quote, but close enough, I think) in Romans. Law and grace are both equally important.
This is really great, that we can respect each other perfectly well even while disagreeing. I think, if we are careful to restrict our criticisms to cool and even-tempered logic, we can both profit without hurt.
In Christ.
You said:
“With regard to your exegesis of the word "porneias", I think you make a non sequitur leap of logic.”
My logic is not that the two words must be mutually exclusive, but that Jesus intentionally chose to use a word other than adultery. I think this is significant. If He had meant the unfaithfulness of a spouse within the marriage covenant, why wouldn’t He have used the same word “adultery” (Gk. maichao) at this point in His statement? I agree that there is a wider usage for the Greek word porneias, but we must also allow the context of the passage to define the word. In several instances throughout the New Testament, we see the words “adultery” and “fornication” used as separate sins in a given list. There is a distinction between the usage of these two words and Jesus was making use of that distinction in His statement.
You said:
“Here are Wilson's comments on 1 Cor. 7:12-16, which *ahem* you still appear not to have addressed. Is that one post away?”
I’m trying to get to it…soon, Lord willing! (I'll address Mr. Wilson's comments at that time.)
You said:
“the example of Joseph has the spin you put on it, viz. "The difference is that a betrothed couple had not yet physically consummated their marriage, thus they had not yet been joined together for life by God. [Emphasis added.]" only if one accepts your exegesis of the Matthew passage.”
So you disagree that the difference between a married couple and a betrothed couple is that the betrothed couple had not yet physically consummated their marriage?
You said:
“What they probably want to hear is that it's ok to divorce for any and every reason.”
I agree that, no doubt, the Pharisees were looking for justification for whatever abominations they were practicing in regard to marriage and divorce.
You said:
Now regarding the second question the Pharisees ask Jesus, you seem to be ignoring a significant issue: Moses did allow divorce in some cases. Are you saying Moses sinned in allowing it? What does divorce mean here? I do not think I can accept your definition of divorce in this context as “a separation initiated by men.’”
What did Jesus say right after he acknowledged Moses’ law? “But from the beginning it was not so.” So whose law was Jesus upholding? Moses’ or God’s? This is about as strong as support for the definition of divorce I gave as you can get. In the beginning, God made no allowances for divorce. Moses was the one who later introduced this entitlement. It was not initiated by God; Jesus clearly says this. And if it’s not of God, then what is our only other option? It is a separation initiated by man. God instituted marriage as a life-long covenant between a man and a woman.
Again, I submit to you that Jesus was upholding this, not providing an exception to it.
Reply to Natalie.
I think your whole outlook on the Matthew passage requires you to interpret the word "porneia" as not meaning adultery, which means the words are mutually exclusive. That is what you are doing, and I don't think it is justified. The word porneia means any sexual funny business, inside or outside of marriage. The example you gave, whereby you claim porneia does not mean adultery because it is in the same list as the word for adultery, does not support your claim. Here is the reason: in Hebrew thought, and probably in Greek thought as well, you often come across the formula A, what is more, B. This happens all the time in the Bible, especially the Proverbs. B tends to amplify and further explain A. So you can quite easily, and without a stretch, think of your list of sins going like this: ... murder, theft, adultery, and what is more, any porneia, coveting... Or, since adultery is merely the extreme example of porneia (adultery as a kind of porneia required the death penalty in the OT, whereas fornication, a different kind of porneia, did not), if porneia comes first in the list, you can think this way: ... murder, theft, porneia, and its extreme example, adultery, coveting... It is an unjustified leap to assume that porneia does not include adultery. By your reasoning, porneia would never include adultery. You're going to need a much stronger reason than that adultery and porneia appear in the same list in order to justify concluding that porneia does not include adultery. If you look this word up in a Greek Bible dictionary, you will find that it has this general meaning. There must therefore be a compelling reason not to take it that way in this passage. A compelling reason is not that you have assumed your position, and therefore, the word must not include adultery. And, as I stated above, the "list" argument seems highly inadequate as well. It simply does not force the meaning of the word porneia to exclude adultery in this passage. I think the burden of proof here is on you, since, to support your position, you cannot take the natural meaning of the words.
It is extremely important to understand the difference between a distinction and a separation. A separation implies a distinction, but a distinction does not imply a separation. For example: water baptism is distinct from Spirit baptism, but is by no means separate from it. The word porneia is distinct from the word for adultery. No disputes there. But they are not separate. The distinction between porneia and adultery is that adultery is one specific kind of porneia, whereas not all porneia is adultery. Adultery is a subset of porneia.
I agree that Jesus used the word porneia for a reason. That reason is that any kind of porneia is grounds for divorce (the meaning of the word matters not at the moment), not just adultery. Using the word for adultery would not have been appropriate, because it wasn't broad enough.
About Joseph, et. al. I agree that the distinction between betrothed and married is only consummation. What I was disagreeing about was the spin you put on the Joseph incident. You claimed that Jesus' teaching gave legitimacy to the actions of Joseph (a fact with which I would certainly agree), but claim that the difference is that Jesus' teaching does not apply to married couples in the event of adultery. So you're saying Jesus' teaching applies to Joseph's case, but not to the H and W case I outlined in another comment. That is the spin you put on it with which I disagreed.
You didn't answer my question about whether Moses sinned in allowing divorce. We have no record of God being angry with Moses for allowing divorce. When you say, "So whose law was Jesus upholding? Moses' of God's?", you are assuming the two laws are different. If the two laws are different, then at that moment in time, when Israel was a theocracy, you are forced to conclude that Moses sinned.
Moses is not as important in this debate as some might think. I am prepared to argue that divorce was around long before Moses. About five hundred years before, at least. Proof: Abraham married Hagar. Gen 16:3. In Genesis 21:14, Abraham sends Hagar away. In 1 Cor. 7:5, Paul commands married people to have sex. This is a marriage ordinance, and was therefore in place at the beginning of marriages: Adam and Eve. See also Gen. 2:24: they shall become one flesh. Therefore, Abraham, while he was married to Hagar, was required to have sex with her. Since he sent Hagar away, he was not doing so. Since God commanded Abraham to listen to Sarah his wife, which essentially meant sending Hagar away, God basically commanded Abraham to send Hagar away. Since God never commands anyone to sin, Abraham did not sin in sending Hagar away. But if he was still married to Hagar, he would be sinning by not giving Hagar her conjugal rights. Therefore, Abraham was no longer married to Hagar, because the sexual act was no longer required. This argument has convinced me that Abraham divorced Hagar, as in, dissolved the covenant bond.
Now you may object by saying that Sarah initiated this whole process. And I'm willing to grant that this argument is not an argument against your definition. However, it does show, to my mind, that divorce dissolves the marriage covenant. Moreover, it shows that divorce was around (and God allowed it) even before Moses. And if divorce was around before Moses, then when did divorce first come on the scene? The only logical and theologically sound time when divorce could have come about was at the Fall. There is an appeal to this thought, because at the Fall, man violated his covenant (committed adultery with God, so to speak), and God sent him away from His presence: a divorce of sorts.
Jesus does not say that divorce was not intiated by God, He says that "From the beginning it was not so." When is that beginning? I think you have to say that the beginning is pre-Fall: the beginning, as in, the beginning of marriage, which would be Adam and Eve. What does the Fall change? I think God changed His law, at least portions of it, after the Fall. For example, God instituted cities of refuge in the Promised Land. That was a law that would not have beeb required before the Fall; for that matter, there weren't even cities at all back then. Thus I think it quite safe to say that portions of God's law changed after the Fall. Therefore, a priori, we may not conclude that marriage law is precisely the same before vs. after the Fall. We should look at the evidence.
In conclusion, I think Jesus was upholding the law, but I deny that He was changing anything. The law, post-Fall, always had an exception clause for divorce.
In Christ.
So then, applying your interpretation of “porneia” in this passage, what do we end up with? If, indeed, Jesus meant that “any kind of porneia is grounds for divorce,” then every married woman that you know would have just grounds for divorce, seeing as how every married man you know has committed adultery by lusting after a woman in his heart (as you stated in your other comment). If the application of this word is as broad in this passage as you advocate (based on your multiple references to the WLC as the definition of adultery), any married couple can find grounds for a divorce. Is this what you are saying? If not, then you, too, have to limit the application of the word “porneia” as Jesus used it in this verse. Because I believe that Jesus was upholding the law of marriage, as instituted by God in the beginning (see below), the only interpretation that makes sense is that Jesus was providing a provision for a situation like Joseph’s, where a man and his betrothed “wife” had not yet physically consummated their marriage.
You said:
“You didn't answer my question about whether Moses sinned in allowing divorce.”
That’s because I’m not prepared to say anything beyond what Jesus did. He differentiated between the law God established in the beginning and the law that Moses later enacted.
You said:
“Abraham married Hagar. Genesis 16:3”
The text says that “Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid…and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Clearly Abraham was already married to Sarah. Thus, to take another woman to be his wife was to commit adultery, not to legitimately establish another marriage. When a man takes multiple wives, is he married to all of them in God’s eyes? I think not. Unless the first marriage has ended, due to the death of the wife, the man is still legally bound to her and cannot be married to another. God still refers to Hagar as Abraham’s “bondwoman,” never as his “wife.”
You said:
“For example, God instituted cities of refuge in the Promised Land. That was a law that would not have been required before the Fall; for that matter, there weren't even cities at all back then. Thus I think it quite safe to say that portions of God's law changed after the Fall.”
So, which law was God changing when He instituted this law regarding cities of refuge? Which other portions of God’s law did He change after the fall? There is a huge difference between saying that God changed His laws and saying that God instituted new laws as a result of the fall. We know that God is the “same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8) We also know that with Him “there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17) And “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19) To say that God changed the law of marriage is to say that what He spoke in the beginning is now untrue.
You said:
“In conclusion, I think Jesus was upholding the law, but I deny that He was changing anything.”
Jesus did not give any indication that divorce was present before Moses enacted the law pertaining to such. Jesus upheld the marriage law as originally given by God, affirming it as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman.
Reply to Natalie.
I consulted my resident Greek expert, namely, Lane. Here are some of the things he said, to the best of my recollection.
The word porneia, according to Lane, is an action word. It never refers to the inward sins of lust, etc. So when Jesus said that a luster is guilty of adultery, He means that the luster is guilty of breaking the 7th commandment, not necessarily porneia. I may have to revise what I said before on the other post, or not. My head is beginning to spin! In any case, whether or not porneia includes the internal sins is irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is that porneia does include adultery in the Mathew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 passages. And if it does, I think your position is on very shaky ground, if not no ground. Here is an example where porneia most likely includes adultery: 1 Cor. 5:1. Lane mentioned that there are a great many references to porneia in the Syriac Intertestamental writings wherein it definitely includes adultery.
Let me explain further on this word porneia, according to Lane. Lane claims there are two places where porneia appears in a list such as you described. They are Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21. In both cases, there is no over-riding reason to think that porniea excludes adultery, though it's possible. To see that you cannot force porneia to exclude adultery, just look at the other items in boths of those lists: there's tons of overlap, especially in the Mark list (e.g. evil thoughts plus coveting and envy). In every other occurrence in the NT of the word porneia, it has the more general meaning which includes adultery. Lane agreed with me in that in the lists, the word can have the meaning I assigned to it. The weight of evidence, therefore, is highly against your theory that porneia excludes adultery in the Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 passages.
After I described your position to Lane, he said he thought you were committing the "word concept fallacy," which is where an idea is bound to the particular form of the word. Someone else describes it this way: assuming that the same word always equals the same concept. Another fallacy we have to avoid is the "illegitimate totality transfer fallacy": the idea that the whole range of meaning of a word applies in any given instance of a word. (This last is why I'm not such a huge fan of the Amplified Bible.) In any case, in the Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 passages, he said that porneia there includes adultery.
In reference to the definition of adultery, I'm going to have to define it the normal, traditional way as physical violation of a marriage covenant. So when Jesus said a luster has committed adultery, I think what He was really saying is that the luster has violated the 7th commandment; the focus there was that the law is internal, not just external. This needs more thought as well.
I accept your evasion of the Moses question; in retrospect, your answer is the best one, and shows me that perhaps I should not have pushed it so hard.
I definitely, though, cannot accept your rejection of Abraham being married to Hagar. The text says otherwise. Moreover, there are several texts that say: Solomon had many wives, David had many wives, etc. Those texts don't necessarily comment on the morality of polygamy (I, I hope obviously, strongly disapprove of polygamy, and I think the Bible frowns on it, too. However, that does not alter the fact that it happened; the texts which state that these people had multiple wives say exactly that. They do not classify those wives as somehow inferior wives, or not wives, etc.) Therefore, I do not accept your argument that Hagar wasn't really married to Abraham. She was married to him; she probably ought not to have been, but it was too late for that.
When you say, "which law was God changing when He instituted this law regarding cities of refuge?", I have to say that I would phrase the question differently. It's not necessarily as though God took existing law and changed it (at least, in this case) so much as creating new law.
Here's a law that has obviously changed over the years: who you can marry and who you cannot marry. In the beginning, Cain and Abel would have been forced to marry their sisters. If you claim that there were other humans around then that God created, which I would deny, I would simply point you to the Flood, where Noah's grandchildren would have had to marry siblings. By Leviticus, if not earlier, marrying siblings is forbidden. First cousins were allowed in Bible times, but they are not now. I have a theory about that, but that is for a different time.
I cannot accept your interpretation of God unchanging. It is quite true that God does not change; however, that in no way implies that His actions towards various human beings do not change. Human beings change, and because of that, the way He treats us changes. I do not mean, of course, that He ever ceases to love those who love Him. I mean that that love manifests itself differently as time goes on. Perhaps someone is doing well, by God's grace, and generally that means God will bless him. And then maybe later on, he's not doing so well, and generally speaking God punishes him in order to correct him, and bring him back. You see how this is? Moreover, since we change, and our love changes in its manifestations, the way we keep the law will change. (Loving God is precisely equal to obeying Him.)
When it comes to the law, the changing of human beings, to my mind, necessitates the changing of the law. That is obviously true when it comes to governmental law. Before the Internet, there didn't need to be any laws about the Internet, etc.
Your sentence "To say that God changed the law of marriage is to say that what He spoke in the beginning is now untrue." is not correct, to my mind. There is truth that never changes, but not all truth is like that. As a trivial example: the statement "It is raining out," can be true or not true at different times or in different places. There is some truth that changes. You may argue that all biblical truth never changes. To that I would argue that biblical principles don't change, but their manifestations may. Examples are not forthcoming at the moment, as my brain is more or less fried right now.
As I end this comment, and look back over what I have written, I notice somewhat of a lack of good humor and charity, but more straight down-to-business. Please consider any worthwhile things pertaining to good manners to have been said. You are a sister in Christ. :-)
In Christ.
Forgot one thing: I accept your evasion of the Moses question. I'm not sure I accept the statement that "He [Jesus] differentiated between the law God established in the beginning and the law that Moses later enacted." By what I currently understand to be your interpretation of "the beginning", I'm not sure I would agree. I would agree if you interpret "beginning" to mean pre-Fall. But if you mean post-Fall, I don't think I would.
Anyway. I don't think this issue is as central as the porneia question.
In Christ.
Adrian~
As much as I would really like to continue this discussion, I just have too many other pressing responsibilities that require my attention right now. Seeing as how it would be uncharitable to issue a final reply to your comments and then leave the discussion, I will let it end with your comments. Although I have a great many things I could continue to say in response to your comments, I have tried to cover the key Scriptural passages and teaching on the area of marriage, and to do so in accordance with what I firmly believe to be God's instruction to us in the matter.
Again, I am very grateful to you for your part in this discussion, and I hope you will continue to comment, as the Lord leads, in future posts. God bless, Adrian.
[To any of my readers who have followed this debate thus far, Adrian has graciously informed me that it is actually more charitable and in accordance with the rules of debate that I issue a final comment in defense of the position I have set forth. Here is what he has said (and given me permission to reprint): “Far from me considering it ‘uncharitable’ for you to say something and then bow out, I am more considering it uncharitable for you to leave what I consider to be the most important aspect of the debate only half-discussed.” And “In
the Lincoln-Douglas debates, whoever started a debate finished it. You started the debate with your original post. Therefore, I rather see it as your place to finish it, not mine. Ignore the rest of the debate; focus on ‘porneia.’ I see the rest of the debate as peripheral. Porneia's the crux of the debate as I see it. However, I am
asking, please, for your opinion on the word as I've portrayed it.”
It was not my intention to leave anything “half-discussed.” In light of Adrian’s above words, I am posting what I plan to be my last comment on this subject, since, as I indicated in my previous comment, other responsibilities at this time do not permit me to carry on this debate indefinitely.]
I do believe that it is significant that Jesus specifically used the word “porneia” at this point in his discussion while he used the word “adultery” a number of other times in the same passage. However, my primary basis for limiting the application of the word “porneia” to not include adultery is the teaching of the rest of Scripture on the marriage covenant, which is that only death would end a marriage. When God first instituted marriage, He clearly says that a man and woman “shall be one flesh.” Jesus affirmed this when He said in Matthew 19, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” In the other Gospels and in the teachings of Paul, marriage is recognized as a lifelong union established by God that ends only when one spouse dies. We also see this covenant modeled by God toward Israel, and Christ in His relationship with the church, and husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church.
To say that Jesus was including adultery when He made an exception for fornication is to say that He was now changing the law to mean that in a case of adultery by one of the spouses and a subsequent divorce, the marriage was brought to an end. (Only if a marriage had ended could a man or woman remarry another without committing adultery.) This interpretation contradicts the whole counsel of Scripture on the teaching of marriage. Additionally, under Old Testament laws, adultery was punishable by death. Therefore, to claim that Jesus was including adultery in his use of “porneia” is to say that He was eliminating the death penalty for adultery and instead establishing adultery as a legitimate cause for divorce. We know that Jesus did not come to destroy, but to fulfill, the law (Matthew 5:17).
In order to fulfill the law and uphold the marriage covenant as established by God, Jesus had to be referring to a specific kind of “porneia” whereby a man would be required to secure a divorce but whereby he had not yet physically consummated his union with his wife. This is exactly the situation Joseph found himself in with his espoused wife, Mary. Matthew alone recorded for us both the teaching of Jesus for such a situation and an example of the situation in the real life circumstances of Joseph and Mary.
According to your definition of such, Adrian, you appear to be committing the “illegitimate totality transfer fallacy.” You seem determined to include adultery in the application of this use of the word “porneia,” even though to do so contradicts the rest of the teaching of Scripture on the area of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
You said:
“I definitely, though, cannot accept your rejection of Abraham being married to Hagar.”
Hagar is never considered in God’s eyes to be legitimately married to Abraham. Rather, God always refers to her as Abraham’s “bondwoman.” (See also Galatians 4:22-31) Husband or wife is a term that is used to refer to even multiples of such, but does that alone make the marriage legitimate in God’s eyes? In a sense, we can physically “marry” ourselves to another when we are still bound to another man or woman in marriage, but this is defined as adultery, not as the establishment of a new marriage.
You said:
“I cannot accept your interpretation of God unchanging. It is quite true that God does not change; however, that in no way implies that His actions toward various human beings do not change.”
I never said God’s actions are unchanging. But, how God behaves toward man is always consistent with the Word that He has already spoken. God’s Law/Word is unchanging. The Law is part of His Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). To say that His Law changes is to say that God Himself changes. There will be certain government-mandated laws that will change over time, but this is completely different from the Law of God. Indeed, the unchanging Law of God should be the basis for any law that government makes. (As new things come up, such as the Internet to which you referred, we should look to God’s laws and principles to know what laws should be applied to that specific area. For example, since adultery is expressly forbidden by God, pornographic sites that exist for the purpose of causing men to violate that command should be unlawful.)
You said:
“You may argue that all biblical truth never changes.”
Yes, I certainly would. “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever” (Psalms 12:6-7). From the very first recorded words that God spoke to the very last recorded words that God spoke, including the words He spoke regarding marriage in the beginning (Genesis 2:24), God’s Word remains unchanged and as applicable and relevant in all matters of life today as it was when the words were first recorded. It is on this basis that I remain firm in my conviction that marriage is a lifelong covenant instituted by God between a man and a woman that ends only upon the death of one of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home