Divorce and Remarriage

Mat 19:9

(ESV)  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another, commits adultery (moicheia).”

 

I came to this conclusion because two different greek words are used and so if Matthew wanted to make adultery the exception, he would have used the same word.  Some understand the term “sexual immorality” in Mat 5:32 and 19:9, not of adultery, but fornication because our Savior uses the word porneia, not moicheia.  In a sense, Matthew is saying that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication (of uncleanness committed before their marriage union).  Matthew then disallows divorce in all other cases.  This view of the exception clause is sometimes known as the Betrothal View.  The betrothal view, in essence, teaches that Jesus’ exception statement refers exclusively to the unique betrothal custom of the Jews wherein a man could legally divorce his fiancé if she was found to have been immoral during the pre-nuptial period. Though the marriage was not yet consummated he nevertheless had to go through divorce proceedings to put her away. The betrothal was a binding arrangement and this no doubt accounts for the legal necessities.

 

John Piper has two well written articles that support this view below.  I recommend reading these as well.

 

and
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/

  

I have since studied more and have come to a different conclusion, that divorce and remarriage are allowed in the case of sexual immorality.  Why?  Let me explain briefly.

 

We can observe in Matthew 19, the context for His enunciation of the exception clause, that Jesus made clear that He was talking about consummated marriages when He gave His rule. The original question had to do with divorcing one’s “wife” (19:3). In answering, Jesus addressed the situation where one leaves father and mother, and cleaves to his”wife” (vs. 6, 8, 9). The apostles, moreover, perceived that His rule had to do with a man and his “wife” (v. 10). The exception clause itself says “whoever divorces his wife. ” The betrothal idea is simply foreign to the text.

 

Those who believe the betrothal view often cite Joseph and Mary’s situation as an illustration of the betrothal type of divorce which they assert Jesus was referring to in His exception clause. But, while Joseph may have had to consider divorce proceedings while betrothed to Mary, she had not yet become his wife. After he considered putting her away, God told him in a dream “not to be afraid to take Mary as your wife” (Matt. 1:20), and Matthew 1:24 says he then “took her as his wife.” Since Jesus had consummated marriages in mind, and Joseph and Mary had not consummated theirs, the most reasonable conclusion is that their situation was not in the purview of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19. While it may be true that betrothed persons had to observe legal divorce proceedings it cannot be shown that this is what Jesus had in mind exclusively, primarily, or even at all. By the admission of all, the teaching in Matthew 19 was directed against the capricious breakup of consummated marriages. It is a bit arbitrary, to insist in the face of this that the general rule applies to consummated marriages with “wives,” whereas the exception which is woven into the fabric of the rule applies to an unconsummated-marriage contract with one’s betrothed. The betrothal view is clearly the more artificial interpretation.

 

There is an excellent Old Testament example which is often overlooked in this discussion but which sheds much light on Jesus’ words and theology in Matthew. It is found in Jeremiah 3:6-10. Jeremiah wrote,

Jer 3:6-10   Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there.  (7)  “I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.  (8)  “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.  (9)  “Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.  (10)  “Yet in spite of all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to Me with all her heart, but rather in deception,” declares the LORD.

 

Now the major point to be made in this passage is that Jehovah divorced Israel, and He divorced her for the cause of immorality. Would anyone wish to argue that this was during the betrothal period? Jeremiah 3:1 clearly establishes that Israel was Jehovah’s wife; the marriage had been consummated. Jeremiah 2:2 says the wilderness journey was the betrothal period, 700 years earlier! Apparently Jehovah viewed fornication/adultery as a legitimate cause for divorce in a marriage which had been consummated. Surely no one would suggest that God was wrong, sinful, or even in poor taste for divorcing Israel for immorality.

I suggest that the one who holds to the normal, natural meaning of Jesus’ words and allows an exception where Jesus allowed it is on safer ground than one who holds the betrothal view. He at least is not likely to put himself in a position of condemning Jehovah for divorcing Israel for cause.

I have attached a revised “Divorce and Remarriage Study” Handout (below) and another indepth study of Divorce and Remarriage from a Shepherd’s Conference.  That handout is called “Till Death Do Us Part” and I really recommend reading it over.

God Bless,

David Ellingson

 

Divorce and Remarriage Study

Why Is There a Special Concern with Divorce and Remarriage?

There are at least nine reasons for studying this issue.
1. People who come to our church want to know where we stand on this issue.

2. Inside the church people need clarification about where the leadership of the church stands and what the church position is.

3. Divorce involves sin that is more destructive than many others. The hurtful impact of a broken marriage on the spouses and the children and the web of relationships surrounding the marriage is immense.

4. Divorce is thrown into the public limelight by the recognition in our society that it must be handled by the civil courts.

5. Marriage, divorce and remarriage involve the mingling of solemn oaths and sacred physical union unlike any other relationship.

6. Marriage is unique among all relationships in that it is set apart by God to signify to the world the relationship between his Son and his bride the church (Eph. 5:21-33). Therefore the breaking of this bond is extraordinary among all human bonds.

7. Divorce falls into that group of acts which when they are committed are very hard to undo. The words, “I’m sorry,” can make right many sins against another person. But divorce and remarriage cannot be made right like that.

8. Divorce happens by plan and intention of one or both spouses. It is not like a habit against which one struggles with successes and failures.

9. Divorce has reached epidemic proportions in our culture to the extent that even secular leaders are groping for a place to stand that may preserve the stability of the home.

 

The Two Accommodations for Divorce in the Bible:

1)   Mat 19:9  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

2)  1Co 7:15-16  But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.  (16)  For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Remarriage after divorce:

Mat 19:9  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Luk 16:18  “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Rom 7:1-3  Or do you not know, brothers–for I am speaking to those who know the law–that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?  (2)  For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.  (3)  Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

1Co 7:39  A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

 1Co 7:11  (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

 Mar 10:11-12  And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,  (12)  and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

 2Co 6:14 NASB  Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

 Word Studies:

 sexual immorality (fornication): 

 Mat 19:9 ESV  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another, commits adultery.”

πορνεία

porneia

por-ni’-ah

From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: – fornication.

 

adultery

Mat 19:9 ESV  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery (moicheia).”

μοιχεία

moicheia

moy-khi’-ah

From G3431; adultery: – adultery.

 

adultery & fornication – Two different Greek words are both used in same sentence…do they really both mean the same thing (adultery)?  Notice the distinction in the use of the words.  Many English Bible translations use the word “fornication” in place of “sexual immorality” for the Greek word “porneia”. 

Mat 15:19  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery (moicheia), sexual immorality (porneia), theft, false witness, slander.

Mat 19:9 ESV  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another, commits adultery (moicheia).”

Mat 5:32  But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality (porneia), makes her commit adultery (moicheia), and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

lustful intent 

 

Mat 5:27-28  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery (moicheia).’  (28)  But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent (epithumeo) has already committed adultery (moicheia) with her in his heart.

ἐπιθυμέω

epithumeō

ep-ee-thoo-meh’-o

From G1909 and G2372; to set the heart upon, that is, long for (rightfully or otherwise): – covet, desire, would fain, lust (after).

 

enslaved

1Co 7:15  But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved (douloo). God has called you to peace.

δουλόω

douloō

Thayer Definition:

1) to make a slave of, reduce to bondage

2) metaphorically give myself wholly to one’s needs and service, make myself a bondman to him

 

bound

1Co 7:39  A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

δέω

deō

Thayer Definition:

1) to bind tie, fasten

1a) to bind, fasten with chains, to throw into chains

1b) metaphorically

1b1) Satan is said to bind a woman bent together by means of a demon, as his messenger, taking possession of the woman and preventing her from standing upright

1b2) to bind, put under obligation, of the law, duty etc.

1b2a) to be bound to one, a wife, a husband

1b3) to forbid, prohibit, declare to be illicit

Commentary:  The word used for “bound” or “enslaved” (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where Paul says, “A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives.” 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 chooses a different word (douloo) which we would expect him to do if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39).

 

 

The Betrothal view

Some understand the term “sexual immorality” in Mat 5:32 and 19:9, not of adultery, but (because our Savior uses the word porneia — fornication ) of uncleanness committed before marriage, but discovered afterward; because, if it were committed after, it was a capital crime (they would be killed for adultery), and there needed no divorce.  He disallows it in all other cases: Whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. This is a direct answer to the Pharisees query, that it is not lawful.

Bill Gothard is a proponent of the Betrothal view of the exception clause.  Below is an excerpt from an article which criticizes this view.   Bill Gothard’s View of The Exception Clause by Tim Crater. 

Naturally, he [Bill Gothard] must deal with the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Christ said there was to be no divorce and remarriage “except for the cause of immorality. ” He opts for the betrothal view which other students of the Word hold as well. In essence, this view teaches that Jesus’ exception statement refers exclusively to the unique betrothal custom of the Jews wherein a man could legally divorce his fiancé if she was found to have been immoral during the pre-nuptial period. Though the marriage was not yet consummated he nevertheless had to go through divorce proceedings to put her away. The betrothal was a binding arrangement and this no doubt accounts for the legal necessities.

This view, in effect, removes any ground whatsoever as a justifiable basis for divorce for one whose marriage has been consummated. According to this idea, while the general rule announced by Christ-no divorce-applies to consummated marriages, the exception-for immorality-applies to unconsummated marriage contracts only.

While granting that Jesus was trying to head off the kind of free-wheeling divorce and remarriage (“for any cause at all”) being practiced in His day, I question whether Gothard has successfully established that the exception clause refers only to the betrothal period and not to consummated marriages. Apart from any outside knowledge of betrothal customs, which must be imported into the context of Matthew 5 and 19, the most obvious meaning of the words suggests that we have a general rule and an exception to that general rule, a familiar enough pattern in legal considerations: No divorce at all, except in this one instance. I wonder how I am misusing my academic skill to read the words at face value. Normally, the one who imports elaborate explanations is the one who has to call on his academic ability and knowledge since he asserts that we cannot take the words at face value.

Furthermore, when we are faced with a general rule and its exception we are most naturally inclined to think that both apply to the same basic situation. It is not a little puzzling to be told that Jesus referred to consummated marriages in the general rule but, unbeknown to the uneducated reader, He shifted His reference to unconsummated marriage contracts in the exception clause. The burden of proof is clearly on the one who introduces such an involved interpretation, not the one who takes the prima facie meaning.

In addition, we observe in Matthew 19, the context for His enunciation of the exception clause, that Jesus made clear that He was talking about consummated marriages when He gave His rule. The original question had to do with divorcing one’s “wife” (19:3). In answering, Jesus addressed the situation where one leaves father and mother, and cleaves to his“wife” (vv. 6, 8, 9). The apostles, moreover, perceived that His rule had to do with a man and his “wife” (v. 10). The exception clause itself says “whoever divorces his wife. ” The betrothal idea is simply foreign to the text.

Now Gothard (among others) cites Joseph and Mary’s situation as an illustration of the betrothal type of divorce which he asserts Jesus was referring to in His exception clause. But, while Joseph may have had to consider divorce proceedings while betrothed to Mary, she had not yet become his wife. After he considered putting her away, God told him in a dream “not to be afraid to take Mary as your wife” (Matt. 1:20), and Matthew 1:24 says he then “took her as his wife.” Since Jesus had consummated marriages in mind, and Joseph and Mary had not consummated theirs, the most reasonable conclusion is that their situation was not in the purview of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19. While it may be true that betrothed persons had to observe legal divorce proceedings it cannot be shown that this is what Jesus had in mind exclusively, primarily, or even at all. By the admission of all, the teaching in Matthew 19 was directed against the capricious breakup of consummated marriages. It is a bit arbitrary, to be charitable and say the least, to insist in the face of this that the general rule applies to consummated marriages with “wives,” whereas the exception which is woven into the fabric of the rule applies to an unconsummated-marriage contract with one’s betrothed. The betrothal view is clearly the more artificial interpretation, and suggests that a pre-determined view has been carried into the text.

There is an excellent Old Testament example which is often overlooked in this discussion but which sheds much light on Jesus’ words and theology in Matthew. It is found in Jeremiah 3:6-9. Jeremiah wrote,

Jer 3:6-10 NASB  Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there.  (7)  “I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.  (8)  “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.  (9)  “Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.  (10)  “Yet in spite of all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to Me with all her heart, but rather in deception,” declares the LORD.

Now the major point to be made in this passage is that Jehovah divorced Israel, and He divorced her for the cause of immorality. Would anyone wish to argue that this was during the betrothal period? Jeremiah 3:1 clearly establishes that Israel was Jehovah’s wife; the marriage had been consummated. Jeremiah 2:2 says the wilderness journey was the betrothal period, 700 years earlier! Apparently Jehovah viewed fornication/adultery as a legitimate cause for divorce in a marriage which had been consummated. Surely no one would suggest that God was wrong, sinful, or even in poor taste for divorcing Israel for immorality. Did He divorce Israel because of His “hardness of heart”? Was God not “open” to His own truth? Was He being Pharisaic or academic in his interpretive method? Or could it be that this perspective is more representative of the true spirit of the Scripture than the betrothal view? I think it is. If a teacher, pastor, or counselor holds to the exception, how can he be faulted, since it is the normal reading of Jesus’ own words and since he can cite God Himself as an example of this teaching?

I suggest that the one who holds to the normal, natural meaning of Jesus’ words and allows an exception where Jesus allowed it is on safer ground than one who holds the betrothal view. He at least is not likely to put himself in a position of condemning Jehovah for divorcing Israel for cause.