 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
Remarriage
Addendum:
Exception Clause Comparison
The
Importance of Family Part 1: Marriage
The Importance of Family Part 2: The
Family
Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction
and Basics
Separation and Divorce in the Law
of Moses
Marital Separation in the Gospels
Marital Separation after the Gospels
and Conclusions
Marital Separation: Objections
1-3
Marital Separation: Objections
4-6 and the Early Church
Remarriage Addendum: Exception
Clause Comparison
New Testament Protocols Regarding Men
and Women (Part 1)
New Testament Protocols Regarding Men
and Women (Part 2)
Comparative Peer Dynamics Chart
This
addendum is designed to specifically address the fact that
some Christians often struggle with the implications of the
exception clause in Matthew 19 concerning divorce and remarriage.
Although we analyze that text at length in our six-part article
series on the topics of Separation, Divorce, and Remarriage,
here we would like to further illustrate through the use of
an analogous, or parallel, scenario how the exception clause
does and does not function in Matthew 19.
Of course, Matthew 5 also contains an exception clause. However,
there are differences between the phrasing and placement of
the Matthew 5 exception and the phrasing and placement of
the Matthew 19 exception. These differences make the Matthew
5 non-problematic to our interpretation of New Testament teaching
on remarriage even from a cursory examination.
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 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.
The exception clause in verse 32 of Matthew 5 is bolded in
the excerpt above. As can be seen from the context, even a
casual reading of the passage clearly indicates that a man
who puts away his wife is held responsible for her committing
adultery except in cases when he is putting her away because
she is already committing some form of fornication in the
first place. Since the wife is already committing fornication
before the divorce, in those particular cases and in those
cases only, the man's divorce is not deemed a contributing
factor to his wife's unlawful sexual practices.
But more to the point, the exception clause in Matthew 5 is
not phrased in a way that relates to or even has implications
for whether or not a second marriage is allowable or considered
adultery. This is an exception that pertains to the man's
blame in his wife's unlawful sexual practice. It is not an
exception that pertains to whether her sexual practice is
deemed lawful or not.
It is certainly true, simply by virtue of sound hermeneutics
(interpretive principles) that this earlier exception clause
on this same general topic greatly informs how to interpret
Jesus' teachings and the exception clause in Matthew 19. However,
in contrast to Matthew 5, which is clearly not an exception
that affects the legality of the wife's sexual practice, Matthew
19 is phrased in such a way that some modern readers perceive
that Matthew 19's exception clause does determine
whether or not either spouse's sexual practice is deemed acceptable
or unacceptable. For contrast, here is the exception clause
found in Matthew 19.
Matthew 19:3 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?... 7 They say unto him, Why did
Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to
put her away?...9 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.
Here in Matthew 19, the exception clause occurs in verse 9
where it is bolded for emphasis. Because it is followed by
the phrase, “and shall marry another, committeth adultery,”
some readers perceive that whether the second marriage is
adultery or not depends on the presence or absence of the
exception. In other words, some readers perceive that the
exception pertains to the second issue, the second marriage
and whether or not it is deemed adultery. This perception
can be addressed in two ways. First, it can be addressed in
terms of its implications if the exception clause pertains
to unfaithful acts within a legal marriage. And second, it
can be addressed in terms of its implications if the exception
clause pertains to illegal marriages.
We will begin by examining the implications if the exception
clause pertains to unfaithful acts within legal marriages.
Assuming this interpretation of the exception clause, the
context indicates that the exception does not relate to this
second issue (remarriage) at all. Instead, the exception clause
relates solely to the first issue, Jesus’ condemnation of
the “putting away.”
And it is important to state that adultery is a secondary
aspect in Matthew 19, not the primary aspect.
The primary subject of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19
is to condemn divorce. This is significant because
it emphasizes why his exception would constitute an exception
for divorce and not an exception to the adulterous
nature of second marriages. In fact, further support that
Jesus' exception in Matthew 19 is intended to allow separation
from a fornicating spouse, rather than to allow second
marriages, is indicated by Jesus' earlier teachings in Matthew
5.
Matthew 5:32 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.
In Matthew 5, Jesus lays the blame for a woman's adultery
when she marries another man squarely at the feet of her first
husband for putting her away in the first place. Thus, he
is condemning putting away on the grounds that it contributes
to adultery. But, in making this condemnation of "whosoever
puts away his wife," Jesus wants to make sure not to include
under condemnation men who separate from wives because their
wives are already committing fornication. Thus, the use of
the exception clause creates a teaching in which separating
from your wife while she is committing fornication
is acceptable but separating from your wife in all
other cases when she is not committing fornication, renders
the husband responsible for adultery, for the simple fact
that he has given her no place else to go but into the arms
of another man.
Conversely, so long as his separation from her is only
during her fornication and until such time as she
turns away from fornication, then that husband is continuing
to provide a place for her with himself and not forcing her
to find a home with another man. In fact, because his separation
is only conditional while she is fornicating, he is
actually encouraging her to cease from other men and
return to her place at his side. Thus, Jesus' denotes an exception
to his condemnation of separating from your spouse
showing that his condemnation does not apply to husbands who
separate conditionally from their wives while their
wives practice fornication.
In Matthew 19, the primary subject is the question of whether
or not it is acceptable for a man to put away his wife. The
Pharisees begin with this question in verse 3 and repeat it
again in verse 7.
Matthew 19:3 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?... 7 They say unto him,
Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement,
and to put her away?
And both times, Jesus answers that in God's eyes, no,
men are not permitted to put away their spouses. Jesus
responses are found in verse 4-6 and 8 below in which he cites
God's standard "from the beginning" as the basis for his prohibition
of separating from your spouse.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have
ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning
made them male and female, 5 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? 6 Wherefore they are no
more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder…8 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.
Thus, it is clear that Matthew 19 is clearly primarily
about putting away a spouse and whether or not
that is acceptable. And because that is the case, it
is very easy to understand why the exception Jesus' provides
in verse 9 is also an exception to his condemnation of
separating from your spouse, not an exception to
whether or not second marriages are adultery.
In fact, it is during this prohibition of "putting away" in
verses 4-6 and verses 8-9 that Jesus gives the exception.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have
ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning
made them male and female, 5 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? 6 Wherefore they are no
more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder…8 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. 9 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.
Since the repeated, constant thrust of his comments at that
time are about condemning "putting away," his inclusion of
an exception is clearly shown to be an exception to his
prohibiting putting away, just as was his inclusion of
an exception in Matthew 5.
However, as indicated above, this issue can also be addressed
in terms of the alternate interpretation of the exception
clause, in which the exception clause pertains to illegal
marriages rather than unfaithful acts within legal marriages.
Under this interpretation, Matthew 19’s rendering of the exception
clause is even easier to understand. In fact, we have already
commented on this specific issue earlier and can simply restate
our analysis here for emphasis.
In cases where the current marriage is itself inherently illegal
from its inception, there are several scenarios in which after
the divorce both spouses would be free to marry someone else.
And even more specifically, scenarios exist in which marriage
to a new spouse after divorce from an illegal marriage would
not constitute adultery or consequently another illegal marriage.
Let’s look at some examples.
The first example is a scenario in which the current marriage
is actually the second marriage for both spouses. This is
the type of marriages that Jesus calls “adultery” in Matthew
5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16. It is illegal and invalid
because in God’s eyes both spouses are still married to their
original spouse. For that reason, the current spouses should
divorce one another and, in such a scenario, would be free
(if not required) to remarry their original spouse. In this
case, marriage to a different person than the current spouse
is clearly not illegal or adulterous in God’s eyes because
the new marriage is actually to the original and legitimate
spouse.
The second example is a scenario in which only one spouse
in the current marriage has been married previously. This
type of marriage would also be “adultery” under Jesus’ definition.
And in such cases, the other spouse (having never been married
legitimately before) would be free to marry anyone after the
current illegal, adulterous marriage is ended.
The third example is a scenario in which the current marriage
is unlawful for some reason such as incest (rather than because
it is an adulterous second marriage). While this is unthinkable
in modern times, it makes complete sense in the original historical
context (the Jewish commonwealth) in which Jesus’ gave this
command. This is proven by the case involving John the Baptist
and Herod. In this scenario, both spouses would be free to
remarry anyone because neither one has ever been in a valid
marriage in God’s eyes.
Consequently, there are at least three separate scenarios
in which a subsequent marriage to a different party after
the divorce of an adulterous marriage would not constitute
any kind of adultery. As such, it would make perfect sense
for Jesus to allow divorce and marriage to a different party
in cases where the current marriage is itself illegal and
invalid in God’s eyes.
But more to the point, under this interpretation of the exception
clause (which appears superior for both grammatical and historical
reasons), unfaithfulness in a legal marriage would not allow
for marriage to a new spouse. Instead, the exception clause,
even as structured in Matthew 19, would only create allowances
for persons involved in illegal marriages.
With all this in mind, we arrive at the opportunity for an
analogous, or parallel, scenario. The benefit of examining
an analogous scenario is that the topic (in this case separation
and remarriage) is changed but the format of the dialog remains
the same. This allows us to discard cultural baggage that
we carry about the topic of separation and remarriage in order
to get a simple view of the structure of the statement and,
in this case, how the exception clause works.
The alternate topic that we will now format in a parallel
to Jesus' exception in Matthew 19 is the issue of providing
for your family and stealing. This topic is ideal for comparison
to the prohibition and exception in Matthew 19 for several
reasons.
First, it is a real condemnation and prohibition that exists
in the Bible. Stealing is prohibited in Exodsus 20:15, Romans
13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Ephesians 4:28.
Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery,
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt
not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there
be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this
saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves,
nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more:
but rather let him labour, working with his hands the
thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that
needeth.
Likewise, working to provide for one's family is also required
in the Bible and failing to do so is directly condemned.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own,
and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied
the faith, and is worse than an infidel (571).
It is important to note that the word for "infidel" in 1 Timothy
5:8 is not an inconsequential term. It is the Greek word "apistos"
(Strong's No. 571), which is a compound word comprised of
the Greek letter "a" (Strong's No. 1) used as a negative participle
and the Greek word "pistos" (Strong's No. 4103), which means,
"trusty" or "believing." In short, the Greek word translated
as "infidel" means an "unbeliever," one who does not believe
the Gospel. The same word is used by Paul in such passages
as 1 Corinthians 6:6, 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, 1 Corinthians
10:27, 1 Corinthians 14:22-24, 2 Corinthians 6:14, and Titus
1:15, as well as by Jesus in Luke 12:46, where it is translated
as "unbeliever."
Thus, like Jesus' condemnation of a man who puts away his
spouse, the New Testament's condemnation of a man who does
not provide for his family is quite clear.
Second, this analogy between the Bible's teaching on stealing
to provide for one's needs and committing adultery is itself
put forward in the Bible.
Proverbs 6:27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and
his clothes not be burned? 28 Can one go upon hot coals, and
his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's
wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent. 30 Men
do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when
he is hungry; 31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold;
he shall give all the substance of his house. 32 But whoso
committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he
that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
There are a few items to notice from Proverbs 6. Notice foremost
that the topic is condemning adultery and the assurance of
adultery's consequences for those who would perhaps take it
lightly or brush it off. Also, notice the comparison of thievery
is employed to illustrate this teaching concerning adultery.
And finally, notice from verses 30-31 that even through a
starving man is not despised when he steals, his condemnation
nonetheless still remains and he is required to endure the
designated consequences. This is important because it establishes
that the prohibition and condemnation of thievery remains
even when the man is perhaps in legitimate need through
no fault of his own and deserving of pity. The statement in
verse 30 that the man is stealing when he is starving and
therefore not despised is meant to contrast that man
with a man who steals, not out of dire need, but out of laziness,
greed, or some other immoral motivation, particularly covetousness
as we will see below.
Thus, the Bible makes a distinction between the man who is
in need for legitimate, blameless reasons and the man who
seeks to steal because of own evil desires and greed. Yet,
despite the distinction between an opportunity to steal, which
results from innocent misfortune and an opportunity to steal,
which results from evil desires, the condemnation and prohibition
of thievery remains in affect for both the unfortunate party
and the malevolent party. And not only does the condemnation
and prohibition remain for both, but the penalty does also.
This reality will factor largely into our analogous scenario
below.
In addition, this conceptual parallel between thievery and
adultery goes back to the very beginning of the Bible. In
the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21,
stealing and adultery are listed separately, although they
are side by side in both instances.
Exodus 20:
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
Deuteronomy 5:
18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
19 Neither shalt thou steal.
However, in both passages, the tenth commandment condemns
the desire to take material possessions in literally the same
breath and the same language as it condemns desiring to take
a woman who is not your lawful spouse. (The Strong's Numbers
are included in Exodus 20:17 in order to demonstrate that
the Hebrew word is the same concerning "coveting" both property
and spouses.)
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet (02530) thy neighbour's
house, thou shalt not covet (02530) thy neighbour's wife,
nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his
ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Deuteronomy 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's
wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his
field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his
ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Thus, the conceptual parallel between the desire to steal
and the desire to commit adultery is one that is asserted
at the very beginning of God's Word. Consequently, given the
Bible's statements concerning both stealing and not providing
for one's family, the analogy does not rely on imaginary elements
or prohibitions and is neither arbitrary nor contrived.
On a side note, when discussing the requirements for repenting
from adultery, it is not altogether uncommon for an analysis
of adultery to invoke a comparison to the sin of murder. However,
since the Bible itself parallels adultery to thievery, attempts
to reach conclusions about adultery by comparison to other
sins, such as murder, are not only baseless, but they derail
the indications provided by the Bible's own conceptual comparison
to thievery. The Bible compares thievery and adultery not
only for illustration purposes but because they are conceptually
similar. In both cases, a person desires, takes, and then
lives with and derives benefit from something which is not
lawfully theirs, something which they attained illegally.
If God had intended for us to understand adultery as similar
to murder, he would have said so, just as he does in Exodus,
Deuteronomy, and Proverbs concerning thievery. For this reason,
when seeking to explain or understand God's requirements for
repentance concerning those in adultery by way of analogy
to another sin, we must start with an analogy concerning thievery,
not murder. To start with a comparison from murder in order
to make deductions about adultery is to disregard and work
against Biblical precedent.
Keeping in mind that Matthew 19 begins with the Pharisees
asking two separate times if it is acceptable to put away
one's spouse and that Jesus answers both times by prohibiting
"putting away," we can envision a similar situation where
someone comes to ask a teacher or lawgiver if it is acceptable
for a man to stop working to provide for one's family. Thus,
the failure to provide for one's family becomes the primary
subject of the dialog, just as "putting away" is in Matthew
19. Likewise, stealing will function as the secondary issue,
just like "adultery" in Matthew 19.
Imagine a discussion that occurs as follows.
OPPOSITION: Is it lawful for a man to stop working
to provide for his family?
TEACHER: Have you not read, "If any provide not for
his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath
denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel"? For this
reason, every man shall work to provide for himself and his
family.
OPPOSITION: Then what about the command that those
who have must share and help provide for those who lack?
TEACHER: That command was given to make sure you gave
to those in need. But I say unto you, Whoseover shall not
provide for his family, except in cases where he was laid
off from his job, and shall take more than what lawfully belongs
to him, commits thievery.
In this imaginary scenario, we have paralleled the structure
of the dialog between Jesus and the Pharisees in Matthew 19.
In Matthew 19, the primary topic under examination
is the acceptability of putting away a spouse. In our analogous
scenario, the primary topic under examination is failing
to provide for one's family. In both scenarios, the opposition
twice asserts that doing so is acceptable. And both times,
the teacher responds by condemning and prohibiting what they
say is acceptable. Furthermore, in both cases, the exception
is clearly given during the prohibition of that primary
behavior.
The central comparison, of course, comes down to the teacher's
final statement, in which the exception clause appears. We
have mirrored the format exactly.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, A) Whosoever
shall put away his wife, B) except it be for fornication,
C) and shall marry another, D) committeth adultery:
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
TEACHER: …But I say unto you, A) Whoseover shall
not provide for his family, B) except in cases where
he was laid off from his job, C) and shall take more
than what lawfully belongs to him, D) commits thievery.
In both scenarios, "A" is the behavior, which is the
primary issue under examination throughout the passage
and which the teacher is condemning and prohibiting throughout
the passage. "B" is the exception to the prohibition
of that primary behavior. "C" is the secondary
behavior, which has not been the primary focus of the
dialog and which has not even been mentioned up to
this point in the dialog. Specifically, the secondary behavior
is marrying someone else and taking something beyond what
is lawfully yours. And "D" is the teacher's qualification
of the secondary behavior as an immoral act, as adultery and
thievery respectively.
What the analogous scenario allows us to see is that the exception
("B") is an exception to the condemnation of "A."
It is an exception to the condemnation of the primary behavior
that has been the constant focus of the dialog from the beginning.
Just like the condemnation against "not providing for one's
family" does not apply in cases where one was laid
off, the condemnation against "putting away one's wife" does
not apply in cases where the wife is engaging in fornication.
The exception is an exception only to the prohibition
of the primary behavior.
Moreover, from the precedent in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy
5:21, we know that the exception is granted specifically
because the putting away of a spouse who is fornicating
is not an action that starts with covetousness for something
that is not yours, with the desire for another spouse. Thus,
the exception merely recognizes an exemption from the condemnation
of covetousness, which is the sin that Jesus is condemning
throughout Matthew 19, the desire for another spouse instead
of your present spouse. This is identical to how Proverbs
recognizes that the man who steals when he is starving
is not despised as covetous, but only as a thief. And
it is also identical to how our analogy recognizes that the
man who steals if he is laid off does not fall under
the condemnation of laziness, but only under the condemnation
of being a thief.
That is the purpose of the exception, to exempt from condemnation
in one particular, single situation those who commit
the primary behavior of either putting away or not
providing for their family. The exception does not relate
to and does not affect the qualification of the secondary
behavior as immoral, as adultery or thievery respectively.
The exception does not make it acceptable to perform
the secondary behavior of marrying someone new or to taking
more than what lawfully belongs to you if that particular
situation arises. Taking what is not yours doesn't cease to
be thievery just because you suffer blameless misfortune.
Passages like Exodus 20:15, Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
Ephesians 4:28 explicitly define that taking what is not yours
is thievery. Whether arising from covetousness or not, you
are still taking what is not yours and therefore, by definition,
stealing. And Proverbs 6:30-31 tells us that the condemnation
of such behavior as thievery, the prohibition of
it and the punishment, remain for all who do so. As
such, in our analogous scenario, only the condemnation
for not providing for one's family is removed by the
exception, not the condemnation for the second action
of taking what isn't yours.
Likewise, in Matthew 19, marrying someone new doesn't cease
to be adultery just because one spouse was committing fornication.
Passages like Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:1-3 and 1
Corinthians 7:39 explicitly define that marrying someone new
while your original spouse is still alive is adultery. Whether
arising from covetousness or not, you are still taking a spouse
that is not yours in the eye's of God's law and therefore,
by definition, engaging in adultery. The condemnation explicitly
asserted in those passages remains for all those do so. In
Matthew 19, only the condemnation for putting away
a spouse is removed by the exception, not the condemnation
for the second action of marrying someone new.
As our analogous scenario demonstrates, there is no conflict
created between the exception clause and the explicit condemnation
of the stealing in Exodus 20:15, Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians
6:9-10, and Ephesians 4:28. Nor, does the exception clause
create a loophole making it OK to steal if certain variables
are present.
Likewise, in Matthew 19, there is no conflict created between
the exception clause and the explicit condemnation of remarriage
in Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
and 1 Corinthians 7:39 as well as Mark 10:1-12, which is a
parallel account of the events in Matthew 19 in which Jesus'
teaching works without an exception clause. Nor, does the
exception clause create a loophole making it OK to marry someone
new so long as certain variables are present.
Lastly, it is interesting that in Romans 7:1-3, Paul refers
to the Law of Moses as prohibiting a spouse from marrying
someone else so long as their original spouse is still alive.
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to
them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion
over a man as long as he liveth? 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. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth,
she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:
but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law;
so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another
man.
No doubt, Paul is simply referring to the first book of the
Torah of Moses, the book of Genesis, which is the passage
Jesus himself refers to in Matthew 19 and Mark 12, when he
states that "in the beginning," God made man and woman "one."
And not only does Paul state that this was the rule under
the Law of Moses, but in 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul asserts
that this rule is still in effect for Christians so that no
Christian can marry someone else so long as their original
spouse is still alive.
1 Corinthians 7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage
doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
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.
Thus, Paul applies this directive from the Law of Moses, specifically
Genesis, as the rule governing Christians, just as Christ
Jesus did in Matthew 19 and Mark 12 when employing the phrase,
"in the beginning." But moreover, the fact that both Jesus
and Paul refer the origin of this to the Law of Moses provides
insight into Jesus' prohibition of second marriages in Luke
16:18.
Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all these things: and they derided him. 15 And he said
unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;
but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed
among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law
and the prophets were until John: since that time the
kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than
one tittle of the law to fail. 18 Whosoever putteth
away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery:
and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery.
Just as Jesus and Paul elsewhere ascribe the origin of the
prohibition of remarriage to the book of Genesis, the first
book in the Torah of Moses, right after affirming the enduring
nature of the Law here in Luke 16, Jesus goes on to prohibit
remarriages. Thus, verse 18 is not simply a fleeting statement
recorded hastily and arbitrarily in between an unrelated series
of statements about the Law in verses 14-17 and a parable
in verses 19-31. But instead, verse 18's prohibition of second
marriages is connected directly to Jesus' reference back to
the Law in the preceding verses and his condemnation of the
Pharisees covetousness, just as he condemned the Pharisees
covetousness for new wives in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 in which
he also appealed to the Law.
Furthermore, verse 18 is also connected to the parable that
follows in verses 19-31, in which Jesus goes on to further
demonstrate that those who reject the commands of the Law
will be condemned. Given our comparison of putting away a
spouse and second marriages to poverty and stealing as well
as the similar comparison in Proverbs 6:27-32, it is perhaps
not so surprising that just after condemning those who enter
second marriages in Luke 16:18, Jesus himself immediately
goes on to tell the parable in verses 19-31 of a starving
beggar who does not steal but suffers himself to die in starvation
and poverty with the end result being that he is rewarded.
And, unless we want to dismember the text, surgically removing
the content of verse 18 from the previous verses about the
Law and the following parable about those who do not hear
the Law, we must admit that the parable about enduring poverty
and lack in verses 19-31 is intended to be conceptually
connected with the otherwise out-of-place prohibition against
second marriages in verse 18.
Thus, while those who are poor through misfortune escape the
condemnation for not providing for one's family, they ought
to endure the loss without resorting to theft if they seek
acceptance in God's kingdom. Likewise, if a person wants to
avoid condemnation of adultery and be accepted in God's kingdom,
those who suffer the injustice of having a spouse commit fornication,
ought to endure the loss of their entitled intercourse with
that spouse without taking what does not belong to them by
marrying someone new. 1 Corinthians 6 and Galatians 5 below
affirm not only that ongoing thievery disqualifies a person
from the kingdom of God but that ongoing adultery, such as
second marriages, does also.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves,
nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest,
which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings,
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the
which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past,
that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom
of God.
In this regard, the connection between Jesus' prohibition
against marrying someone new in Luke 16:18 and his story about
the beggar who endures and dies in lack and yet is rewarded
is directly parallel to Jesus' statements in Matthew 5:27-31
in which Jesus states that separating from a fornicating spouse
is like voluntarily cutting off a hand or part of one's own
body. In Matthew 5, Jesus' point is that it is better to suffer
the loss of part of one's own body than to enter hell. Likewise,
in Luke 16:18-31, Jesus' prohibition of second marriages followed
by the parable of the man who dies in poverty and is rewarded
also communicates that it is better to go without and die
in that condition than to marry someone new. (Furthermore,
in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, and Ephesians
5:28-29, Paul conveys his understanding that the husband and
wife are indeed "one flesh" as Jesus teaches in Matthew 19,
and as such, each one's body is really the other's and part
of the other's own flesh, thus, conceptually connecting Jesus'
teaching about cutting off part of the body that leads to
sexual sin with Jesus' permission to put away a spouse that
is in fornication.)
As we have said before, in our analogous scenario, there is
no conflict created between the exception clause and the explicit
condemnation of the stealing in Exodus 20:15, Romans 13:9,
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Ephesians 4:28. Nor, does the exception
clause create a loophole making it OK to steal if certain
variables are present. Instead, the exception merely denotes
that those who are not providing for their family because
they have been laid off are not included in the condemnation
of those who don't provide for their families because they
are lazy or some other vice. They are not included in the
condemnation, because they are not seeking to neglect their
families but have been forced into that situation by factors
outside their control. And since that is the case, such individuals
do not desire to remain in that situation, but will provide
for their families as soon as the outside barrier is removed,
in which case they will work to provide for their families.
Likewise, those who separate from their spouse because their
spouse is committing fornication, do not desire to remain
in that situation. Nor are they separated from their spouse
because they are pursuing some vice within themselves. Instead,
they desire to be united to their spouse and as soon as the
outside barrier of the spouse's impropriety or fornication
is removed, they desire reconciliation. Paul himself understood
this to be the teaching also, as indicated by 1 Corinthians
7, where he taught that those who were separated from their
spouse should remain single and desire reconciliation.
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command,
yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her
husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried,
or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband
put away his wife.
Thus, the New Testament teaching remains remarkably consistent
from start to finish. There is a uniform and unrestricted
condemnation and prohibition of all second marriages and
a general condemnation and prohibition of putting away a spouse
with the single exception allowing spouses to be put
away for as long as they practice fornication. And the reason
for the exception concerning putting away a spouse is also
clear in Paul's understanding. For, to continue in intercourse
with someone committing unlawful sexual practice not only
unites the faithful spouse to their unlawful action but it
connects Christ also, to whom we are one in spirit, just as
1 Corinthians 6 below plainly states.
1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies
are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members
of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God
forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to
an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be
one flesh.
As 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 above indicates, the reason for putting
away a spouse in the single case where they are practicing
fornication is in order to avoid proliferating further
participation in fornication. Thus, allowing the emergence
of permanent unions to other sexual partners contradicts not
only the very purpose for the exception in the first place,
which is to avoid the proliferation and spread of unlawful
sex, but also the intent of Jesus himself in Matthew 5, Matthew
19, and Mark 10 in which Jesus is speaking these things for
the very purpose of putting a stop to the proliferation of
unlawful sex.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |