John Murray's Argument that the Matthean Exception Is Adultery

Murray's argument contends that Jesus changed the law from requiring death for adultery to requiring divorce. Hence, if one is divorced, he is no longer bound by the one flesh union of his previous marriage.  There are a few major problems with this view.

1. Paul states that the woman is bound as long as her husband lives in both texts that he mentions divorce and remarriage. This makes no sense if Jesus changed the penalty from death to divorce. He would have clearly said that a woman is bound until she is legally divorced or her husband divorces her and marries another.

2. If the penalty of adultery is no longer death, then what does this mean for single people who commit adultery with married men and women? No penalty?

3. The idea that Jesus changed the law is contrary to the entire argument in Matthew, where Jesus upholds not only the original moral law, but all of its implications as well. In fact, this is why He is arguing that divorce and remarriage are adultery (i.e., He is expanding the law of adultery, not limiting it like the Pharisees are). To read it as though He is contradicting Moses, rather than tracking with him, is a departure from covenantal hermeneutics. Hence, in 5:

4. The word is porneia, not moicheia. This does not mean that it cannot refer to adultery. It's just extremely odd and unusual to do so in a book (and the immediate context) where they have been distinguished.

5. The narrative is made incoherent by this interpretation. Jesus' statement is that since the two become one flesh, no one is to separate what God has joined together, i.e., no one is to divorce. This is made clear by the reaction of all parties in the conversation. The Pharisees counter Jesus' statement, not by arguing about the reason for divorce, but by arguing that Moses gave them a commandment that permitted it in the first place. If Jesus had just argued that one can get a divorce in the case of adultery, their countering that by saying Moses allowed for divorce in a particular situation makes no sense. Jesus could have just said, "Yes, I agree. Moses allowed you because of adultery." That's not what He says. He then responds by saying, Moses allowed you to get a divorce because of your stubborness, but it is not the will of God for it to be done. He then tells the disciples that te reason it is not the will of God is because one is committing adultery due the one flesh union if he or she divorces and marries another. That means porneia cannot refer to anything that would sever a legitimate marriage, since the narrative responses of the individuals involved clearly show that there is no legitimate dissolution of a legitmate marriage.


6. This means that porneia must refer to something other than a legitimate union, and therefore, refers either to the dissolution of the betrothment due to the bride's whoring or the dissolution of a marriage founded on an illegitimate sexual union (such as Herod's with Herodias). I would argue the latter, since if it is the former, Jesus would have had to change the law from death to divorce, as Murray argues with adultery.


7. If Murray were right, and the penalty for adultery is divorce, which frees the individual to marry again, then why is one who marries a divorced woman committing adultery? And why does John refer to Herodias as the wife of Philip even after she has divorced him and married Herod? She took the self penalty of divorcing him and so her new marriage should be the only one she has.

8. If the penalty for adultery has changed from death to divorce, then any adulterer can just leave his or her spouse as a self-inflicted penalty (one I'm sure they're really broken up about), and go on committing adultery with his or her lover, whether married or not. After all, the penalty has already been paid. No death for adultery anymore, and he or she is already divorced. Murray wants to make it only permissable for the innocent party, but if divorce is death that ends the covenant then neither is still bound. He can't have it both ways.

9. Murray's idea essentially argues that there is no more earthly penalty for adultery except divorce. This is good news for everyone engaged in premarital adultery, as they are not yet bound in their future covenant. It is great news for everyone who has already paid the price in divorce for their adulteries. They can continue to commit adultery until the cows come home now.

10. The New Testament parallel to the death in the law is not a lesser punishment, but a greater one. It means that the adulterer is damned spiritually as well as possibly receiving the civil punishment of death. Murray has made it less than rather than more.

11. If there is any exception to the rule that only death separates the union, then Paul's analogy in Romans 7 is incoherent and false. Only death frees one from the law in the same way that only death frees one from the marriage union. If something else can break that covenant union, then death is not the only thing and the analogy is false.

12. As a final note, Murray's position isn't the Church's position on the subject, including the historic Reformed position. The Reformed position admitted what the earlier church had concluded (no remarriage while the spouse lives even if divorced), but that the spouse should technically be dead if the government was faithful in executing God's civil laws. If the spouse was still alive, it was the magistrate's fault for not doing his job. Hence, one is free to remarry because the spouse should be dead, even though he or she isn't. Yes, it is a dumb argument, but at least it shows that they too saw the clear teaching that while a spouse lives, remarriage is not permitted. That has been the clear understanding of these passages for 2000 years.