I've said before that a bad interpretive methodology isn't just something that doesn't yield the truth, it's unethical. The best you can treat another person's speech is to listen carefully to it and be honest with it. How much more should we treat God's speech in this way?
What I'm going to argue here, then, is that this whole debate exists because of an unethical methodology that forces the clear teaching about divorce and remarriage in the New Testament to fit into the ambiguous teaching. It uses the ambiguous to muddy the clear, and so reinterprets what is clear in light of what is ambiguous.
We are told that one of the first rules of hermeneutics should be that we interpret the ambiguous in light of the clear. Indeed, this treats language, and its speaker, respectfully. It also ensures that we understand the speaker even in light of the fact that all speech contains ambiguities that may seem inconsistent with what is clear. We don't distort the clear by them, however, but rather interpret them within the framework of what is clear.
The clear teaching of the New Testament about divorce and remarriage is as follows:
No one disputes that, if read by itself, the texts in Mark, Luke, and Romans would be understood as absolute by the reader.
Mark 10:2-10:
Then some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this commandment for you because of your hard hearts. But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
In the house once again, the disciples asked him about this. So he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
The clear teaching here is that the command was given from Moses because of the rebellion of the Jews, not because it is in accordance with God's moral will to divorce. Instead, Jesus quotes that they are joined by God into one flesh and then commands that no one is to separate what God has joined together as one, i.e., the answer is, "No, it is not lawful for a man to divorce his wife." To further the clarity of the statement, the disciples ask Him in the house, and He clearly states anyone who divorces his or her spouse and marries another commits adultery, period.
Hence, no one is to divorce a spouse and no one is to remarry if they do, period. That's clear.
But what about one who is divorced, but was not the one who divorced?
Luke 16:18 clarifies by starting out with the same statement, but then adds another to it.
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
The participial phrase ὁ ἀπολελυμένην is a passive, meaning that this woman has been divorced from her husband by her husband's doing. Does this free her up to remarry? No. Not only would she be committing adultery, any man who marries her will be commiting adultery according to this text. So no divorce and remarriage whether the person was the one who initiated it or not (The irrelevance of who initiated it is also confirmed by Matt 5:32). That's clear.
Romans 7:1-3 is a factual statement given by Paul as an analogy that one must die to be unbound to the penalty of the law.
Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage. So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to another man, she is not an adulteress.
So if the condition exists that the husband lives while a woman is joined to someone else in marriage, she is an adulteress. There is no exception. The statement is absolute, and if it isn't, the analogy fails, as one can be separated from the penalty of the law by some other way than dying. Paul's entire point is that only death breaks the law that binds her to her husband. That's clear.
The remaining texts in Matthew and 1 Corinthians are also very clear with the exception of a single ambiguous word used in each.
Matthew 19:3-12 is made clear by the dialogue that ensues (i.e., how the Pharisees react to what Jesus says, how Jesus reacts to what the Pharisees say, and how the disciples react to what Jesus says).
Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?”
He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, no one is to separate what God has joined together.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?”
Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”
He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”
The clear statements:
1. The Pharisees ask if there is any reason a man can divorce his wife.
2. Jesus says that the two are one flesh now and cannot be separated, and therefore, commands that no one is to separate what God has joined together, i.e., No.
3. The Pharisees understand that He has just said that there is no reason a man can divorce his wife, so they argue by saying that Moses permitted them to divorce. Notice, they do not argue for what reason because Jesus has just said that there is no reason for which they can divorce.
4. Jesus responds, not by clarifying that He thinks they can be divorced for a particular reason, and so agrees with Moses, but by saying that Moses was conceding to their rebellion, not because it was the moral will of God for them to do so.
5. Jesus declares that whoever divorces and remarries, except for porneia, he is committing adultery.
6. The disciples are all shocked and say that if that is true, a couple who may get divorced should not marry in the first place, which means that Jesus' teaching is absolute and the only way to avoid the adultery of divorce is to not get married.
7. Jesus confirms by saying that some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God.
All of this adds up to the fact that Jesus has prohibited divorce and remarriage absolutely, as in the other texts.
But here comes the ambiguous word porneia. Now, all of the teaching on the matter has been clear up to this point. Th interpreter now has to make a choice. He can throw all of the clear statements that make Jesus' teaching absolute out the window by interpreting them in light of a possible meaning of the word that cannot be confirmed (since there are multiple options for what the world might mean), or he can interpret the word in light of all of the clear teaching of these texts (hence, choosing the meaning or meanings of the word that are consistent with what is clearly stated about the absoluteness of the principle of no divorce and no remarriage.
If we conduct our inquiry according to the proper methodology of interpreting the ambiguous in light of the clear, then a word that can refer to five different things must be reduced to whatever meanings do not muddy the clear teaching. If we conduct our inquiry improperly and unethically, we will use the ambiguity of the word to distort the clear teaching. I believe this is what happened in church history as well. The church for the first 1500 years attempted to employ this rightful methodology and interpret the ambiguity in the light of the clear, and many in the church of the Reformation, fundamentalism, and evangelicalism to follow have ignored proper methodology and muddied the clear teaching by choosing meanings of the ambiguous word to contradict the clear.
This same thing happens in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul makes a similar statement in 1 Corinthians 7 that he does in Romans 7. In case anything is misuderstood, the section ends by Paul stating,
A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes (only someone in the Lord). (v. 39)
So she is deō "bound (contextually: in marriage)" as long as her husband lives and is only freed to marry in the Lord if her husband dies. No exception, and the teaching is clear.
Furthermore, Paul states, based on the Gospel of Mark, that no believer is permitted to get a divorce, and for some reason they do divorce, are to remain agamos "umarried."
To the married I give this command—not I, but the Lord—a wife is not to divorce a husband (but if she does, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and a husband is not to divorce his wife. (vv. 10-11)
When it comes to an unebeliever, the believer is not to divorce him or her either, but to remain married with them. If the unbeliever divorces the believer, Paul says to let them do so. But suddenly he makes an ambiguous statement that, again, is wrapped around one word.
He states that the believer is not douloō "obligated/bound." Now, this is a different word than Paul's normal use of the marital term deō, which makes it even more ambiguous. Is Paul arguing that the believer is no longer bound by the marriage and free to get remarried, or is he arguing that the believer is not obligated to force the unbeliever to stay? Could he be arguing the believer is simply not at fault and will not be held to it in judgment, or that he or she is not obligated to save the unbeliever by remaining married to them if they divorce? There are multiple options for the word. The more likely in the context seems to refer to being not obligated to force the unbeliever to stay, since he makes the statement that "called you in peace" (v. 15). It seems also the statement in verse 16, the one does not know if he or she will save his or her spouse anyway, seems to indicate that the believer is not obligated to keep the unbelieving spouse married to them in order to save them, since Paul had just made the argument that remaining married makes the spouse and children holy (v. 14).
Nevertheless, the interpreter could take the unethical route and obscure the clear teaching with the ambiguous word, as in Matthew. Yet, we know that the meaning of a word cannot dictate the context, but rather the context dictates the meaning of the word.
My point is that it is methodologically and ethically wrong to do this to someone's speech when they are communicating to you. It is methodologically and ethically wrong to do it to someone's writing. it is also, therefore, methodologically and ethically wrong par excellence to do it to God's Word.
I realize most people don't think about it, and are just trying to figure out what is right and wrong. Got it. That isn't really my point. We employ unsound methodologies and unethical behaviors all of the time without the intent of doing so. I'm just pointing out that, regardless of intent, to force the clear to bend to the ambiguous when doing so contradicts the clear, and when bending the ambiguous to the clear does not do so, is a fallacious method of reading texts and interpreting the Bible. There would be no disagreement, and was virtually none, when a right methodology was employed in the interpretation of these texts. There is tons of disagreement and confusion now because a wrong methodology was employed, and that, perhaps, is the tragedy that resulted from men changing the church's position on the matter, and thus, unwittingly adopting a poor hermeneutic in the process, even with good intentions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.