"How is a raven like a writing-desk?" Two seemingly dissimilar things. What exactly do they have in common, and do their dissimilarities outweigh their commonalities?
It's common to hear certain feminists argue that marriage is a form of prostitution. Of course, I would argue that modern marriages sometimes are. This is because there is no essential difference between someone who exchanges romantic intimacy for material resources or protection as a prostitute and someone who does it as a wife.
If one argues that it is the length of the agreement, I would simply ask how the length of the agreement has anything to do with it. There are "sugar daddies" who expand their relationships out, and sometimes make them permanent. This is also would negate the idea that marriage is monogamous whereas prostitution is not, since prostitution can be had between two individuals who do not have sex with anyone else. Likewise, the fact that our culture produces people who have had multiple partners in their lives, evidences a lack of understanding the term "monogamy" (a phrase often used now to refer to having one partner at a time, rather than one partner for life.
If one argues that feelings are involved, does this mean that one's marriage becomes prostitution when the bodily chemicals that we call emotions stop churning in our bodies? And if a prostitute and her john have emotions involved in the exchange does that make prostitution any less prostitution?
Indeed, our culture wishes to place emotions as the deciding factor between them, but does that mean that when one's feelings are into it one day, it's a legitimate marriage, and the next day when the feelings are absent, it's prostitution? Is one only married, then, when one "feels" like he or she is married?
The ancient Near Eastern suzerain treaty provides the basis for an understanding of marriage in the Bible. In that relationship, the stronger entity (i.e., an empire or larger nation/city/tribe) enters into a covenant with the weaker entity (a smaller nation/city/tribe) that if the weaker entity that needs protection will pay tribute to the larger entity, then the larger entity will provide protection from others who might want to destroy or plunder it.
The marriage contract, in the ancient Near East, is a suzerain covenant. The covenant is that the woman (i.e., the weaker party in need of protection) will pay tribute (i.e., sex that leads to the bearing and raising of an heir) to the man (i.e., the stronger party that can provide protection) in exchange for protection against chaotic elements and forces (e.g., other men seeking to take advantage of her, starvation, homelessness, etc.).
The biblical model is that the tribute is sex that leads to children, not just a single heir. It looks toward a quiver full, many sons and daughters, etc. even though God may grant only a couple, one, or even no children to the couple. It's foundational understanding is the creation mandate in Genesis 1.
In other words, what makes marriage in the ancient world, and especially the Bible, distinct from prostitution isn't that it's monogamous (polygamy was possible under the Old Covenant understanding), or a longer duration, or has more feelings involved than the other, but that the woman is making a deal to become a mother and the man is making a deal to become a father; and this is the understanding of the contract that is being made, even if God does not give any children to the couple by His choice, not by theirs.
What does this say of Christian couples who decide they want to get married but do not wish to have children? I would argue, as Augustine once argued, that this relationship is one of prostitution, not marriage. It's still a contract, but it isn't a marital contract. It's one of prostitution because its goal is an exchange of romantic intimacy for protection from the elements (money, shelter, food, etc.).
Changing the primary purpose of the sexual act has not only led to the confusion of gender roles (why can't men and women just do the same things if children are not involved?), the confusion over what is a legitimate sexuality (i.e., homosexuality), confusion over sexual identity (i.e., transgenderism), sexual promiscuity without the result of family (i.e., birth control), but also a distortion concerning the nature of marriage itself. Understanding the purpose of the sexual act reorients us to understand every relationship related to it.
So these particular feminists are right to argue that modern marriage, which divorces children from being the primary tribute paid within the contract, and merely pursues an exchange based on romantic intimacy as the tribute, is, in fact, prostitution.
One cannot make that claim of the biblical view of marriage however, as the primary purpose of the sexual act is to have children, raise godly offspring, and fulfill the mission of the image, which is to co-create with God in His purpose to fill up the earth with His covenant people.
How is a raven like a writing-desk? They have a superficial connection, but in reality, they're as different as night and day in their primary characteristics. A bird doesn't make for a good writing platform, and a desk just doesn't fly. Neither does the claim that biblical marriages are prostitution. One cannot say the same of an unbiblical one, however, and Christians need to repent of entering into a contractual relationship that is anything less than a biblical marriage.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Saturday, July 7, 2018
Redeeming an Adulterous Remarriage
I think it's important to note something about the teaching of remarriage as adultery in the Bible, and that is the distinction between the marital contract and the one flesh union.
If one has made a marital contract with an individual, that individual enters into a contract that is established at the consummation of the marriage, which creates the one flesh union between the two. The marital contract does not create the one flesh union. The sexual act does, and this is to be done within the context of the covenant vow that is made.
What happens when there is a divorce and remarriage while both spouses of the one flesh union are still alive is that an old vow is broken and a new vow is made. In other words, a vow/covenant is made in sin. It is not a union that was to be formed. Both the one that was divorced and the one who marries the one who was divorced are committing adultery.
Now, does this mean that the only possible redemption of the couple is that they divorce again, stay single, and/or go back to their previous spouse or spouses?
The answer to the last question is provided by Scripture for us. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man [the Hebrew actually states, "she belongs to another man"], 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
The woman is not to return to the previous spouse once she has been joined to another, even if she is divorced from the second husband. This is called a sin and an abomination to YHWH. So even though the one flesh union is intact with the first husband, the possibility of rejoining with him after she has joined to a new husband is gone.
Second to this, she is actually called the wife of another man. This means that the marital contract is legally identified by God, even though He considers it adultery based on the one flesh union.
Scripture continually identifies any person with whom the marital vow is made as the person's "husband" or "wife." Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that she has had five husbands, and the man that she is now with is not her husband. The other five are all called her "husband" in a different way that the man she is with now is considered.
This is not the case when a marriage is based in an illegitimate union that cannot be sanctified. The text says that this man has "his father's wife," not his own in 1 Corinthians 5:1, even though it is likely that the father has divorced the woman and the son decided to marry her. If that is too much speculation to put into the text, the case of Herod and Herodias is far more clear. We know that Phillip divorced Herodias and married Herod. Yet, John rebukes him that it is not lawful for him to have his brother's wife. It is lawful to marry a divorced woman, so John must be talking about the incestuous relationship that is formed via the one flesh union. Since Herodias is still one with Phillip, becoming the sister of Herod, the law views Herod as committing incest. Hence, it is unlawful, and Herodias is still identified therefore as his "brother's wife."
But how is a vow that is made in the sin of adultery established as legitimate in Scripture, and the vow made in the sin of incest not made legitimate?
One could say that they merely are speaking as though these are legitimately married, but are really not; but this fails to note the fact that the Scripture makes a distinction and does not view marriages based on illegitimate unions as legitimate. Likewise, what is the difference between the Samaritan woman's four other husbands and the guy she has now if they are all the same? Furthermore, why can't a woman just go back to her first husband then if the other union was never recognized?
One could further argue that any adultery makes the first union defiled, but why does God tell Hosea to take back his wife after adultery? Are all men who sleep with prostitutes viewed as defiled and therefore cannot get married or restore their marriages? Paul says that one who has sex with a prostitute is one flesh with her. This means that anyone who has sex before marriage would not be allowed to be married at all. There would be no marital redemption for any pagans who were not still virgins when they became Christians. Are Christians not to forgive for the sin of adultery? They could not. They would have to break the relationship rather than restore it. This, therefore, simply doesn't seem to be the biblical answer.
It seems God as much as God hates adultery, He also finds divorce and remarriage to be an abomination in Deuteronomy 24, and therefore, does not want His people playing games with it; but it is not adultery that prevents her from returning. Instead, it seems to be the vow and the flippant attitude toward breaking it that God finds detestable.
So what can sanctify a second marriage? We've already concluded that repentance is needed. If there is no repentance, there is no placing the sin of adultery on the cross. The person will answer for it without the cross, and "adulterers God will damn" (Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Matt 5:27-32).
We've talked about repentance looking like acknowledgment of the sin, informing others that it was wrong and advising them not to follow suit, and never doing it again.
Now, here is where I think some people may not understand how a sin like this, i.e., a vow made in sin, works. They think that every time, even after the couple has repented, that they have sex in marriage they are committing adultery. Here is why I don't think this is true, and therefore, a remarriage can be redeemed by the cross.
Piper gives an analogy with the sinful vow that is made by the Israelites to the Gibeonites. The Israelites were to completely drive out the people of the land. They were to destroy them and run them off. To make a covenant with them is an evil rebellion against God. They, however, due to their not asking God about it, end up making one with them. If a vow made in sin is a continuous committing of sin in the keeping of that covenant, even after they have repented, then the Israelites would have sinned again and again, every moment they do not go off and kill the Gibeonites. Even hundreds of years later, they would never have been reconciled to God, and the sin would have caused their destruction long before their others had. Yet, God tells them to keep the covenant with them. He disciplines them for it, but the vow they made is to be kept because it is a covenant vow.
I would argue, therefore, that the sin is seen as one large whole and not in part where one would be committing the sin over and over again by keeping the vow (and an essential component of the vow is sex). The whole of that sin, from its inception to the ending of the covenant many years later, is placed upon the cross, and the relationship can then be sanctified.
In the same way that one should remain faithful to bring up a child from a sinful union, even though that child was never to be had with the person, so the covenant should be kept, and the couple should confess their sin and never do it again by divorcing and remarrying again.
This is, perhaps, what Paul is driving at in 1 Corinthians 7 when he is advising widows and virgins as to whether they should get married. "Let each man remain in the state in which he was called." He is not talking directly about remarriages at this point, but noting the above, it is possible to perhaps say the same thing. The web cannot be untangled, so what is the most faithful thing to do now? I would argue that it is not further breaking a vow and sinning again by doing so. If the Israelites had broken their vow to the Gibeonites, it would have been viewed as an absolute evil. Although we are flippant about vows in our culture, the Bible is clear that they are not to be broken, even when they are made in sin (which is likely why Jephthah still goes through with his vow and the Lord does not intervene).
Hence, the most creational thing to do now is to remain in the marriage, start from there, establish family, be humble and repentant, and hope fully on the mercy of God that is provided in the cross.
In this regard, I would argue that this option is more faithful, more creational, and more redeemed, not less, than the one that splits a remarriage to remain celibate.
If one has made a marital contract with an individual, that individual enters into a contract that is established at the consummation of the marriage, which creates the one flesh union between the two. The marital contract does not create the one flesh union. The sexual act does, and this is to be done within the context of the covenant vow that is made.
What happens when there is a divorce and remarriage while both spouses of the one flesh union are still alive is that an old vow is broken and a new vow is made. In other words, a vow/covenant is made in sin. It is not a union that was to be formed. Both the one that was divorced and the one who marries the one who was divorced are committing adultery.
Now, does this mean that the only possible redemption of the couple is that they divorce again, stay single, and/or go back to their previous spouse or spouses?
The answer to the last question is provided by Scripture for us. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man [the Hebrew actually states, "she belongs to another man"], 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
The woman is not to return to the previous spouse once she has been joined to another, even if she is divorced from the second husband. This is called a sin and an abomination to YHWH. So even though the one flesh union is intact with the first husband, the possibility of rejoining with him after she has joined to a new husband is gone.
Second to this, she is actually called the wife of another man. This means that the marital contract is legally identified by God, even though He considers it adultery based on the one flesh union.
Scripture continually identifies any person with whom the marital vow is made as the person's "husband" or "wife." Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that she has had five husbands, and the man that she is now with is not her husband. The other five are all called her "husband" in a different way that the man she is with now is considered.
This is not the case when a marriage is based in an illegitimate union that cannot be sanctified. The text says that this man has "his father's wife," not his own in 1 Corinthians 5:1, even though it is likely that the father has divorced the woman and the son decided to marry her. If that is too much speculation to put into the text, the case of Herod and Herodias is far more clear. We know that Phillip divorced Herodias and married Herod. Yet, John rebukes him that it is not lawful for him to have his brother's wife. It is lawful to marry a divorced woman, so John must be talking about the incestuous relationship that is formed via the one flesh union. Since Herodias is still one with Phillip, becoming the sister of Herod, the law views Herod as committing incest. Hence, it is unlawful, and Herodias is still identified therefore as his "brother's wife."
But how is a vow that is made in the sin of adultery established as legitimate in Scripture, and the vow made in the sin of incest not made legitimate?
One could say that they merely are speaking as though these are legitimately married, but are really not; but this fails to note the fact that the Scripture makes a distinction and does not view marriages based on illegitimate unions as legitimate. Likewise, what is the difference between the Samaritan woman's four other husbands and the guy she has now if they are all the same? Furthermore, why can't a woman just go back to her first husband then if the other union was never recognized?
One could further argue that any adultery makes the first union defiled, but why does God tell Hosea to take back his wife after adultery? Are all men who sleep with prostitutes viewed as defiled and therefore cannot get married or restore their marriages? Paul says that one who has sex with a prostitute is one flesh with her. This means that anyone who has sex before marriage would not be allowed to be married at all. There would be no marital redemption for any pagans who were not still virgins when they became Christians. Are Christians not to forgive for the sin of adultery? They could not. They would have to break the relationship rather than restore it. This, therefore, simply doesn't seem to be the biblical answer.
It seems God as much as God hates adultery, He also finds divorce and remarriage to be an abomination in Deuteronomy 24, and therefore, does not want His people playing games with it; but it is not adultery that prevents her from returning. Instead, it seems to be the vow and the flippant attitude toward breaking it that God finds detestable.
So what can sanctify a second marriage? We've already concluded that repentance is needed. If there is no repentance, there is no placing the sin of adultery on the cross. The person will answer for it without the cross, and "adulterers God will damn" (Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Matt 5:27-32).
We've talked about repentance looking like acknowledgment of the sin, informing others that it was wrong and advising them not to follow suit, and never doing it again.
Now, here is where I think some people may not understand how a sin like this, i.e., a vow made in sin, works. They think that every time, even after the couple has repented, that they have sex in marriage they are committing adultery. Here is why I don't think this is true, and therefore, a remarriage can be redeemed by the cross.
Piper gives an analogy with the sinful vow that is made by the Israelites to the Gibeonites. The Israelites were to completely drive out the people of the land. They were to destroy them and run them off. To make a covenant with them is an evil rebellion against God. They, however, due to their not asking God about it, end up making one with them. If a vow made in sin is a continuous committing of sin in the keeping of that covenant, even after they have repented, then the Israelites would have sinned again and again, every moment they do not go off and kill the Gibeonites. Even hundreds of years later, they would never have been reconciled to God, and the sin would have caused their destruction long before their others had. Yet, God tells them to keep the covenant with them. He disciplines them for it, but the vow they made is to be kept because it is a covenant vow.
I would argue, therefore, that the sin is seen as one large whole and not in part where one would be committing the sin over and over again by keeping the vow (and an essential component of the vow is sex). The whole of that sin, from its inception to the ending of the covenant many years later, is placed upon the cross, and the relationship can then be sanctified.
In the same way that one should remain faithful to bring up a child from a sinful union, even though that child was never to be had with the person, so the covenant should be kept, and the couple should confess their sin and never do it again by divorcing and remarrying again.
This is, perhaps, what Paul is driving at in 1 Corinthians 7 when he is advising widows and virgins as to whether they should get married. "Let each man remain in the state in which he was called." He is not talking directly about remarriages at this point, but noting the above, it is possible to perhaps say the same thing. The web cannot be untangled, so what is the most faithful thing to do now? I would argue that it is not further breaking a vow and sinning again by doing so. If the Israelites had broken their vow to the Gibeonites, it would have been viewed as an absolute evil. Although we are flippant about vows in our culture, the Bible is clear that they are not to be broken, even when they are made in sin (which is likely why Jephthah still goes through with his vow and the Lord does not intervene).
Hence, the most creational thing to do now is to remain in the marriage, start from there, establish family, be humble and repentant, and hope fully on the mercy of God that is provided in the cross.
In this regard, I would argue that this option is more faithful, more creational, and more redeemed, not less, than the one that splits a remarriage to remain celibate.
Biblical Theology XXVIII: Jonah
Jonah is the only book within “The Book of the Twelve” that is not
within the prophetic genre. The familiar narrative depicts the prophet Jonah
avoiding his duty to warn another nation of impending judgment, and once he
does, he is upset that God does not destroy them. The book may be written
around the time of the Assyrian Empire, perhaps, sometime after the deportation
of Northern Israel, although many scholars place it’s origin during the exilic
or immediate postexilic period, and it would carry a greater significance if
the later date is given, as the “great fish” may represent the exile. The book is best understood as parabolic of Israel and its failure to understand its mission to the world.
Theology: In order to understand the theology of Jonah, one must first
understand the suzerain vassal treaty made between God and Israel, and the best
relationship that demonstrates this treaty is that of marriage in the ancient
Near East and the Old Testament. The larger nation in this treaty made a
covenant with the smaller, weaker nation that it would protect the smaller
nation from its enemies if it agreed to pay tribute to the larger nation. In
marriage, this treaty is one between a husband who functions as the stronger
nation and the wife who functions as the weaker who is in need of protection
from the hostile world around her. The man agrees to protect her if she will
“pay tribute” to him in terms bearing and raising his children. The tribute,
unlike that of a prostitute, who only offers a trade of sex without children
(and usually only temporarily for temporary supplies), the wife’s tribute is
sex with the hope of children. This is why Augustine called women who used
birth control “prostitutes” and their husbands “pimps.”
The reason why this is important to understand is because YHWH has
made this same deal with Israel. They were not merely to worship Him for the
sake of worshiping Him, but instead, they were to worship Him for the sake of
being a light to the nations, a kingdom of priests who represented Him to the
nations. This relationship, like that of marriage, was to bear children for
Him. Instead, because Israel rebelled continually against God, and reflected
the character of the nations than it did the holiness of YHWH, they were
breaking the covenant God made with them, and thus, invited His wrath instead
of His blessing and protection.
The Book of Jonah is meant to rebuke Israel for this crime by
representing Israel as a single prophet sent to a capital city in what would
have been considered the worst of the nations. Jonah’s attitude reflects the
attitude of an Israel that has abandoned the covenant they have made with God
to be priests to the world. As a result, God throws Jonah into the abyss, which
represents chaos, and is only delivered when he repents. He fulfills his
mission but is still angry with God, reflecting an attitude of ignorance toward
the purpose for which God made a covenant with Israel in the first place. The
book ends by telling the reader that God’s purpose through Israel is to display
His care for those within the nations.
Ethics: The ethics in the book are implied. It invites those who have been
shunning their role as priests in the world to repent, since God’s desire for
those He warns is for them to repent. God has made a covenant with His people,
and He expects children from it. In word and deed, His people are to be a light
to the nations, and the Church does this through its unification with the light
of the world, Jesus Christ. In joining with Him, we become the light of the
world with Him, and hence, our covenanted mission, our tribute, is to represent
God in message and deed, to speak a holy gospel and to be holy as He is holy
for the purpose of producing children from the nations.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
The Reformer's Logic in Allowing for Remarriage after Divorce
The majority position held by the church for 1500 years was that one could divorce only in the case of unrepentant adultery, and remarriage was not possible until one's spouse died. The divorced party was always to remain celibate and unmarried until reconciliation could take place. Other than this, divorce was not permitted. It, therefore, functioned more like our idea of separation than a true divorce, since the church saw the one flesh union as being intact until death in one of the partners.
The Reformers came along and assumed the same interpretation of porneia that the Gentile church did, i.e., it refers to adultery. This wasn't ever questioned, and may therefore show why the New Testament does not mention the exception clause in any of the documents given to Gentiles (i.e., Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians), but only the work written to Jewish Christians (i.e., Matthew) who would have understood the word differently.
In any case, this leads the church into believing that there was a basis for divorce. However, because there was no basis for remarriage, those who knew the church's teaching and were in submission to it kept divorces at a minimum, as people figured it was better to remain married than to be unmarried.
However, the Reformers, assuming the definition of porneia as adultery, settled on an innovation by arguing that remarriage was permissible. They did this by assuming the definition of porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 as adultery, and then arguing that adultery was punishable by death and death breaks the one flesh union. Hence, adultery breaks the one flesh union because it should be followed by execution.
The problem is that most magistrates at the time did not execute people for adultery (although it was still employed by some). These magistrates were viewed as wicked for not executing people on the basis of adultery, and thus, the sin of the remarriage while the spouse lives is on the magistrate, not on the "innocent" individual. Both Luther and Calvin argued for this, and many people coming out of the Reformation simply followed their reasoning.
Adultery was expanded to also include abandonment because it was assumed that one often only abandoned his or her spouse because they were off with someone else, committing adultery of mind and/or body.
The problem with the logic is manifold. First, porneia doesn't mean adultery in Matthew 5 and 19 as I've argued before. Second, it is contrary to what Christ argues about reconciliation in Matthew 18. It's a bit hard to reconcile with someone who is being executed for the sin, paying fully for it. Third, the Jews don't practice the death penalty for adultery by the time Matthew writes his Gospel, and the Roman government certainly does not. Yet, Christ's words are absolute about divorce and remarriage, and so are Paul's. There is no mention of blaming the government or that adultery is a legitimate reason to divorce anywhere in their words. Finally, although one could argue that the bulk of the blame is put on the person who divorces (e.g., "he makes her commit adultery"), the blame is not completely shifted away from the people involved. She is still committing adultery and considered an adulteress while her husband lives, and the person who marries her is considered an adulterer. The blame isn't completely shifted to another party who may be in the wrong and causing one to commit adultery through their rebellious actions. I would apply the same principle to any government that did not exercise what the Reformers viewed as responsible action.
Furthermore, abandonment is not viewed as adultery in the New Testament. If it was, then a man who fully abandoned his wife in divorce would be allowing her to remarry in the eyes of God. Instead, Jesus says she is an adulteress for remarrying and so is the guy who marries her. The expansion of adultery to abandonment is simply a rebellious act on the part of the Reformers who used more of their own reasoning when it came to the issue than their reliance upon the Scripture's reasoning about the subject.
So much for sola Scriptura on this issue. In fact, I see this as a glaring black mark on the Reformation. The Reformers simply wanted to justify remarriage, and their reasoning for it wasn't biblical nor ecclesiastical. It was not them restoring what had been lost, but coming up with something new. In that regard, it is one of the errors of the Reformation, an error that was rejected by the majority of the church for 1500 years before it, that should be discarded.
"Whenever a man takes upon him to make additions to the Scriptures, he is likely to end with valuing his own additions above the Scripture itself." J. C. Ryle
The Reformers came along and assumed the same interpretation of porneia that the Gentile church did, i.e., it refers to adultery. This wasn't ever questioned, and may therefore show why the New Testament does not mention the exception clause in any of the documents given to Gentiles (i.e., Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians), but only the work written to Jewish Christians (i.e., Matthew) who would have understood the word differently.
In any case, this leads the church into believing that there was a basis for divorce. However, because there was no basis for remarriage, those who knew the church's teaching and were in submission to it kept divorces at a minimum, as people figured it was better to remain married than to be unmarried.
However, the Reformers, assuming the definition of porneia as adultery, settled on an innovation by arguing that remarriage was permissible. They did this by assuming the definition of porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 as adultery, and then arguing that adultery was punishable by death and death breaks the one flesh union. Hence, adultery breaks the one flesh union because it should be followed by execution.
The problem is that most magistrates at the time did not execute people for adultery (although it was still employed by some). These magistrates were viewed as wicked for not executing people on the basis of adultery, and thus, the sin of the remarriage while the spouse lives is on the magistrate, not on the "innocent" individual. Both Luther and Calvin argued for this, and many people coming out of the Reformation simply followed their reasoning.
Adultery was expanded to also include abandonment because it was assumed that one often only abandoned his or her spouse because they were off with someone else, committing adultery of mind and/or body.
The problem with the logic is manifold. First, porneia doesn't mean adultery in Matthew 5 and 19 as I've argued before. Second, it is contrary to what Christ argues about reconciliation in Matthew 18. It's a bit hard to reconcile with someone who is being executed for the sin, paying fully for it. Third, the Jews don't practice the death penalty for adultery by the time Matthew writes his Gospel, and the Roman government certainly does not. Yet, Christ's words are absolute about divorce and remarriage, and so are Paul's. There is no mention of blaming the government or that adultery is a legitimate reason to divorce anywhere in their words. Finally, although one could argue that the bulk of the blame is put on the person who divorces (e.g., "he makes her commit adultery"), the blame is not completely shifted away from the people involved. She is still committing adultery and considered an adulteress while her husband lives, and the person who marries her is considered an adulterer. The blame isn't completely shifted to another party who may be in the wrong and causing one to commit adultery through their rebellious actions. I would apply the same principle to any government that did not exercise what the Reformers viewed as responsible action.
Furthermore, abandonment is not viewed as adultery in the New Testament. If it was, then a man who fully abandoned his wife in divorce would be allowing her to remarry in the eyes of God. Instead, Jesus says she is an adulteress for remarrying and so is the guy who marries her. The expansion of adultery to abandonment is simply a rebellious act on the part of the Reformers who used more of their own reasoning when it came to the issue than their reliance upon the Scripture's reasoning about the subject.
So much for sola Scriptura on this issue. In fact, I see this as a glaring black mark on the Reformation. The Reformers simply wanted to justify remarriage, and their reasoning for it wasn't biblical nor ecclesiastical. It was not them restoring what had been lost, but coming up with something new. In that regard, it is one of the errors of the Reformation, an error that was rejected by the majority of the church for 1500 years before it, that should be discarded.
"Whenever a man takes upon him to make additions to the Scriptures, he is likely to end with valuing his own additions above the Scripture itself." J. C. Ryle
Two Reasons Why Porneia Cannot Be Referring to a Marriage between Believer and Unbeliever
The word porneia in Second Temple Judaism can include marriages between believer and unbeliever. Since marriage is for the purpose of bringing up godly offspring, an unequally yoked marriage can be viewed as anticreational in that it threatens the covenant faithfulness of the children involved.
Hence, some might conclude that Jesus is talking about unions between believers and unbelievers when he uses the term porneia. Here are two reasons why I don't think this is the case.
1. If Jesus was referring to the union of a believer and unbeliever as porneia, then he would have been addressing he issue of an unequally yoked marriage. Yet, Paul, in 1 Cor 7:15 indicates that Jesus did not address this issue. If we understand that his switching between what the Lord commanded and what he commands as that which the Lord addressed in his earthly ministry versus what Paul is addressing now in the Spirit, then Paul would be arguing that the Lord did not address this union. Hence, porneia does not refer to this.
2. If the union between an unbeliever and believer is porneia, then Paul would be commanding, contrary to the Lord, that the two should remain together when it is up to the believer, and thus, that the believer should remain in a sexually immoral relationship/porneia. Yet, Paul argues that one should get married for the purpose of avoiding porneia, so why would he tell a believer to remain in porneia, especially if the Lord said it was legitimate to divorce for that reason.
Furthermore, the anticreational nature of it is addressed in that a believer who seeks to remain married to an unbeliever seeks to make his children "holy," and keeps the one flesh union intact. Hence, even this relationship can be creational and may be anticreational to seek a divorce from it, since the children are threatened as no longer being holy if the believer should be out of the household.
For these two reasons, I don't think it is legitimate to conclude that porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 includes marriages to unbelievers.
Hence, some might conclude that Jesus is talking about unions between believers and unbelievers when he uses the term porneia. Here are two reasons why I don't think this is the case.
1. If Jesus was referring to the union of a believer and unbeliever as porneia, then he would have been addressing he issue of an unequally yoked marriage. Yet, Paul, in 1 Cor 7:15 indicates that Jesus did not address this issue. If we understand that his switching between what the Lord commanded and what he commands as that which the Lord addressed in his earthly ministry versus what Paul is addressing now in the Spirit, then Paul would be arguing that the Lord did not address this union. Hence, porneia does not refer to this.
2. If the union between an unbeliever and believer is porneia, then Paul would be commanding, contrary to the Lord, that the two should remain together when it is up to the believer, and thus, that the believer should remain in a sexually immoral relationship/porneia. Yet, Paul argues that one should get married for the purpose of avoiding porneia, so why would he tell a believer to remain in porneia, especially if the Lord said it was legitimate to divorce for that reason.
Furthermore, the anticreational nature of it is addressed in that a believer who seeks to remain married to an unbeliever seeks to make his children "holy," and keeps the one flesh union intact. Hence, even this relationship can be creational and may be anticreational to seek a divorce from it, since the children are threatened as no longer being holy if the believer should be out of the household.
For these two reasons, I don't think it is legitimate to conclude that porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 includes marriages to unbelievers.
Friday, June 29, 2018
The Early Church on Remarriage after Divorce
The Shepherd of Hermes
I say to him, “Sir, permit me to ask thee a few more questions.” “Say on,” saith he. “Sir,” say I, “if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect her in adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her?” “So long as he is ignorant,” saith he, “he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.” “What then, Sir,” say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case?” “Let him divorce her,” saith he, “and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery.” “If then, Sir,” say I, “after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?” “Certainly,” saith he, “if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; … For this cause ye were enjoined to remain single, whether husband or wife; for in such cases repentance is possible.
Justin Martyr
All who have been twice married by human law are sinners in the eye of our Master.
Clement of Alexandria
"That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, "You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication." And it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive . . . "He who takes a woman who has been divorced commits adultery."
Mark Minucius Felix
We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage. In the desire of procreating, we know either one wife or none at all.
Cyprian
A wife must not depart from her husband. Or, if she should depart, she must remain unmarried.
Lactantius
He who marries a woman who is divorced from her husband is an adulterer.
The Apostolic Constitutions
And the Lord says, "What God has joined together, no human is to separate." For the wife is the partner for life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two that body that has become one--he is the enemy of the creation of God and the adversary of His providence . . . If a layman divorces his own wife and takes another --or if he marries one divorced by another--let him be excommunicated.
Tertullian
Being a heretic by his very nature . . . he holds to the view of remarriage.
Origen
But now, contrary to what was written, even some of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry--even when her husband was living, doing what is contrary to what was written. For it is said, "A wife is bound so long as her husband lives."
Jerome
Ambrose
"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another."
"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: 'What God has joined together let no man put asunder"'
Augustine
“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery”
There are countless other examples, as well as councils that say the same.
The church's position seems to be the same as that held by the modern scholars Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth in their book, Jesus and Divorce. In their view, the exception clause in Matthew refers only to divorce, allowing the innocent party to be separated from one committing unrepentant adultery. The clause does not, however, appear after the phrase "and marries another." Hence, it was concluded that divorce is only permissible in the case of unrepentant adultery, but remarriage to another is never permitted while the previous spouse lives. This is a legitimate interpretation of the clause that does not violate five objections in the previous post.However, it is in tension with two of the seven: the response of the Pharisees is concerning divorce, not remarriage. They are shocked and are arguing that Moses allowed them to divorce at least for some reason. Likewise, Jesus' statement concerning the one flesh union is that it is inseparable because God has now made the two one and they are no longer capable of being divided into two. Hence, His command that no human is to separate what God has joined together is contrary to the idea that one can divorce a legitimate union for some reason because this would allow a human to separate what God has joined together.
I say to him, “Sir, permit me to ask thee a few more questions.” “Say on,” saith he. “Sir,” say I, “if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect her in adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her?” “So long as he is ignorant,” saith he, “he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.” “What then, Sir,” say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case?” “Let him divorce her,” saith he, “and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery.” “If then, Sir,” say I, “after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?” “Certainly,” saith he, “if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; … For this cause ye were enjoined to remain single, whether husband or wife; for in such cases repentance is possible.
Justin Martyr
All who have been twice married by human law are sinners in the eye of our Master.
Clement of Alexandria
"That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, "You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication." And it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive . . . "He who takes a woman who has been divorced commits adultery."
Mark Minucius Felix
We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage. In the desire of procreating, we know either one wife or none at all.
Cyprian
A wife must not depart from her husband. Or, if she should depart, she must remain unmarried.
Lactantius
He who marries a woman who is divorced from her husband is an adulterer.
The Apostolic Constitutions
And the Lord says, "What God has joined together, no human is to separate." For the wife is the partner for life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two that body that has become one--he is the enemy of the creation of God and the adversary of His providence . . . If a layman divorces his own wife and takes another --or if he marries one divorced by another--let him be excommunicated.
Tertullian
Being a heretic by his very nature . . . he holds to the view of remarriage.
Origen
But now, contrary to what was written, even some of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry--even when her husband was living, doing what is contrary to what was written. For it is said, "A wife is bound so long as her husband lives."
Jerome
I find joined to your letter of inquiries a short paper containing the following words:. . . it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives"ask him, (that is me,) whether a woman who has left her husband on the ground that he is an adulterer and sodomite and has found herself compelled to take another may in the lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with the church without doing penance for her fault.As I read the case put I recall the versethey make excuses for their sins.We are all human and all indulgent to our own faults; and what our own will leads us to do we attribute to a necessity of nature. It is as though a young man were to say,I am over-borne by my body, the glow of nature kindles my passions, the structure of my frame and its reproductive organs call for sexual intercourse.Or again a murderer might say,I was in want, I stood in need of food, I had nothing to cover me. If I shed the blood of another, it was to save myself from dying of cold and hunger.Tell the sister, therefore, who thus enquires of me concerning her condition, not my sentence but that of the apostle.Do you not know, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.Romans 7:1-3 And in another place:the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.1 Corinthians 7:39 The apostle has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared that, if a woman marries again while her husband is living, she is an adulteress. You must not speak to me of the violence of a ravisher, a mother’s pleading, a father’s bidding, the influence of relatives, the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel:whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery.Matthew 5:32 Mark what he says:whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer. Wherefore the apostles seeing how heavy the yoke of marriage was thus made said to Him:if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry,and the Lord replied,he that is able to receive it, let him receive it.And immediately by the instance of the three eunuchs he shows the blessedness of virginity which is bound by no carnal tie. Matthew 19:10-12
Ambrose
"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another."
"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: 'What God has joined together let no man put asunder"'
Augustine
“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery”
There are countless other examples, as well as councils that say the same.
The church's position seems to be the same as that held by the modern scholars Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth in their book, Jesus and Divorce. In their view, the exception clause in Matthew refers only to divorce, allowing the innocent party to be separated from one committing unrepentant adultery. The clause does not, however, appear after the phrase "and marries another." Hence, it was concluded that divorce is only permissible in the case of unrepentant adultery, but remarriage to another is never permitted while the previous spouse lives. This is a legitimate interpretation of the clause that does not violate five objections in the previous post.However, it is in tension with two of the seven: the response of the Pharisees is concerning divorce, not remarriage. They are shocked and are arguing that Moses allowed them to divorce at least for some reason. Likewise, Jesus' statement concerning the one flesh union is that it is inseparable because God has now made the two one and they are no longer capable of being divided into two. Hence, His command that no human is to separate what God has joined together is contrary to the idea that one can divorce a legitimate union for some reason because this would allow a human to separate what God has joined together.
Seven Observations that Limit One's Interpretation of the Divorce and Remarriage Exception Clause in the Gospel of Matthew
1. According to Jesus, the two are no longer one flesh, and therefore, cannot be separated by humans. This means that no legal divorce in the eyes of men dissolves the one flesh union. Hence, Paul concludes from Jesus' teaching that the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, and is only free to remarry if he dies.
2. The response that is given by the Pharisees and the disciples indicates that no exception for remarriage is offered by Jesus.
3. Divorce between two believers is contrary to the forgiveness upon repentance taught in Matthew 18, regardless of the sin committed.
4. Paul interprets Jesus words to be absolute, and hence, he argues that the only two possibilities for someone who has been divorced is to either remain unmarried or be reconciled to one's spouse.
5. Marriage is a picture of the gospel and the relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ does not divorce the church and marry another, nor does the church divorce Christ and marry another. Christ would not be arguing that one can lawfully give a false gospel and false picture of Christ's relationship with the Church by divorcing and remarrying.
6. The other passages make the prohibition absolute. If Matthew presents Jesus as giving an exception, he contradicts the other passages. The Bible cannot contradict itself.
7. The one flesh union remains intact even after divorce/abandonement, since if the man or woman marries again, they are committing adultery according to Jesus. Likewise, anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. This would not be true if the one flesh union was dissolved by divorce/abandonment. Hence, the man is still called the woman's "husband" even after she is divorced (1 Cor 7:11) and married to another man (Rom 7:1-3).
All of these limit one's options as to what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. The only options consistent with these observations are the following:
1. The exception of porneia refers to illegitimate sexual unions like incest (e.g., Herod with his brother's wife), and therefore, the divorce of an illegitimate marriage is different than the divorce of a legitimate one, the former authorized and the latter prohibited.
2. The exception of porneia refers to an illegitimate marriage due to the discovery that a woman had previously had sex with another man before marriage, but did not disclose it to her betrothed. He finds out during the betrothal (e.g., Joseph divorcing Mary at the beginning of the book until he finds out she is still a virgin), or on the wedding night (Deut 22:13-21 in the context where the Jews don't practice the death penalty for sexual offenses anymore). Hence, in a similar manner, divorce and remarriage is permitted in the case of this illegitimate marriage, but not one that is legitimate.
3. The word porneia refers to unrepentant whoring/adultery, but is an exception for divorce, not remarriage (Church Fathers, Wenham and Heth, Jesus and Divorce). If repentant, one would restore the marriage, and if not, one would remain unmarried in the hope of repentance and restoration of the partner to whom he or she is bound in one flesh. The issue with this one might still be the reaction of the Pharisees. Their response indicates that Jesus is saying there is no possibility of divorce. Jesus’ resonse itself indicates this, so it is the least likely of the options.
The observations above do not allow for divorce for any other reason, and they do not allow for remarriage under any circumstance.These three above are the only way to interpret Jesus' words in a consistent way with the observations above.
2. The response that is given by the Pharisees and the disciples indicates that no exception for remarriage is offered by Jesus.
3. Divorce between two believers is contrary to the forgiveness upon repentance taught in Matthew 18, regardless of the sin committed.
4. Paul interprets Jesus words to be absolute, and hence, he argues that the only two possibilities for someone who has been divorced is to either remain unmarried or be reconciled to one's spouse.
5. Marriage is a picture of the gospel and the relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ does not divorce the church and marry another, nor does the church divorce Christ and marry another. Christ would not be arguing that one can lawfully give a false gospel and false picture of Christ's relationship with the Church by divorcing and remarrying.
6. The other passages make the prohibition absolute. If Matthew presents Jesus as giving an exception, he contradicts the other passages. The Bible cannot contradict itself.
7. The one flesh union remains intact even after divorce/abandonement, since if the man or woman marries again, they are committing adultery according to Jesus. Likewise, anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. This would not be true if the one flesh union was dissolved by divorce/abandonment. Hence, the man is still called the woman's "husband" even after she is divorced (1 Cor 7:11) and married to another man (Rom 7:1-3).
All of these limit one's options as to what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. The only options consistent with these observations are the following:
1. The exception of porneia refers to illegitimate sexual unions like incest (e.g., Herod with his brother's wife), and therefore, the divorce of an illegitimate marriage is different than the divorce of a legitimate one, the former authorized and the latter prohibited.
2. The exception of porneia refers to an illegitimate marriage due to the discovery that a woman had previously had sex with another man before marriage, but did not disclose it to her betrothed. He finds out during the betrothal (e.g., Joseph divorcing Mary at the beginning of the book until he finds out she is still a virgin), or on the wedding night (Deut 22:13-21 in the context where the Jews don't practice the death penalty for sexual offenses anymore). Hence, in a similar manner, divorce and remarriage is permitted in the case of this illegitimate marriage, but not one that is legitimate.
3. The word porneia refers to unrepentant whoring/adultery, but is an exception for divorce, not remarriage (Church Fathers, Wenham and Heth, Jesus and Divorce). If repentant, one would restore the marriage, and if not, one would remain unmarried in the hope of repentance and restoration of the partner to whom he or she is bound in one flesh. The issue with this one might still be the reaction of the Pharisees. Their response indicates that Jesus is saying there is no possibility of divorce. Jesus’ resonse itself indicates this, so it is the least likely of the options.
The observations above do not allow for divorce for any other reason, and they do not allow for remarriage under any circumstance.These three above are the only way to interpret Jesus' words in a consistent way with the observations above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)