So. . .as I said in the WOD, thanks for the encouraging words after yesterday’s message. It wasn’t easy. But here’s a thought passed on by Chris H. This isn’t a quote (though I have placed it in block quotes), just a paraphrase of what he said.
It makes sense that verse 32 doesn’t contain an exclusion clause, for if it did, we’d all be justified if we sought a divorce, because as we learned, verses 27-30 say we’re all adulterers.
Great point!
I went on to point out that the Greek word Matthew uses that is translated “unchastity” in the NASB is “porneia” and the word he uses that is translated “adultery” is “moicheuō“. The word “porneia” means illicit sexual intercourse and includes but is not limited adultery which is unlawful sexual intercourse with someone else’s spouse. “Porneia” also includes fornication, incest, homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, etc. The only other time Matthew uses the term other than 5:32 and 19:9 is in 15:19 when he uses it along with “moicheuō” which seems to indicate he has something specific in mind other than adultery when he uses the term.
Also, another indicator that Matthew is refering to unfaithfulness during betrothal is the fact that John uses the word “porneia” in 8:31 when the Jewish leaders, indirect though it is, accuse Jesus of being illegitimate.
Of course, this view has it’s detractors. Dr. MacArthur says the following in regards to this argument:
The term cannot refer only to a broken betrothal for several reasons. First, the background of the passage is Deuteronomy 24, which does not deal with broken betrothal but with broken marriage (Christ was not adding to the OT standard but affirming what existed). Second, the indissoluble union in a Hebrew marriage began at betrothal, not consummation (The punishment for adultery was death, the punishment for pre-betrothal [marital] sex was to marry).
We have two heavyweights, MacArthur and Piper, on two different sides of this issue. Is it any wonder I left you to go home, be Berean-like, and be convinced in your own mind (Romans 14).
Anyone have further comments?
PC
I think the “exception” found in Matt 5 and 19 would have made perfect sense to the Jews in the audience because the offending spouse was to have been put to death under the laws of Torah (Deut 22). This was also the case for a betrothed who didn’t put up a fight (Deut 22:23-24). This is part of Joseph’s “mercy” toward Mary…because she had never claimed to have been raped (Duet 22:25-27) but she was pregnant by someone other than Joseph.
As Paul points out in Rom 7 (and mentioned yesterday) only death dissolves the marriage relationship. IMHO, any behavior on behalf of a spouse that would result, under OT law, in the death penalty qualifies as an “exception” (whether the person is put to death or not). If a spouse commits a crime worthy of death but is spared for some reason, divorce can be exercised at the discretion of the offended party (see below).
What is abundantly clear in every text on this topic is that there are no grounds for “frivolous” divorce. The Greek word for divorce, if I’m not mistaken, is “to repudiate.” The only person worthy of repudiation is someone worthy of the death penalty.
I don’t think that the Torah addresses adultery in one’s own heart as the basis of the death penalty such as stoning, etc. I’m guessing that the “penalty” is spiritual. The OT seems to confine physical punishments to physical acts.
What complicates matters in the NT is that Jesus apparently rescinded the physical death penalty for the physical act of adultery. In my opinion, this is the only basis for Bro. Piper to defend no exclusions. Personally, I’m not sure i would approach a woman this way (ala Piper) who had a spouse who was found guilty of child molestation or rape or murder or selling human beings in the slave trade, etc.
Nothin’ like a stirred pot, eh!
Chuck
After much prayer and searching of the Scriptures and searching, I also fond the following on a Baptist Church website:
This is tough for me to grasp. What if the wife and children were physically abused and there was blatant and ongoing adultery on the part of the husband, with no remorse for any of it? What if the now Christian spouse had been divorced when they were an unbeliever? What if the professing Christian husband sought a divorce because of “irreconcilable differences” while in the midst of an open affair and the wife had been faithful, extending genuine forgiveness and the pursuit of reconciliation to no avail?
I appreciated your point in the sermon about extending compassion and mercy without forsaking the need to seek forgiveness or compromising the Truth.
I obviously need to study more. Very difficult issue that I believe you presented in a God-honoring way. To HIM alone be all the glory.
I share your concerns, Lisa.
According to the quote, I guess if a husband punches his wife in the face, the wife should just forgive him and act like nothing happened? Ironically, a jury would probably find her innocent if she used deadly force to protect herself (on site death penalty!). How often do we chastise spouses because they refuse to leave an abusive relationship? How often does this same abuse spill over to the children?
I understand the frustration voiced in Lisa’s church quote above. But would disagree that the ideas of divorce and forgiveness operate as they suggest. In other words, I don’t find these ideas to be mutually exclusive. I think a spouse can rightly divorce and still be forgiving toward the offending party.
What stopped a “frivolous” divorce in my previous pastorate wasn’t more talk about “no exceptions” or more talk about “more forgiveness”…it was the promise of swift and determined church discipline and excommunication. It’s one thing to go on and on about a particular standard (as suggested in the church quote), it’s something else to enforce it…calling for more “forgiveness” is nice but misses the larger point of church discipline in my opinion.
This is a very difficult topic. I will always come back to the clear fact that Jesus forbids frivolous divorce. If the church acted decisively here, it would see a dramatic change in the marriage culture, at least in the church.
Chuck Bengtson