PCA DIGEST
Murray concludes that "the righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and
Pharisees is therefore that of character and behaviour," not that of extending the details.69
C. Luke 16:17-18
17) "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a
letter of the Law to fail. 18) Every one who divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a
husband commits adultery."
The context of Luke 16:18 is similar to that of Matthew 5:32. Jesus has just
charged the Pharisees with hypocrisy, as those "who justify yourselves in the sight of
men, but God knows your hearts..." (v.15). He states that not even one stroke of the
Law will fail (v.17), implying this to be the case in spite of their lax attitudes to the
Law. Then he applies this to their view of divorce.
The divorce text of Luke 16:18 is quite similar to that of Matt. 5:32, except that
whereas the latter passage reads "everyone who divorces his wife except for the cause
of unchastity makes her commit adultery," Luke reads "everyone who divorces his wife
and marries another (heteros) commits adultery." Matthew speaks only of a divorce
which causes the wife to commit adultery, but Luke speaks of a man divorcing and
remarrying thereby himself committing adultery. Also, Luke omits the exception
clause.
How do we understand the differences? First, we do not believe Jesus is
contradicting himself. Luke 16:18 serves to clarify and reinforce Jesus' teaching in
Matt. 5:32. According to Matt. 5:32, when a man divorces his wife but does not
remarry, he is not committing adultery, but his is to be held accountable for causing his
wife to commit adultery if she remarries. But in Luke 16:18, if a husband divorces his
wife and then remarries, he is committing adultery.
Apparently divorce in Jesus' day was an act which frequently had as its object
the removal of the wife to make room for another woman. This was the problem Moses
was facing in Deut. 24 (cf. Ex. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-5), Ezra was facing in Ezra 9-10 (cf.
Neh. 10:30; 13:23-30), and Malachi was facing in Mal. 2:10-17. It is at the heart of the
problem we face today. In divorcing their wives to make room for others, they had
made the Law of God void.
But how can Christ's teachings in Luke and in Matthew be reconciled when
Matthew includes the exception clause but Luke does not? This should not be seen as a
great difficulty. It is a regular feature of ethical commands or doctrinal
pronouncements in the Scripture to be stated in a general form which sounds absolute,
taken in and of itself, but which are modified or qualified in some way in another, more
detailed, consideration of the same subject. For example, the sixth commandment,
"Thou shalt not kill" is qualified in many ways in other places of the law (e.g. the
commands concerning capital punishment and war); the fourth commandment
prohibiting work on the Sabbath day is also qualified (see Mat. 12:1-5); Jesus'
instruction concerning prayer, "Whatever you ask in My name, I will do it" (John
14:13-14) is qualified elsewhere in several ways (e.g. I John 5:14); Paul's command not
to do anything that might make men stumble (I Cor. 10:32-33) is qualified by Jesus'
----------
69 Ibid., p. 156
216
POSITION PAPERS
example with the Pharisees (Mat. 12:1-14; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6); the commands to
obey parents and civil authorities are qualified as well (Acts 5:29). Thus the fact that
Jesus' command is absolute in Luke 16 should not prevent us from admitting the
qualifications He places on His instructions when He gives them in Mat. 5 and 19."
D. Matthew 19:3-9 [Mark 10:2-11]
3) "And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, `It is lawful for
a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" 4) And He answered and said,
`Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE
THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5) and said FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN
SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO
HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH? 6)
Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let no man separate.' 7) They said to Him, `Why then did
Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?' He said to them,
`Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives;
but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9) And I say to you, whoever
divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits
adultery."
There is no need to consider Matthew 19 and Mark 10 separately. The primary
phrase in question, "except for immorality," is found in Matt. 19:9 and is omitted in
Mark. Other differences between the two passages are secondary and do not demand
separate analyses.70 Therefore we have chosen simply to consider the exception clause
in its Matthean context.
1. The context of Matthew 19:3-8
When the Pharisses asked Jesus, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for
any cause?", they were attempting to entrap him.71 In the process, however, they
revealed some assumptions of their own. By beginning with "It is lawful," they
revealed that they viewed marriage and divorce merely as a matter of legislation. By
ending their question, "for any cause," they betrayed a lax approach to divorce, an
approach more in keeping with the school of Hillel. Josephus, himself a divorcess and a
Pharisee, writes:
"He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and
many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that
he never will use her as his wife any more, for this means she may be at liberty
to marry another husband, although before his bill of deliverance be given she
is not to be permitted to do so."72 (Bold print, ours.)
---
70 For a discussion of the differences, cf. David Atkinson, To Have and To Hold, pp. 110-111.
71 The question the Pharisees asked was a bit of rabbinic casuistry. If Jesus sided with Hillel, the
Pharisees could charge Jesus with moral laxity. If he sided with Shammai, Jesus could be reproached for
his friendly treatment of sinners, it could be too strict for many of his followers, and his statement
could be given to Herod who had imprisoned John the Baptist for the same views. If Jesus should reject
both and declare himself as totally against divorce, they could charge him with contradicting the Law of
Moses (i.e., Deut. 24).
217
--
PCA DIGEST
These are the same assumptions we find so prevalent in today's world.
Jesus responded by asking incredulously if they had not read Genesis 1:27 and
2:24. These verses, Jesus said, show that God joined (literally, "yoked together") the
two spouses, that they are now one flesh, and therefore no one should be party to their
separation lest he be found guilty of rebelling against God.
The Pharisees then challenged him: "Why then did Moses command to give her
a certificate and divorce her?" If God's best is "no divorce," why did Moses provide
for divorce? And if Moses provided for divorce, does this not conflict with what Jesus
had just said?
Jesus' reply is of paramount importance as he explains the connection between
Moses' concession following the Fall and God's intention for marriage in Creation.
"For the hardness of your heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from
the beginning it was not so." Two contrasts of view may be discerned in this saying of
Jesus.
First, whereas the Pharisees alleged that Moses commanded (eneteilato) divorce,
Jesus said Moses permitted (epetrepsen).73 Permission denotes allowance or sufferance
without in the least implying approval or command. The Pharisees chose to view this
divine concession as divine approval and a legal basis of divorce. It suited their
purposes. But Jesus said, "from the beginning it was not so."
Second, whereas the Pharisees spoke of grounds for divorce, Jesus said the real
culprit was their "hardness of heart" (sklerokardia). This is a term often used of Israel's
stubbornness and rebellion against the will of God (Cf. Dt. 10:16; Jer. 4:40). Whenever
Israel failed to believe and obey God, it was due to their hardness of heart. By
implication, according to Jesus, this too is the cause behind divorce. When people fail
to believe and obey what God has clearly communicated about marriage in Creation, it
is their "hardness of heart" that is at fault.
2. Divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:9
Jesus concludes by enjoining that whoever divorces his wife for any reason
except for immorality and marries another, commits adultery. Setting aside for the
moment the exception clause, if we pull together his teaching from Matthew 5:32; Luke
16:18; and Mark 10:11, we find "all the bases are covered":
Mt. 5:32: a man who divorces his wife makes her to become an adulteress
(when she marries again); a man who marries a woman who has been divorced
commits adultery
Mt. 19:9: a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery;
Mk. 10:11: a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery
against her; and a woman who divorces her husband and marries another
commits adultery;
Lk. 16:18: a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery;
a man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
----------
72 Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 4, Chapter 8, as published in The Works of Flavius
Josephus, trans. W. Whiston, Philadelphia, p. 141. For a discussion of the Jewish schools of thought as
to what constituted proper grounds for divorce, see David Atkinson, To Have and To Hold, pp. 106-110.
73 For an insightful discussion of the supposed discrepancy between Matthew 19:7-8 and Mark 10:3-4
concerning who used the word "permitted," see John Murray, Divorce, pp. 43 ff.
218
--
POSITION PAPERS
The point is, if a divorce takes places which has no sanction from God, then any
new union which follows is an adulterous act, being unlawful. Not only is the act of
divorce itself sinful, apart from remarriage, but the act of remarriage after an
illegitimate divorce is judged contrary to the will of God. As we have stated above, the
reason an unbiblical divorce can cause adultery is that God does not honor such a
divorce. Following such a divorce, remarriage constitutes marital unfaithfulness. From
God's point of view, they should still be married to their original partner.
Concerning the adultery involved in remarriage following an unbiblical divorce,
we understand that the consummation of the new union through intercourse is an
adulterous act because it is God's intention that the prior marriage not be broken. This
adulterous act, while breaking the old union, establishes a new relationship which must
now stand on its own.
3. The exception clause of Matthew 19:9
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and
marries another commits adultery."
The presence of the "exception clause" in Matthew 19:9 has caused endless
debate among scholars. The discussion has generally centered around three major
questions: the authenticity of the clause in the words of Jesus; the scope of the
exception clause; and the meaning of the porneia (the Greek term translated
"immorality" in the NASV). The first two questions can be handled quickly for our
purposes, whereas the third question needs more careful consideration.
a. The authenticity of Jesus' words
Many commentators try to argue that the exception clause is not original with
Jesus, and that Matthew or another editor of the Gospel inserted it at a later time. They
contend that Jesus would not have allowed for exceptions and would have branded all
divorces as contrary to the will of God. After all, they argue, look at the absolute form
of Jesus' statements in Mk. 10:11-12 and Lk. 16:18.
As a denomination that believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, we take the
position that if the exception clause belongs to the genuine text of Matthew's gospel
(and our textual apparatus strongly confirms this fact), 74 then it is truly the logion of our
Lord. Second, its omission by Mark and Luke is not sufficient ground for rejecting it as
an authentic saying of Jesus. Their silence could be due to their taking the clause
for granted. It was not in dispute. Third, we reject the notion that God's Word presents us
with conflicting views of what Jesus taught, which would be the case if Matthew 19 is
set over against Mark 10 and Luke 16. Fourth, the Greek text includes the emphatic "I"
(ego), "And I say unto you." What follows would naturally all be attributed to Jesus.
This was indeed Matthew's intention, and Matthew was there as an eyewitness. For
these reasons, the burden of proof rests on those who with critical presuppostions
would take these words from Jesus' lips. The exception clause cannot be sidestepped in
this way as unimportant for one's interpretation.
------------
74 John Murray, Divorce, pp. 47-51, deals in depth with the question of textual evidence for the
authenticity of these words of Jesus.
219
--
PCA DIGEST
It is also interesting to recall in this connection Jeremiah 3:8, where Yahweh is
said to divorce Israel for her spiritual adultery (idolatry): "I give faithless Israel her
certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." If God himself
can properly divorce his bride because of adultery, then, given Christ's unqualified
adherence to the authority of the Old Testament, it seems difficult to conclude that
Jesus would have had similar words on his own lips.
b. The scope of the exception clause
A major debate has revolved around the scope of the exception clause. Does
"except for immorality" refer only to divorce, or to both divorce and remarriage in this
passage? The Roman Catholic Church, and more recently Heth and Wenham, have
held that the phrase refers only to divorce. According to Heth and Wenham:
"The construction of Matthew 19:9 basically indicates that we are dealing with
two conditional statements, one that is qualified and one that is unqualified or
absolute:
1. A man may not put away his wife unless she is guilty of adultery.
2. Whoever marries another after putting away his wife commits adultery.
Or, to paraphrase the idea in another way: `Putting away for reasons
other than unchastity is forbidden; and remarriage after every divorce is
adulterous."75
According to John Murray, the sentence cannot be subdivided in that way.
There is only one subject ("whoever"), and one main verb ("commits adultery"), and the
ruling thought is of the husband committing adultery because he both divorces and
remarries another woman. So the unity and coordination of the entire sentence
demands that the exception clause relate to both divorce and remarriage.76
We agree with John Murray. It is difficult, and indeed strained, to restrict the
exceptive clause to divorce (apoluse) and not extend it also to remarriage (gamese
allen). It is questionable grammatically to interpret Matthew 19:9 as two conditional
statements, as Wenham does. Moreover, the question is logical, not grammatical.
Divorce by definition entailed the right to remarry, as we have noted previously; and
Jesus is locating the commiting of adultery not simply in the act of remarriage, but in
the fact that someone has divorced his wife for an inadequate reason and has then
remarried.
----------
75 Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 117.
76 John Murray, Divorce, p. 40. Thomas Edgar provides one of the strongest cases against this view of
Heth and Wenham, arguing that their view is both grammatically and logically impossible. Edgar argues
his case in his contribution to Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, ed. H. Wayne House,
"Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion," Downers Grove, 1990, pp. 156-162.
220
--
POSITION PAPERS
c. The meaning of porneia
The heart of the debate centers around the meaning of porneia, often translated
fornication. Our first step must be to survey its uses in both the Old and New
Testaments.
Porneia and its cognates serve to translate the Hebrew word zahnah and its
cognates. According to the Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon, porneia may be translated
"prostitution, unchastity, fornication," and may be used "of every kind of unlawful
sexual intercourse." Examples include the harlotry of a married woman (Hos. 2:2),
incest (I Cor. 5:1), or even homosexuality (Jude 7).77
Of particular importance is the fact that porneia (fornication) is on occasion
used interchangeably with moicheia (adultery; its Hebrew equivalent is nahaph).
Examples of this can be found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament in the
parallel clauses of Hosea 2:2, and in Jeremiah 3:1, 2, 6, 8 where a married adulteress is
divorced because of her fornication. In Ezekiel 23, God tells the story of two women
who committed fornication both before and after marriage; in this extended passage
fornication is clearly used to speak both of sexual sin leading to adultery, and of
adultery as its effect. That porneia can refer to adultery on the part of a married spouse
is best seen in a quotation from the apocryphal Sirach 23:22,23: "So it is with a woman
who leaves her husband and provides an heir by a stranger (porneia)."
However, even though these two terms may be used interchangeably, they are
not to be equated. Otherwise, why the two terms, both in Hebrew and Greek? Why
would they be carefully distinguished in verses such as Hebrews 13:4b ("...for
fornicators and adulterers God will judge") and Matthew 15:19 ("For out of the heart
come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications...)? If the two terms are to be
distinguished, how do they differ?
The answer is: whereas adultery refers to the marital unfaithfulness, fornication
is broader and can encompass all sexual sin including adultery. As the logicians and
linguiest would say, `adultery' is not part of the intention of porneia; it is part of its
extension. Porneia is a class, and within the class you may have a number of specific
sins which may be referred to like adultery or homosexuality of prostitution.78
Some scholars hold that porneia is referring to incest. They argue that this is its
meaning in 1 Corinthians 5:1 and in Acts 15:20.79 First we should note that not that
many commentators agree that Acts 15:20 is referring to incest.80 In the particular case
of I Cor. 5:1, it seems quite clear that porneia is used here as a class (sexual immorality)
which includes incest as one of its referents (its extension). Note how the passage
------------
77 William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, Grand Rapids, 1957, pp. 699-700.
78 In the words of David C. Jones (Op. Cit., p 21), "Porneia is the general term for all illicit or immoral
sexual intercourse. The specific form may sometimes be indicated by the context. If payment of wages
is involved, it is prostitution. If it involves close relatives, it is incest. If it involves persons of the same
sex, it is homosexuality. If it involves an unmarried couple, it is unchastity. If it involves a married
person outside of marriage, it is adultery."
79 See above, note 5.
80 For an excellent refutation of the view that Acts 15:20 is referring to incest, see Thomas Edgar,
"Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion," pp. 177-187.
221
---
PCA DIGEST
reads: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality (porneia) among you, and
sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that
someone has his father's wife."
The basic significance of porneia in the New Testament may be seen in I Cor
7:2, "But because of immoralities..." (porneia); the plural points to various immoral
acts. The commands to "flee immorality" (I Cor. 6:18), and "abstain from immorality"
(I Thess. 4:3), naturally refer to sexual sin in general. These are clear examples of its
basic use. Thus we conclude that porneia is a term that refers to sexual immorality in
general, and that within this general classification it may refer to a number of specific
sins, depending on its context. Moreover, we choose to translate porneia, "sexual
immorality," since the term fornication in today's English may refer to sexual sins
committed only by the unmarried, and since sexual immorality communicates better the
broad nature of this sin.
d. Is porneia ever used with an even broader meaning?
We must note that porneia has a figurative use as well. In the Old Testament,
there are several prophetic passages which use the analogy of porneia extensively to
picture Israel's marital (or sexual) unfaithfulness to God. These passages picture Israel
as Hosea clearly delineates it as an unfaithful wife wandering away from God her
husband (cp. for example Hosea 1:2). Jeremiah 3 speaks of how treacherous Israel was
in going up "on every high hill and under every green tree, and she played the harlot
there" (porneuo). Ezekiel 16 and 23 speak of Isreal "multiplying her harlotries" and
even "paying her lovers" for fornication.
Because porneia is used to designate Israel's unfaithfulness to God her husband
in acts of idolatry and other sins, therefore by extension other figurative use also
designates other acts of sin and unfaithfulness to God (cf. Numbers 14:33; Isaiah 1:21;
and Hebrews 12:16), since that covenanted relationship is still in view. Furthermore,
this figurative use of porneia is extended even further in the New Testament to describe
the rebellion of sinful humanity in the defilements and abominations represented by the
"Great Harlot" (Rev. 17:4; 19:2).
e. What are the current interpretations of porneia?
From our prior discussion, it is clear that porneia has a very common literal
meaning which is "sexual immorality." This is its intensive sense, and its extensive
sense can include such sexual sins as adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, and incest.
It is clear that porneia is used figuratively in Scripture of spiritual betrayal on the
part of God's people.
The issue is, what does porneia mean in Matthew 19:9? We may group current
interpretations under three headings:
View #1: porneia refers to sexual unfaithfulness before marriage
Some scholars hold that porneia refers to a sexual sin separate from marital
unfaithfulness. They prefer to view Jesus as totally against divorce and remarriage.
Therefore, porneia in Matthew 19:9 could not refer to adultery or any kind of sexual sin
within marriage. One such view identifies porneia with premarital unchastity during
the Jewish engagement period. Thus Jesus would be allowing divorce if the bride was
found unfaithful during that period, and they would never have entered into conjugal
222
--
POSITION PAPERS
relations. Another such view is to identefy porneia with incestuous marriages. In this
case Jesus would merely be nullifying a marriage which was unlawful to begin with
How are we to evaluate this view? A number of compelling reasons stand
against our accepting this view. First, the context of Matthew 19:9 is about marriage
and divorce, not about invalid unions. The Old Testament texts about which Jesus and
the Pharisees were speaking (Genesis 1-2, Deut. 24) refer to marriage, not the
engagement period. To suppose that Christ would have introduced matters having to do
which there was no controversy, when the issue being discussed was marriage and
divorce, seems out of place.
Second, porneia is never specifically used in Scripture of unchastity during the
betrothal period, and is used only once in a context clearly having to do with incest (1
Cor 5:1). Although porneia could be referring to both of these sexual sins, it would not
be understood as referring to either one of them unless the context encouraged sush an
interpretation. No encouragement is seen in the context by this committee.
Third, there are incidents in Scripture of porneia being used of adultery. To
assume that porneia does not have to do with marital unfaithfulness in a passage
discussing marriage and divorce is to assume too much.
Finally, the whole strength of this interpretation is drawn from the assumption
that divorce with remarriage does not exist in the Bible. This is to beg the argument.
View #2: porneia refers to unfaithfulness in marriage, not restricted to
sexual sin
This second understanding of porneia comes from those who wish to view the
term in both its literal and figurative senses. They argue, since the use of porneia has
not been restricted to sexual sins only, but has also been used in the figuative sense of
covenant breaking, neither should the grounds for divorce be restricted to sexual sins
alone. Hence, porneia may refer to all the ways in which profound unfaithfulness can
destroy the covenant of marriage. They also may view "desertion" in I Cor. 7 as
included in their definition of porneia in Matthew 19. These are sins which undermine
the foundations of the marriage covenant.
How may we evaluate this view? It is undeniably true that porneia occurs in
Scripture in a figurative sense. This view also has the apparent advantage of
satisfying
the supposed conflict with I Cor 7:15 by seeing desertion as a subset of porneia.
In response, we may first observe that in a passage where moicheia (adultery) is
used in a literal sense, it would be expected that its corresponding term porneia (sexual
immorality) would also be used in the same literal way. There would need to be
compelling contextual evidence to take it in its figurative use, particularly in a passage
that is talking about the literal sexual dimension of being one flesh. Moreover, there is
no explicit use of porneia in Scripture for sins within the human marriage other
than sexual.
Second, in Matthew 19, Jesus is speaking against the backdrop of easy divorce.
In doing so, he was trying to restrict divorce. That he was successful in being
restrictive is clear in the amazement of the disciples to Jesus' words (19:10) and in
Jesus' response to them that implies that they have understood his comments correctly
(19:11-12). This context suggests a narrower use of porneia, that it should not be
interpreted in a way that could open it up to all sorts of grounds for divorce.
223
Next
