The exception clause

I have had this in the queue for quite some time, seemingly unable to finish it. However, I am going to post it unfinished!

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication , causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:8-9
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

“The exception clause” is a phrase used to name or describe Jesus’s statements in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 about marriage, divorce (putting away), and adultery – “saving for the cause of fornication” / “except it be for fornication.”

Got Questions Ministries explains it this way:

“The meaning of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is clear. If a person gets a divorce and then remarries, it is considered adultery unless the exception clause is in effect.”

Despite their absolute assurance, it not that “clear” to all interpreters. The passage engenders much discussion and debate. For example, does “the exception clause” provide an exception for allowing remarriage after a divorce, or does it provide an exception for not calling the putting away adultery?[i] David Janzen’s assessment is more accurate than that of Got Questions.

“It is likely that not a truer word has been written in the field of biblical studies than Ben Witherington’s observation that nearly everything about the two Matthean divorce exception clauses is disputed.”[ii]

There are related passages in Mark 10:10-12 and Luke 16:18 to consider, but they do not specifically address the exception clause.[iii]

Random notes and comments on the exception clause

Verses and words

Jesus is not giving a new teaching about divorce; rather he is restating God’s original design and intent. See Matthew 19:4-6.

Words for further research. Matthew 5:32 (fornication, πορνειας; adultery, μοιχευθηναι, μοιχαται); Matthew 19:9 (fornication, πορνεια; adultery, μοιχευθηναι, μοιχαται); Mark 10:11-12 (adultery, μοιχαται); Luke 16:18 (adultery, μοιχευει). Adultery (moichao), to have unlawful intercourse with another’s spouse. Fornication (porneia), illicit sexual intercourse; adultery, bestiality, fornication, homosexuality, etc.

Matthew 5:32; 19:9. A man would not cause his wife to be an adulteress through divorce, if she were already an adulteress through fornication.

Both Matthew and Mark refer to Herodias as “Philip’s wife,” even though she had divorced Philip and married Herod (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18).

Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well “thou hast had five husbands” and “he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4:16-18). Various inferences have been drawn from this, despite the text not indicating whether she had five husbands lawfully (one after another had died, etc.), whether she had been divorced from every one of them, or some combination of both possibilities.

Baptists in England

Second London Baptist Confession

Baptists of London adapted the Westminster Confession to use in their own Second London Confession of 1689. The changes they made can provide some insights into their thinking. When these brethren built their statement on marriage, they removed the paragraph in the Westminster permitting divorce and remarriage. Westminster’s Article 24, paragraph 5 states:

Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 24 is titled, “Of Marriage and Divorce.” It has four paragraphs on marriage and two on divorce. The Second London Baptist Confession Chapter 25 is titled “Of Marriage.” It omits paragraphs four & five on divorce.

John Gill, on Matthew 5:32

…she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man…

Early years of church history

William Heth and Gordon Wenham extensively researched the marriage theology of early Christian writers. They summarize their research of the views of divorce and remarriage this way:

“In the first five centuries (among Christians) all Greek writers and all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite both parties until the death of one of them.”[iv]

Before and after salvation

Some who take a strict view on divorce and remarriage (and perhaps some who don’t) believe that the New Testament teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage is null regarding anything that happened during a marriage before one became a Christian. In his book on Divorce and Remarriage, Andrew Cornes addresses this:

Most important of all, it assumes that it is the sin (of divorce) which prevents remarriage. If this sin can be removed, by forgiveness, then no barrier to remarriage remains. This view is so obviously flawed that it is amazing how tenacious it is. If sin is really the barrier, what does the time of conversion to Christ have to do with it? Surely sin committed after conversion can be fully forgiven and removed?...Jesus does not base his prohibition of remarriage on the sin of divorce. He bases it on the fact that remarriage would be legalized adultery. In other words, he bases it on the fact that the marriage bond continues to exist despite the divorce. It is not the (sin of) divorce which makes remarriage impossible for the Christian; it is the (original) marriage. Only death dissolves the marriage bond, and therefore only death sets a person free to remarry”[v]

A marriage pandemic

One claim is that Jesus’s statement allows for remarriage when the reason for the divorce is adultery. Even if this is a correct interpretation, surely we can agree that what was a small moth hole of “exception” has become a gaping gash in the marriage fabric of modern American Christianity! First one exception, then another, then many more. “No-fault divorce” is a plague of pandemic proportions.

---

[i] Perhaps the main views fall into three broad groups. (1) Neither divorce nor remarriage is allowed. πορνεια refers to the annulment of incestuous marriages of pagan converts, or refers to the sexual violation in the Jewish betrothal period. (2) Divorce is allowed in cases of πορνεια, but remarriage is forbidden. (3) Divorce and remarriage are allowed, but only in cases of πορνεια.
[ii] “The Meaning of Porneia in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9: an Approach From the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Culture,” David Janzen, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Volume 23, Issue 80, March 1, 2001, pp. 66-80 (Citing Ben Witherington in “Matthew 5:32 and 19:9—Exception or Exceptional Situation?” New Testament Studies, No. 31, 1985, p. 571). There is disagreement on what constitutes the exception; disagreement on what is the reason for the exception; disagreement on the meaning of the word porneia; and on and on. (Consider John 7:17 may have some impact on this problem.)
[iii] Mark 10:10-12, putting away or divorcing a spouse and marrying another is adultery. Luke 16:18, putting away (or divorcing) a wife, or marrying one who has been put away is committing adultery.
[iv] Jesus and Divorce, William Heth, Gordon Wenham, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, p. 22.
[v] Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice, Andrew Cornes, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993 pp. 246-247).

The “Qualifications” of a Bishop

Having been reliably informed that the requirements for the office of bishop set forth in I Timothy 3 “are the requirements for a perfect preacher,” I embarked on an in-depth Bible study to find out to which qualifications the churches could refer for the less-than-perfect preachers who are currently available. I thought I might have found it in Titus 1, but then realized it sets forth the same requirements as I Timothy 3, obviously for the perfect preachers. So, I dug deeper. After a diligent search, I finally found the requirements in Judas’s seldom-read epistle to the Laodiceans. For your benefit, I share it here.

Laodiceans 3:1-8

1. Having failed in my efforts to collect the funds to come to you (the bag being empty): these things I write unto you, that you mayest know how you oughtest to behave yourselves in the church of Laodicea.

2. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a well-paying position with the bestowal of great honour.

3.  A bishop then must be shameless, the man of one wife, more than one, or none; possessing a good education and appropriate credentials; willing to move quickly when hostility rises; apt to leech;

4. Not given to dry and lengthy speech, but eloquent, concise, and funny; deserving of a valuable salary package; well-dressed, not threatened by deacons;

5. One that driveth a fine chariot, is schooled in kissing babies, and apt to fool old women;

6. Even so must their wives be mothers of several children, while looking as if they never had any; apt to flatter, play the piano, organize the women’s auxiliary; full of zeal and zest;

7. Moreover let the bishop be photogenic, having an impressive resume, not a novice (for there are small insignificant churches for others), recommended by seminary leaders. Moreover he must have a good report of wealthy businessmen; all these qualifications, lest he be an embarrassment to the rich and prospering church in the thriving metropolis of Laodicea.

8. Finally, my brethern and sistern, though I write in the tongue of men and angels who use gendered pronouns, let nothing be construed as meaning any persons cannot serve in the office of bishop in the church. Progress be with you. Fare ye well.

No more shall there be a problem finding someone to meet the necessary requirements. We need not look for Paul’s perfect preacher. Judas’s recommendations will work just fine!

* Note: Count bard Ehrmandorf stumbled across the fragment containing the third chapter of the epistle to the Laodiceans, handwritten in Greek on a tanned skunk hide, while browsing a garage sale at the St. Baden-Gooden monastery on Mount Tübingen.

The Husband of One Wife

“the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6

I recently read an online essay about divorce, remarriage, and the qualifications for the ministry, focusing on the phrase “the husband of one wife.” I choose not to link to it, since the author displays a certain amount of hubris in his viewpoint that it unnecessary and off-putting. Nevertheless, this turns my thoughts to this post – not a lengthy tome, but something just to point out another option seldom discussed.

This writer and numerous others would point out three main ways to view the phrase “husband of one wife.”[i]

1. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of polygamy
2. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of divorce and remarriage[ii]
3. “The husband of one wife” means the kind of husband a man is to his wife

The first two are clear enough. I think there is little or no misunderstanding of them. The third is a newer model and may require some explanation. This third view says that phrase (μιας γυναικος ανδρα/ανηρ) literally means “one woman man” or “one wife husband.”[iii] This is usually explained as referring to the kind of husband a man is to his wife – one devoted to his wife.[iv]

As normally presented, most of the writers indicate the three ways are mutually exclusive – either not a polygamist, or not divorced & remarried, or not undevoted to his wife. It seems few consider that Paul struck on a phrase (under inspiration, of course) that can encompass all the positives and exclude all the negatives.

The historical research I have done indicates there was very little polygamy and much divorce practiced in the Roman Empire.[v] However, if a case of polygamy came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When the rampant divorce problem came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When a situation of a bad (undevoted) husband who has managed to avoid divorce came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop.

Therefore, this brief contribution is to assert that Paul uses the phrase “the husband of one wife” to umbrella several issues, rather than present an either/or distinction that must be chosen to the exclusion of the others.

---

[i] A fourth way “the husband of one wife” is viewed, is that it is a requirement that a bishop/elder/minister must be married.
[ii] This might be divided into three camps: The husband of one wife is a man (1) only who has never been divorced and remarried; (2) only who has not been divorced and remarried since salvation; (3) only who, if he is divorced and remarried, is covered under “the exception clause” of Matthew 5:32 & 19:9.
[iii] A helpful comparison, often missed, is 1 Timothy 5:9, where the similar phrase is used of the widow (but with, obviously, the gender roles reversed: ενος ανδρος γυνη “one man woman” or “one husband wife”).
[iv] This view (usually) allows for divorce and remarriage in the ministry, though I am at somewhat of a loss to understand how one who divorces his wife to marry another is a “one-woman man.”
[v] For example, see The Environment of Early Christianity, by Samuel Angus (New York, NY: Scribner & Sons, 1915): “Divorce was frightfully common…Men could put away their wives for the slightest cause, and women could as easily divorce their husbands…Marriage lost its sanctity: it was lightly entered upon because easily annulled.” (pp. 15, 46)

For such a time as this

Marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4) and honoured by our Lord Jesus Christ (John 2:1-2), but often seen as faulty, failing, and futile in our day. Some marry in order to divorce, and divorce in order to marry. Others abandon the commitment and covenant of marriage altogether, and settle in to the abstract absence of vows often called “shacking up.” Still others defy marriage as a unique relationship between a man and a woman, making it anything, everything, and nothing.

In 2014 Pew Research asked about “Public Views on Marriage.” 50% of the respondents said “society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children.” Two-thirds of those in the 18 to 29 age range held that view. However, marriage problems are nothing new. They hark back to almost the beginning of the world. The early chapters of Genesis teach us at least three things about marriage.

God ordained and instituted marriage. It finds not its origin in the minds of men, but in the mind of God (Genesis 1:27). “Therefore” marriage is what God says it is – man and wife, one flesh (Genesis 2:21-25). What God has put together – both particular marriages and the institution itself – let not man put asunder (Mark 10:6-9).

Sin marred and wrecked marriage. By the man Adam sin entered into the world and therefore all that is in the world, including marriage, is touched and tainted by sin (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12). There are no perfect people; there are no perfect marriages. Once you enter it, you taint it. Immediately! Yet...

A promise encourages and relieves marriage. On the heels of sin and judgment, God declared a promise (Genesis 3:15). The seed of woman – our Lord Jesus Christ – deals sin and Satan a deadly crushing blow. Within that promise is hope for our marriages. When I married, someone gave us a “Marriage Takes Three” poem. Certainly, ’true, a marriage of two, happy then to be, must add God for three. The Christian couple have the Spirit of God indwelling them (Romans 8:9;  Ephesians 1:13-15), the word of God to guide them (Ephesians 5:22-33), and the church of God to support them (Romans 12:5).

May you, Lord, bless our marriages in these difficult times.

Divorce for benefits?

Q. A pastor found out that if he and his wife get divorced, the wife would get full Social Security benefits. This would allow for much-needed extra income into the family. Estate planning specialists have advised them that getting divorced is a smart move. Should this pastor and wife divorce, yet remain married “in the eyes of God”? Is this being deceitful in order to get money from the government? Is this a legitimate way to get what is rightfully theirs?

A. First, a few related comments. Most governments set and acknowledge legal requirements regarding marriage. A marriage in the sight of God does not require government approval (Cf. Genesis 2:21-24, Genesis 24:63-67, for examples). A man and a woman who make a marital covenant to each other are married morally and in God’s eyes (Malachi 2:14, Proverbs 2:16-17).[i] As regards Social Security, I am ambivalent toward whether this is “bilking the government” and/or what might or might not be “rightfully theirs.” The U.S. Social Security system is messed up. Those who are getting money now are probably getting money that someone else is putting in right now (not “their” money that was saved for them with interest, as they may think). Some paid in a little and got back a lot; some paid in a lot and got back a little. It is unfortunate that politicians and bureaucrats have often encouraged bad behavior (e.g., better benefits for not being married) in the ways they design our nation’s aid programs such as Social Security and Welfare.

Second, regarding the action of divorce for better Social Security benefits, my answer is “No, I don’t think they should.” While a couple does not need a government certificate to be married, in this case they have chosen the government’s recognition of their marriage. When it became a negative in their eyes and the eyes of their advisers, they seek to dissolve the marriage in the eyes of the government, yet maintain the marriage in fact. They were married not only in the eyes of God, but also in the eyes of government, and now this solution of “legal” divorce engages in playing not married on the one hand, and playing married on the other hand. It is deceitful. It is telling one group of people you are not married, and telling another group you are. It is “double-minded.”

Jesus said, “let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay...” What the divorce/married Christian says doesn’t fit either the letter or spirit of Jesus’s exhortation.

Government: “Are you married?”
Christian: “Nay, Nay!”

Church: “Are you married?”
Christian: “Yea, yea!”

“Therewith [the tongues] they profess one thing and do another. Out of the same mouth proceedeth marriage and divorce. My brethren, these things ought not so to be!” (Cf. James 3:9-10.)

In a “post-Christian” society, perhaps Christians should rethink the whole concept of “government marriage.”[ii] In the meantime, it is a bad testimony for Christians to accept it when it is beneficial to us, but then reject it when it is not. Such actions are double-minded deception, which violate biblical precepts coming and going.

---

[i] Marriage is a covenant that a man and a woman make between themselves and before God. Men and women have been doing that since the beginning of time, without the benefit of the government’s stamp of approval.

[ii] That is, covenant and commit to marriage before God and one another, without any need to involve the government.

3 reasons why Christians should not divorce

It is common to hear that the divorce rate among Christians is as bad the world. There is some truth in that, if we consider all who make any claim to the name Christian. But if we consider those who have a religious commitment and practice as opposed to nominal Christians, a difference begins to emerge. For example, analysis by W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia says that  those he defines as active conservative Protestants who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to others who have no affiliation. On the one hand many who self-identify as Christians do not live out this faith. On the other hand, salvation and discipleship does have an effect on people's lives, including their marriages.

Here are at least three reasons why Christians should never divorce:

1. They have the Word of God to teach them.
2. They have the Spirit of God to guide them.
3. They have the Church of God to help them.

Same-sex 'divorce'

“One of the sweet advantages of insisting that there is no such thing as same-sex 'marriage' is that there is therefore also no such thing as same-sex 'divorce'.”

John Piper is thinking ahead about what a church should do "when, say, two women, who have lived in a so-called married state for some years, are converted to Christ, repent of their sin, and want to join the church...In this uncharted territory, here is a map with some of the biblical guideposts I foresee." What follows is thirteen items he labels "guideposts". Here are two:

1. Rejoice.

6. Help them see, therefore, that what the state has called a “marriage” between them is not marriage.

Have you and your church considered this circumstance? Read more of Piper on Same-sex 'divorce'.

More 2nd and 3rd marriages end in divorce

What is the divorce rate in the United States? Most of us have heard that half of all marriages end in divorce. In Do 50% of Marriages Really End in Divorce? Ashleigh Schmitz writes, "To say right now that 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce is an uninformed statement." Why do we believe this? From whence this number? Schmitz tell us "The vague 50 percent acknowledges that in one year, there are twice as many marriages as there are divorces." For example, a CDC report I accessed May 28, 2013 gives the marriage rate as 6.8 per 1,000 total population and the divorce rate as 3.6 per 1,000 population. That's over half, right? Yes. And no. What this number tells us is that in a given year, there are approximately twice as many marriages as divorces. What it doesn't tell us is what percentage of divorces there are for the total number of marriages that exist. Very few of the divorces in a given year are from the marriages consummated in that same year, and such "lazy math" doesn't take into account maybe 50-something million marriages that already existed before that year. The actual divorce rate is much more difficult to figure that simply comparing the number of marriages and the number of divorces in a given year. Some suggest it is closer to 30%, but I'm not sure how they arrive at that number either.

I looked at this number because I wanted to understand how the rate of divorce from second and third marriages compares to the rate of divorce from first marriages. At Divorce Rate.Org I found the following:

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.

According to Enrichment Journal on the divorce rate in America: The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

I am somewhat skeptical of all of these numbers, since they use the unreliable 50% for first marriages. Nevertheless, for all I was able to find and read it seems that the basic fact is reliable -- that the divorce rate for second marriages is greater than for first marriages, and the divorce rate for third marriages is even higher. This dispels the myth that second marriages are more likely to succeed than first marriages.

One might think that it stands to reason that second marriages would fare better than first marriages. First, you would be more cautious and thoughtful before entering into a second marriage. Second, you would have learned from your mistakes in a first marriage things that you can apply to bettering a second marriage. Third (and related to the first two), you would be older and wiser. But what "stands to reason" falls before what really happens.

If you aren't committed to marriage, then divorce is always an easy out. If you aren't willing to work to fix what could have been fixed in the first marriage, you probably won't commit to fix it in the second marriage. If you do make a second marriage work, you probably could have made the first marriage work by doing those same things. What we need is not second and third marriages to try to improve on what we did wrong in the first one, but a belief and commitment that marriage will work if we work at it. And try to make the first one work! George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." This failure to learn certainly repeats itself in marriage and divorce, again and again. 

God says, "A man shall cleave unto his wife." He didn't say it would be easy, but He did say it and it is right. For better or worse, stay together. Against all odds, stay together. By God's grace, stay together. If those looking at the grass on the other side of the fence would maintain their own yards, marriages would prosper rather than languish.

April 1

This seemed like a bad April Fool's joke, but it is not. On the radio this morning I heard that Judge Scott Jenkins in Travis County had ruled against the Attorney General entering a homosexual divorce case in Texas. The attorney general's office argued a homosexual couple couldn't be granted a divorce in Texas because their marriage is not recognized by Texas law. Perhaps the judge only ruled the AG out because he had already made his decision before the AG got involved. Somehow I wonder. Judge Jenkins was quoted as saying that children are what "we are supposed to be concerned about as lawyers and as judges." Actually as a judge I thought he is supposed to be concerned about interpreting the law.

While trying to find info on this, I discovered that Judge Jenkins is not ploughing new ground. I had not heard this previously, but in Dallas County in October State District Judge Tena Callahan said that two men could divorce in Texas. The Attorney General has appealed that ruling. The Texas 5th Court of Appeals is supposed to hear arguments in this case.

I'm no judge or lawyer, but common sense seems to say that two people who aren't married can't get divorced! Oh, the beauties of judicial activism.

Marriage and divorce

While listening to a radio program this afternoon, I heard a passing comment that the difference in the divorce rate of Christians and non-Christians is negligible (so small as to be meaningless).

I have heard that "statistic" several times. I have no reason to suppose it is incorrect, though I have seen no hard evidence one way or the other. I believe those who mention this are usually speaking of the Western world or possibly just mainly the United States.

I have given this a little thought. Assuming this is correct, why is the divorce rate for Christians almost the same as for non-Christians?

A few possibilities why this may be so:
Many Christians are Christians in name only
Western Christians are likely to be involved in their culture rather than separated from it
Some Christians are married to non-Christians
Christians are sinners, too

Nevertheless, most people would probably think that Christians SHOULD do better in marriage statistics than non-Christians. Here are three reasons why: the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide them, the ministry of the Word to train them, and the ministry of the body of Christ to edify & assist them.

Should Christians, on average, have a better record of staying married than non-Christians? Why or why not? If they should, why don't they?