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 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.

Redefining marriage

Oh, no, he's going to write about same-sex marriage again! No. I'm going farther back this time, to consider the redefining of marriage that paved the way for this more recent development.

A redefinition of marriage took place long before "same-sex marriage". This redefinition cast off years of religious belief and social praxis in favor of the modern and untested.* In the old tried and tested "definition" of the institution of marriage the feelings are secondary to a permanently established covenant. It provides a safe relationship for husband, wife, and for the needs of children. The modern and untested version reorients toward the feelings, desires and "romance" of adults. This does not insure a safe haven for children (or adults), but rather is sand that shifts with the changing desires of the adults. According to Ryan Anderson, "The revisionist view is...about an intense emotional union that any two adults can form regardless of their sexual complementarity, and children are seen as an optional add-on if the couple chooses to have children."

Marriage has been redefined because love has been redefined. It is some strange Hollywood feeling, we know not what. It is a warm feeling down in the gullet, and, to speak plainly, a warm feeling down in the groin. This is not to say that infatuation, passion, physical attraction and physical desire have no part in one's love interest, but rather than these qualities are fleeting, fading, and fluctuating -- not vital and persistent. Love will hold the hand of a spouse with emaciated body and tenantless mind and walk all the way to the end of the road with that one. Passion will droop and physical desire may wane or even be directed toward another. True love is bigger and better -- and not enslaved by emotional captors. It is commitment and caring, sacrifice and sharing that lives above and beyond the fluctuating feelings of human hesitation and chronic caprice. If you say that you "just don't love your spouse any more" and there will be plenty of fair-weather friends, advice columnists and divorce attorneys to second that emotion. For all their majority, their guidance is founded in failure -- the blind leading the blind.

Not only is marriage "redefined," it is also being "reworded." In The Social Costs of Abandoning the Meaning of Marriage Ryan T. Anderson tells us about "The New Language of Marriage." Here are a few bits:

“Monogamish.” —relationships where partners would allow sexual infidelity provided they were honest about it.

“Throuple.” —similar to “couple” but with three people. The word appeared in a 2012 article in New York Magazine that described a specific “throuple” this way: Their throuplehood is more or less a permanent domestic arrangement. The three men work together, raise dogs together, sleep together, miss one another, collect art together, travel together, bring each other glasses of water, and, in general, exemplify a modern, adult relationship.

“Wedlease.” —Two people commit themselves to marriage for a period of years -- one year, five years, 10 years, whatever term suits them. The marital lease could be renewed at the end of the term however many times a couple likes...The messiness of divorce is avoided and the end can be as simple as vacating a rental unit.

Marriage brings the two halves of humanity -- male and female -- into one whole. "They shall be one flesh" -- one in sexual union and one in the children they produce. Jesus explained it this way:

The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 10

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Biblically, marriage is a lifetime covenant established by God. He made male and female, designed and exhorted them to procreate, and commanded them to leave father and mother for this new commitment. [Divorce between two Christians should be as scarce as hen's teeth. Christians have the Spirit of God within them, the Word of God to guide them, and the church of God to support them.] From Jesus's positive instruction we find the definition of marriage. It is based on God's creation order. It is a primary mutual relationship that is a union of body and soul -- heterosexual, exclusive and permanent. We redefine it to the detriment of our families, churches and society. 

* In my opinion, the degree of testing we have seen is that it breaks down the permanent bond of marriage for the fleeting and transient romance of temporary feelings of "love".

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.

One-woman man

Bart Barber makes a cases for one marriage only for a lifetime for bishops/elders.

For example: "I have begun to lean toward a new understanding of the phrase 'one-woman man'...that the phrase means to indicate a man who is married to no more than one women throughout his entire lifetime, no matter what may happen in that lifetime."