- A section of scripture - Questions about the scripture. - Various mainstream views about the scripture (which may not be correct, or I may disagree with). - Sometimes my opinion is added. It starts with "My 2 Cents" - The blog authors will add information, opinions and responses (which will be clear by their name. For all the previous things they will usually be under the name, "Bruce").
Thursday, June 2, 2022
Luke 16:18
Luke 16:18
18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
I've created an article on this topic. It's at http://soulguardian.info/bible/bible%20study/divorce.pdf. I've gotten it "peer reviewed" by a couple of elders, a pastor, and a couple of other people. It's the best I could do on a complicated topic. I definitely would love feedback on it (outside this forum).
Here's a quick summary for those of you too busy to read the whole thing (if you have any questions about the summary, please read the article for context and justification):
"God hates divorce. God also recognizes "lesser of two evils" situations and expects us to apply His axioms according to specific situations. On our own, we cannot do that, due to our deceptive hearts. The church is there to help us do that. If we initiate a divorce outside of the guidance of the church, we sin. In that case, if we remarry, we commit adultery. If we are in submission to the church and we go through the process with them, we do not sin if that process leads to divorce. If we re-marry under the guidance of the church, we are not sinning. One final note: If we are re-married, whether or not we have sinned by doing so, we are not to leave our latest spouse to go back to the previous one."
The Old Testament takes divorce as an already-established custom. Abuses were criticized, but the practice was not outlawed.
Although Paul was aware of the Lord’s teaching about divorce, he did not consider the Mark/Luke version final. Nor did he consider porneia the only legitimate exception, so Matthew’s statements are not the complete description of God’s will, either. Jesus’ statements did not cover every possible situation that might arise within the church. Paul, recognizing that he faced a new situation, permitted divorce and remarriage in cases of desertion. Paul’s statement isn’t complete, either, since he does not specifically mention porneia. Paul did not intend to provide an exhaustive list of exceptions (just as none of his lists of spiritual gifts, virtues or vices is complete).
Even if we combine all the New Testament statements, resulting in a prohibition with two exceptions, it would seem unlikely that we have a complete statement of God’s will on the subject. Situations arise that were not addressed by either Jesus or Paul. New situations may call for new exceptions, and new judgments. Paul indicates one way the church can judge: the principle of peace, which he deemed more important than a law-based prohibition. This suggests that Christians today may also use the principle of peace to release people from the bondage of certain marriage vows.
Ethical principles are more important than strict rules.20 Satisfying hunger is more important than keeping Sabbath rules (Mark 2:27-28); justice, mercy and faith are more important than scrupulous tithing (Matt 23:23). Principles are sometimes even more important than the exercise of specific freedoms: Although a Christian may eat meat, it is better to abstain if eating might offend another believer (Rom 14). These examples show that principles are more important than narrowly defined laws.
As Clinton Gardner has observed, remarriage should be permitted for the repentant and only for the repentant. Admittedly, this can create awkward situations: There may be a divorce, the church may permit one person to remarry, and later accept the repentance of the other person and in effect allow spouse-swapping within the church.21 Such situations may be inevitable in an age containing both sin and grace, and they cry out for caution by all involved. Time and counseling need to be involved before divorce andbefore a remarriage.
It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Matthew 19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.
Why did Moses permit divorce? Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands. Moses tolerated a relaxation of the strictness of the marriage bond--not as approving of it, but to prevent still greater evils.
Moses did not direct it, or suffer it, in any such sense as to imply that God approved of it, or that it was right. It was a temporary regulation, suffered for a time on account of the wickedness of men, and in order to prevent the greater evils which that wickedness would otherwise have occasioned.
In cultures around Israel at this time, women sometimes were considered little more than property to be bartered or traded or retained according to the pleasure of men. In Israel, however, a man was not free to send away his wife and bring her back at his whim. The "bill of divorcement" gave her protection from such abuses.
It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command. This putting away "for every cause" (Matthew 19:3 - derived from Deuteronomy 24:1) of one's wife was a violation of the will of God. The practices may still be a violation of what has been the will of God from the beginning, and obedience to Him may require them to be done away.
Jesus said only in the case of "fornication" is divorce allowed. Most people assume Jesus meant "adultery," but this is not so. To understand this statement, we need to see exactly what the Old Covenant legislation was regarding illicit intercourse.
Were only the Jews, whom Matthew addressed, permitted this liberty? The answer lies in the peculiar way in which the Jews contracted marriage.
When our Lord is recorded in Matthew 5:32; 19:9 as saying, "porneia" which is the Greek word for 'fornication', He is referring to fornication within the Jewish betrothal period.
Fornication: This word is used in Scripture not only for the sin of impurity between unmarried persons, but for idolatry, and for all kinds of infidelity to God.
The reason Mark and Luke do not mention the exceptive clause is they were addressing a predominately gentile audience while Matthew was addressing a Jewish one. Certainly, the only time a "wife" could possibly commit "fornication" (as Matthew 5:32 and 19:8 state) would be during the betrothal period! Why? Because before the betrothal period, she would not be a "wife" yet, but she would be a single woman. And after the betrothal period, she would be married, and therefore, she would be committing adultery if she cheated on her husband, and it would not be called fornication.
Conclusion. Divorce was not instituted by Moses, nor was it approved as an intrinsic right of the husband. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 indicates that Moses sought to curb the evil of divorce by requiring the husband to give a bill of divorcement to his wife to protect her after her marriage to another man. The Mosaic concession does not alter God’s original plan for marriage to be a sacred, permanent covenant. It simply provides protection for the divorced wife when sinful hearts violate God’s original plan for marriage.
The argument of the Pharisees could be paraphrased as follows: if according to its original institution, marriage is a permanent union that cannot be dissolved by human authority, why then did Moses command divorce? Is not Your teaching contradicted by Moses’ commandment?
Christ’s answer is of fundamental importance because it clarifies the whole question of the Old Testament Mosaic provision. "He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’" (Matt 19:8; cf. Mark 10:5-6).
Two features of Christ’s reply should be noticed. First, the phrase "for the hardness of your hearts" implies that the Mosaic permission was occasioned by the insubordination and stubbornness of the Israelites. The latter did not invalidate the original institution of marriage as a permanent union. The bill of divorce was intended to regulate a perverse situation and not to abrogate the divine institution of marriage.
Jesus declares to His disciples in no uncertain terms that, contrary to the Mosaic concession, divorce and remarriage by either the husband or the wife is a sin of adultery clearly condemned by God’s law. A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is sinning not only against God but also against his former wife. He "commits adultery against her" because by marrying another woman, he is violating his covenant of commitment to his wife.
I think that the first truth is that divorce is never part of God's perfect standard. The same is true of telling a lie. Neither one would happen in a perfect world.
Saying that, we need to do our best to hold to God's standard in all ways. It is when we miss God's standard that things start unraveling.
I think that we in the church have come to look at divorce incorrectly. We look at the act of divorce as missing God's standard, but we don't look at the thousands of acts before that led up to the divorce as missing God's standard.
So we know that Moses allowed divorce. When Jesus was asked about it, He pointed to God's standard and told us to uphold it. In a marriage, a husband and wife will do many things that does not uphold God's standard for a marriage.
My point is that the bulk of the sin hasn't happened at the point the couple has gotten divorced (or later remarried). The bulk of the sin has happened before that.
This gets complicated. Is it ever OK for a couple to get divorced and remarried? The answer is an emphatic "No". However, the divorce may be the ending of a series of sins. I think that it's possible with unrepentant sin, that a divorce is the only practical outcome. In fact, I speculate that divorce may be the only logical choice left.
So does that make sense? Divorce is never "OK". Yet in some cases, divorce may be the only option. Because when unrepentant sin is involved (and it only takes one part of the couple for this to be true), things become messy.
Assuming that the above makes sense, how does one apply this? This is where the local governing board of our church comes into play. The advising person (or persons) will speak with the couple and identify the sin(s) involved. The adviser (i.e. judge) will then ask the persons if they are willing to repent of their sins. If they are, the marriage will continue. If they are not, the adviser will go through the "confronting your brother of sin" process. If at the end of that process, if one of the people refuses to (be willing to) repent, the adviser will treat them as a pagan. At that point, a divorce can occur.
Two additional points:
1. An affair has nothing to do with whether a divorce can occur (except that it is one of the sins that needs to be repented of). In fact I would even go so far as to say that a divorce can occur because of the spouses continued unforgiveness, rather than the affair in the first place.
2. Whether someone can remarry or not is also complicated. Once again, it depends on various factors. It is better not to remarry. That's God's standard. However, because we are susceptible to sin, it may be better is we marry again.
Note that Jesus is not giving us an all inclusive teaching on divorce. In context this statement on divorce and remarriage is an example of one stroke of the Law which the Pharisees tended to minimize but which was still valid. The fact that the Pharisees misused the OT teaching on divorce is simply another illustration of the hypocrisy of their attention to the most minute details of the Law (to which they added their traditions).
Brian Bell says that Lk 16:18 is "Not primarily a teaching on divorce. It is an example demonstrating that the Torah and the Prophets continue to have authoritative force."
Judaism 101 (a Jewish website) writes that "Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her."
1. Is it wrong to ever divorce and remarry for any reason?
It's always a violation of God's plan to divorce. However, we are often put in a position on this earth where we need to make "lesser of two evil" choices. On the other hand, on our own, we have a strong tendency to justify our own actions. Since this is the case, we need to submit the decision to church leaders (in the hope that the leaders will be seeing God's will in the matter).
2. Is there any caveats to the adultery charge?
No. Those who divorce and remarry will be committing the sin of adultery. That may be the lesser of a number of sins though. Life is messy. You can both commit sin and do what God desires. Does that mean that God will direct us down a path that leads to us committing sin? In certain cases, yes. He realizes who He is dealing with and knows it's necessary to make concessions with us. Life is messy (and sinful).
1. Is it wrong to ever divorce and remarry for any reason?
It's always a violation of God's plan to divorce. However, we are often put in a position on this earth where we need to make "lesser of two evil" choices. On the other hand, on our own, we have a strong tendency to justify our own actions. Since this is the case, we need to submit the decision to church leaders (in the hope that the leaders will be seeing God's will in the matter).
2. Is there any caveats to the adultery charge?
No. Those who divorce and remarry will be committing the sin of adultery. That may be the lesser of a number of sins though. Life is messy. You can both commit sin and do what God desires. Does that mean that God will direct us down a path that leads to us committing sin? In certain cases, yes. He realizes who He is dealing with and knows it's necessary to make concessions with us. Life is messy (and sinful).
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Is it wrong to ever divorce and remarry for any reason?
2. Is there any caveats to the adultery charge?
I've created an article on this topic. It's at http://soulguardian.info/bible/bible%20study/divorce.pdf. I've gotten it "peer reviewed" by a couple of elders, a pastor, and a couple of other people. It's the best I could do on a complicated topic. I definitely would love feedback on it (outside this forum).
ReplyDeleteHere's a quick summary for those of you too busy to read the whole thing (if you have any questions about the summary, please read the article for context and justification):
"God hates divorce. God also recognizes "lesser of two evils" situations and expects us to apply His
axioms according to specific situations. On our own, we cannot do that, due to our deceptive hearts. The
church is there to help us do that.
If we initiate a divorce outside of the guidance of the church, we sin. In that case, if we remarry, we
commit adultery. If we are in submission to the church and we go through the process with them, we do
not sin if that process leads to divorce. If we re-marry under the guidance of the church, we are not
sinning.
One final note: If we are re-married, whether or not we have sinned by doing so, we are not to leave our
latest spouse to go back to the previous one."
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/09/mark-101-12-jesus-then-left-that-place.html says:
ReplyDeleteThe Old Testament takes divorce as an already-established custom. Abuses were criticized, but the practice was not outlawed.
Although Paul was aware of the Lord’s teaching about divorce, he did not consider the Mark/Luke version final. Nor did he consider porneia the only legitimate exception, so Matthew’s statements are not the complete description of God’s will, either. Jesus’ statements did not cover every possible situation that might arise within the church. Paul, recognizing that he faced a new situation, permitted divorce and remarriage in cases of desertion. Paul’s statement isn’t complete, either, since he does not specifically mention porneia. Paul did not intend to provide an exhaustive list of exceptions (just as none of his lists of spiritual gifts, virtues or vices is complete).
Even if we combine all the New Testament statements, resulting in a prohibition with two exceptions, it would seem unlikely that we have a complete statement of God’s will on the subject. Situations arise that were not addressed by either Jesus or Paul. New situations may call for new exceptions, and new judgments. Paul indicates one way the church can judge: the principle of peace, which he deemed more important than a law-based prohibition. This suggests that Christians today may also use the principle of peace to release people from the bondage of certain marriage vows.
Ethical principles are more important than strict rules.20 Satisfying hunger is more important than keeping Sabbath rules (Mark 2:27-28); justice, mercy and faith are more important than scrupulous tithing (Matt 23:23). Principles are sometimes even more important than the exercise of specific freedoms: Although a Christian may eat meat, it is better to abstain if eating might offend another believer (Rom 14). These examples show that principles are more important than narrowly defined laws.
As Clinton Gardner has observed, remarriage should be permitted for the repentant and only for the repentant. Admittedly, this can create awkward situations: There may be a divorce, the church may permit one person to remarry, and later accept the repentance of the other person and in effect allow spouse-swapping within the church.21 Such situations may be inevitable in an age containing both sin and grace, and they cry out for caution by all involved. Time and counseling need to be involved before divorce andbefore a remarriage.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/09/mark-101-12-jesus-then-left-that-place.html continued:
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Matthew 19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.
Why did Moses permit divorce? Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands. Moses tolerated a relaxation of the strictness of the marriage bond--not as approving of it, but to prevent still greater evils.
Moses did not direct it, or suffer it, in any such sense as to imply that God approved of it, or that it was right. It was a temporary regulation, suffered for a time on account of the wickedness of men, and in order to prevent the greater evils which that wickedness would otherwise have occasioned.
In cultures around Israel at this time, women sometimes were considered little more than property to be bartered or traded or retained according to the pleasure of men. In Israel, however, a man was not free to send away his wife and bring her back at his whim. The "bill of divorcement" gave her protection from such abuses.
It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command. This putting away "for every cause" (Matthew 19:3 - derived from Deuteronomy 24:1) of one's wife was a violation of the will of God. The practices may still be a violation of what has been the will of God from the beginning, and obedience to Him may require them to be done away.
Jesus said only in the case of "fornication" is divorce allowed. Most people assume Jesus meant "adultery," but this is not so. To understand this statement, we need to see exactly what the Old Covenant legislation was regarding illicit intercourse.
Were only the Jews, whom Matthew addressed, permitted this liberty? The answer lies in the peculiar way in which the Jews contracted marriage.
When our Lord is recorded in Matthew 5:32; 19:9 as saying, "porneia" which is the Greek word for 'fornication', He is referring to fornication within the Jewish betrothal period.
Fornication: This word is used in Scripture not only for the sin of impurity between unmarried persons, but for idolatry, and for all kinds of infidelity to God.
The reason Mark and Luke do not mention the exceptive clause is they were addressing a predominately gentile audience while Matthew was addressing a Jewish one. Certainly, the only time a "wife" could possibly commit "fornication" (as Matthew 5:32 and 19:8 state) would be during the betrothal period! Why? Because before the betrothal period, she would not be a "wife" yet, but she would be a single woman. And after the betrothal period, she would be married, and therefore, she would be committing adultery if she cheated on her husband, and it would not be called fornication.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/09/mark-101-12-jesus-then-left-that-place.html continued:
ReplyDeleteConclusion. Divorce was not instituted by Moses, nor was it approved as an intrinsic right of the husband. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 indicates that Moses sought to curb the evil of divorce by requiring the husband to give a bill of divorcement to his wife to protect her after her marriage to another man. The Mosaic concession does not alter God’s original plan for marriage to be a sacred, permanent covenant. It simply provides protection for the divorced wife when sinful hearts violate God’s original plan for marriage.
The argument of the Pharisees could be paraphrased as follows: if according to its original institution, marriage is a permanent union that cannot be dissolved by human authority, why then did Moses command divorce? Is not Your teaching contradicted by Moses’ commandment?
Christ’s answer is of fundamental importance because it clarifies the whole question of the Old Testament Mosaic provision. "He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’" (Matt 19:8; cf. Mark 10:5-6).
Two features of Christ’s reply should be noticed. First, the phrase "for the hardness of your hearts" implies that the Mosaic permission was occasioned by the insubordination and stubbornness of the Israelites. The latter did not invalidate the original institution of marriage as a permanent union. The bill of divorce was intended to regulate a perverse situation and not to abrogate the divine institution of marriage.
Jesus declares to His disciples in no uncertain terms that, contrary to the Mosaic concession, divorce and remarriage by either the husband or the wife is a sin of adultery clearly condemned by God’s law. A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is sinning not only against God but also against his former wife. He "commits adultery against her" because by marrying another woman, he is violating his covenant of commitment to his wife.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/09/mark-101-12-jesus-then-left-that-place.html continued:
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents:
I think that the first truth is that divorce is never part of God's perfect standard. The same is true of telling a lie. Neither one would happen in a perfect world.
Saying that, we need to do our best to hold to God's standard in all ways. It is when we miss God's standard that things start unraveling.
I think that we in the church have come to look at divorce incorrectly. We look at the act of divorce as missing God's standard, but we don't look at the thousands of acts before that led up to the divorce as missing God's standard.
So we know that Moses allowed divorce. When Jesus was asked about it, He pointed to God's standard and told us to uphold it. In a marriage, a husband and wife will do many things that does not uphold God's standard for a marriage.
My point is that the bulk of the sin hasn't happened at the point the couple has gotten divorced (or later remarried). The bulk of the sin has happened before that.
This gets complicated. Is it ever OK for a couple to get divorced and remarried? The answer is an emphatic "No". However, the divorce may be the ending of a series of sins. I think that it's possible with unrepentant sin, that a divorce is the only practical outcome. In fact, I speculate that divorce may be the only logical choice left.
So does that make sense? Divorce is never "OK". Yet in some cases, divorce may be the only option. Because when unrepentant sin is involved (and it only takes one part of the couple for this to be true), things become messy.
Assuming that the above makes sense, how does one apply this? This is where the local governing board of our church comes into play. The advising person (or persons) will speak with the couple and identify the sin(s) involved. The adviser (i.e. judge) will then ask the persons if they are willing to repent of their sins. If they are, the marriage will continue. If they are not, the adviser will go through the "confronting your brother of sin" process. If at the end of that process, if one of the people refuses to (be willing to) repent, the adviser will treat them as a pagan. At that point, a divorce can occur.
Two additional points:
1. An affair has nothing to do with whether a divorce can occur (except that it is one of the sins that needs to be repented of). In fact I would even go so far as to say that a divorce can occur because of the spouses continued unforgiveness, rather than the affair in the first place.
2. Whether someone can remarry or not is also complicated. Once again, it depends on various factors. It is better not to remarry. That's God's standard. However, because we are susceptible to sin, it may be better is we marry again.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-16-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteNote that Jesus is not giving us an all inclusive teaching on divorce. In context this statement on divorce and remarriage is an example of one stroke of the Law which the Pharisees tended to minimize but which was still valid. The fact that the Pharisees misused the OT teaching on divorce is simply another illustration of the hypocrisy of their attention to the most minute details of the Law (to which they added their traditions).
Brian Bell says that Lk 16:18 is "Not primarily a teaching on divorce. It is an example demonstrating that the Torah and the Prophets continue to have authoritative force."
Judaism 101 (a Jewish website) writes that "Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her."
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. Is it wrong to ever divorce and remarry for any reason?
It's always a violation of God's plan to divorce. However, we are often put in a position on this earth where we need to make "lesser of two evil" choices. On the other hand, on our own, we have a strong tendency to justify our own actions. Since this is the case, we need to submit the decision to church leaders (in the hope that the leaders will be seeing God's will in the matter).
2. Is there any caveats to the adultery charge?
No. Those who divorce and remarry will be committing the sin of adultery. That may be the lesser of a number of sins though. Life is messy. You can both commit sin and do what God desires. Does that mean that God will direct us down a path that leads to us committing sin? In certain cases, yes. He realizes who He is dealing with and knows it's necessary to make concessions with us. Life is messy (and sinful).
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. Is it wrong to ever divorce and remarry for any reason?
It's always a violation of God's plan to divorce. However, we are often put in a position on this earth where we need to make "lesser of two evil" choices. On the other hand, on our own, we have a strong tendency to justify our own actions. Since this is the case, we need to submit the decision to church leaders (in the hope that the leaders will be seeing God's will in the matter).
2. Is there any caveats to the adultery charge?
No. Those who divorce and remarry will be committing the sin of adultery. That may be the lesser of a number of sins though. Life is messy. You can both commit sin and do what God desires. Does that mean that God will direct us down a path that leads to us committing sin? In certain cases, yes. He realizes who He is dealing with and knows it's necessary to make concessions with us. Life is messy (and sinful).