Expert: Joe Norman - 7/18/2011

Question
QUESTION: Hello Joe,
    I appreciated the time and effort you spend in answering folks questions. I noticed in one of your responses concerning MDR, you stated to a person that the term "adulterous marriage" is not even found in the Bible. I have read enough of your responses to know that you would agree that just because a specific term is not found in the Bible does not mean that the subject is not addressed by the Bible or that a specific term can be clearly implied by other words, etc. That being said, I am curious to what you believe Jesus is saying in Matt.19:9 where He states, "... and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." To me, while Jesus did not say that those in that situation were in "adulterous marriages", His words still explicitly imply that it was indeed an adulterous marriage that He was referring to. He said that those who divorced their wives for any reason other than sexual immorality and married another were committing adultery and whoever married that man's wife (who was not divorced for sexaul immorality) would also be committing adultery. Doesn't that clearly imply that those in that position would be in "adulterous marriages"? Also,the term "commits adultery" is in the present tense indicating that Jesus was saying that those in that situation were commiting adultery. In other words, as long as they stayed in that marriage the would continue to be committing adultery.
   Also, I would appreciate your thoughts on why the disciples said what they did in v.10 after hearing Jesus' teaching on MDR. If, as you teach concerning MDR (i.e.- that one can still remarry regardless of their past marital history), if this is true why did the disciples say, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." This is my take: If Jesus was implying (as your teaching declares) that one can still remarry after being divorced for any reason, I would think that His disciples would have simply remained silent. But yet the Holy Spirit felt it necessary to include v.10. At the time of Jesus' teaching here, divorce was common because of sinful living and also because of the permission of the men to give their wives a certificate of divorce.  Those disciples (along with many others) who uttered what they did in v.10 no doubt were used to having the option to divorce their wives. Those who were single would have also had this idea of the option to divorce for any reason. Jesus is now bringing that era of thinking to a close and laying down a "new" law that was not a new law. Jesus simply said that God's original law on marriage was now back in effect. And because Jesus was "shutting the door" on divorce for any reason, the disciples said what they said in v.10. To me, it is clear that they understood that Jesus was saying something to the effect, "One man and one woman for life, no exceptions unless your spouse cheats on you, period." To, me that is why the disciples were saying "If that is the case it is best to stay single, other wise we're going to be stuck for life with one woman" (Of course this is my modern day wording). Again to me, this statement of theirs makes no sense if what you teach is correct. One other note Joe: I have read some of your comments on MDR where you correctly note that when Jesus spoke these words there were no Christian in the world because the church had not been established. Of course this is quite true. But Jesus was not only addressing the Pharisees in this passage. While the context demands one acknowledge that Jesus was answering a direct question by the Pharisees (19:3), His teaching was not only for the ears and benefit of the Pharisees but for the "great multitudes" that were gathered along with the few Pharisees (19:2). So Jesus was telling everyone gathered there that day that regardless of the Pharisees understanding of the Law of Moses - which would answer the Jews questions of MDR - He now said from that time forward that everyone - Jews, Gentiles, and future Christians - that it is one man and one woman for life with one exception. If you do not agree that Jesus was addressing everyone present that day then I believe that you are not practicing a proper hermeneutical approach to this passage. I do say this with all due respect and with no mean-spiritness toward you Joe. Just wondering what your thoughts are to my comments. I thank you, in advance, for any time you may spend in responding. Sent to you with all respect and in Christian love, Tom.

ANSWER: Hi Tom,

I do appreciate you asking me your questions although your presentation is very long and detailed, I will do my best to respond. But I do believe I have explained the verses you have asked about in previous answers on MDR here. Regardless, I will once more explain and answer your questions.

Yes I do agree that just because a specific term isn't found in the Bible it doesn't mean such a thing is not implied etc. But I don't believe such a thing is implied by Jesus and don't believe it is even possible to have an "adulterous marriage". In Matthew 19:9 we need to consider several things. Good hermeneutics require us to establish the proper context first of all. We need to answer questions like, to whom was Jesus speaking? What was the situation?

No one will dispute that Jesus was being tested and questioned by Pharisees regarding the Law of Moses - specifically, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Most will even explain that the two main schools of thought on MDR at that time were by two respected rabbi's, Hillel and Shammai. Hillel's view was far more popular and accepted among the Jews of that time. Hillel taught a Jewish man can divorce his wife for any reason. Shammai taught he could only divorce her for sexual unfaithfulness. The Pharisees wanted to see which side Jesus took in this matter or more importantly if they could catch Him contradicting the Law of Moses so they could have Him thrown in prison. I am sure you know all this though.

Here is what I firmly believe. The majority of the Pharisees and Jewish men were ignoring one fact about what Moses said about divorce and remarriage in Deuteronomy. They were ignoring that Moses did mention a cause for divorce. God spoke through Moses too don't forget. GOD saw the need to permit divorce. Yet it was a command by God as to when a man can divorce and how it should be done. Let's look at Deuteronomy 24:1-4 together okay?

Deut.24:-4
1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

The cause Moses mentions is if he finds some uncleanness in her #in the NKJV#. The Hebrew word is "ervah". It can mean blemish, uncleanness, shame, disgrace. I believe the most logical understanding is divorce is acceptable if the woman did something to cause shame or disgrace upon her husband. I don't believe this refers to adultery though because the punishment for adultery under the Law of Moses was death by stoning. Anyway, this cause was being ignored by the majority of Pharisees and Jewish men of Jesus' day. Next we see there were 3 steps in the divorce. The husband would write a certificate of divorce, put it in her hand, and send her away. The whole purpose of that certificate was to free her to be joined in marriage to another man. This was a way to protect Jewish women from mistreatment by Jewish men. Without something to show she is free from that marriage she would never again be able to enter into a marriage. But let's note one other fact totally ignored by most everyone in the church of Christ. Verse 4 says that if her latter husband divorces her or dies she cannot return to her original husband. To return to him would be an abomination before God. So many today tell people who they believe are currently in an "adulterous marriage" they must divorce and either return to their original spouse or remain celibate to be right with God. Well why is that when God said such a thing would be an abomination?

Okay now let's return to Matthew 19. On a side note, I find it troubling that you focus so much on Matthew 19 and especially verse 9 of that chapter and ignore all other passages on MDR in the New Testament. But more on that later. You correctly state that Jesus was being questioned and tested by Pharisees. You claim that since Jesus was also speaking to the surrounding crowd this indicates His teaching applies to all from that day forward...Jews, Gentiles, future Christians, etc. I don't deny Jesus was also addressing the surrounding crowd but do disagree that Jesus was laying down new law for all future generations. I know you said this "new law" was in fact not new but God's original law. But then you mess up. God's original desire and purpose for man was ONE woman and ONE man join in marriage for life...NO EXCEPTIONS. This was the Law on marriage until God spoke through Moses in Deuteronomy 24. Now what Jesus sought to stop was the false teaching that the reason was unimportant; that a Jewish man can divorce for any reason.

What Jesus said as I see it is He reaffirmed what Moses said in Deut.24 and that there is one acceptable cause under the Law of Moses. That cause is if the wife did something to bring shame or disgrace upon her husband. I believe Jesus used "porneia" as the Greek equivalent to "ervah". One thing that causes me to believe this is that Jesus used a different word that specifically means "adultery" #moichao# later in the verse. If Jesus meant the only acceptable reason for divorce is adultery, He would have used that specific word #moichao# instead of "porneia".

Also, had Jesus contradicted Moses, the Pharisees would have had Him arrested on the spot. Now in reference to the "great multitude" there is nothing to indicate this multitude included anyone who was not a Jew. In fact, Jesus states that He was only sent to the nation of Israel.

Matt.15:24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Now let's consider what Jesus meant by the whoever divorces except for cause of fornication and marries another commits adultery and whoever marries she who is divorced except for cause of fornication commits adultery. First, what is it that causes the adultery? Is it the sex with the new spouse? NO! Let's look at what He said carefully. I will use the ASV since many still consider it the most accurate translation into English.

Matt.19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

First I will address what causes the adultery. You suggest that "commits adultery" implies that the new marriage is a continuous committing of adultery. I completely disagree. If you carefully read what Jesus said it is not the sex with the new spouse which causes the adultery. It is the divorce for reasons other than "fornication" which I am convinced refers to Moses' reason in Deut 24 - ervah or something causing shame or disgrace upon the husband. To convince you I am right about divorce causing the adultery I want you to carefully read Matthew 5:31,32.

Matt.5:31,32
31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Here we see that Jesus says the husband MAKES the wife an adulteress by divorcing her for reasons other than "fornication". See it is the divorce. But it is also the act of marrying someone new as well. Why? Well because there wasn't a legitimate cause for the divorce. So when the man who divorced for no valid reason gets married to someone new, he is guilty of a one time sin act of adultery. The woman is forced into being an adulteress merely by the divorce and any man who marries her is guilty of a one time sin act of adultery by choosing to marry her. So since the divorce is a one time act and the remarriage is a one time act the adultery must also be a one time act. But again this is all Old Covenant.

Now the way a sentence is normally analyzed here is how it should be understood. Jesus said, If someone divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery and whoever marries the woman who is divorced commits adultery as well...unless the reason for the divorce was fornication. So if the cause was fornication, logically then, if the divorce was for the reason of fornication, then neither the husband marrying someone new nor a new man marrying the divorced wife would be committing adultery. This is the logical understanding but it is thrown out the window because so many within the church have trouble believing anyone guilty of "fornication", which they wrongly believe means adultery, can possibly ever be free to have a marriage ever again.

Now I also want to point out you misunderstand me if you think I believe or teach that Jesus said a person can divorce and remarry for any reason. I never once said or teach that. I clearly said Jesus' words were Old Covenant only. Jesus indeed was saying a Jewish man cannot divorce for any reason he wants. He can only divorce if his wife did something to bring shame or disgrace upon him under the Law of Moses. Now let me address Matthew 19:10-12.

Matt.19:10-12
10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry. 11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Yes the disciples determined if such is the case, it is better if a man just never marry at all. Jesus said not all can accept a life of celibacy. Jesus spoke of different types of eunuchs. He said some are born eunuchs #birth defect#, some are surgically altered to be eunuchs, and some MAKE THEMSELVES eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven's sake. You see Jesus never said anyone should live celibate or has to remain celibate because of sinning by divorcing for wrong reasons. Paul encouraged a life of celibacy as well in I Corinthians 7 but he only encouraged it because the church was being persecuted at that time. He did not command anyone to remain celibate because they divorced for bad reasons. In fact Paul says something similar to Jesus in I Cor.7:6-9. But again Paul says only those given the "gift" can endure such a life. He also said it is better to marry than to burn with passion for those lacking the "gift" to live celibate without fornicating.

Now what about Christians? Clearly we should all seek to adhere to God's original plan and desire for one man and one woman to marry becoming one flesh for life. That should be the only thing in our minds when we enter into a marriage. We should not even consider divorce as a possible option. Marriage should never be rushed into or done without careful thought and really knowing the person we choose to marry. BUT, we have a level of God's grace that was not available under the law of Moses. I don't see anything written in Acts through Revelation indicating anyone ever becomes ineligible for a new marriage. Well Paul doesn't seem to be concerned with how a person became loosed in I Cor.7:27,28. He says to those "loosed" from a wife not to marry but if they do they do not sin. Now clearly if you are loosed, you were once bound. So this would logically include both those widowed and those divorced. If not, why not?

I do appreciate the questions and hope that I have answered you to your satisfaction. Again, I never taught or believed Jesus ever said a person can divorce for any reason and remarry.  I do believe some divorces and remarriages are sin and not pleasing to God, but I also don't believe the new marriage is seen as an adulterous marriage by God. Adultery is in essence unfaithfulness to a covenant. If you remain faithful to your second or third spouse you are not being unfaithful to that marriage covenant. I don't think anyone should be constantly in and out of marriages at all.

In Christian Love, Joe Norman







---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hello Joe, Thank you for your timely reply to me. While I do not agree (no surprise here :)) with your stance on MDR, as it pertains to what we have discussed, I appreciate your input. As you have said, this is not the place for debate and I agree. I would have just bid you farewell but two comments you made in your response to me prompts me to ask you to clarify if you would. First,you state the following: "Again, I never taught or believed Jesus ever said a person can divorce for any reason and remarry." Please correct me, but the fact that, according to your teaching that no one can be in an adulterous marriage, tells me that one can be divorced for any reason and remarry. After all, Jesus said that if anyone divorces for any reason, save the one exception, that person commits adultery. Jesus is not allowing for divorce for any other reason.
   Secondly, you state: "I do believe some divorces and remarriages are sin and not pleasing to God,..." Can you tell me what divorces and remarriages would fall under this category? And also since you say there are some remarriages that are "sin" and "not pleasing to God" are you then implying that those who are in and who remain in those marriages put their salvation in jeopardy? Thanks again, in advance, for your time in responding.  In Christian love, Tom

Answer
Hi again Tom,

I am not surprised you don't agree with me and doubt either of us can or will convince the other he is wrong either. BUT, I will try to better clarify myself because I really didn't choose my words well in places and so in a way I am glad you wanted me to clarify. I wish this was set up a little differently too because I would like to ask questions of you too for clarification and maybe a better understanding of your position as well. Having said that, I don't really feel debating would be productive for either of us. I am very thankful for your kindness, politeness, and the Christian love you express in spite of our differences on MDR. On most any other subject I am pretty sure we are very much on the same page. I strongly defend the no musical instruments in Christian worship for instance. Most would label me conservative except in regard to MDR. I just seek to be Biblical and believe I am in every way.

I do want to explain that I had been raised to believe what I am sure you believe on MDR. But I started seeing problems with the "traditional" view by the time I was in high school. Over the years my understanding of MDR has changed as I deepened my study. It is possible to change my mind on a Bible topic if the evidence is there. My dad taught me to study for myself to determine what is true and not to blindly accept what anyone teaches...not even himself. I know it is the responsibility of each Christian to do this too.

Sorry for the long winded opening paragraphs. I will now do my best to respond to your follow up.
You state that the fact that, according to my teaching, #no one can be in an adulterous marriage#, tells you that one can be divorced and remarry. Then you say Jesus was only providing one exception for divorce. I completely agree that Jesus was only providing one exception. But that doesn't mean that Jesus was implying if a remarriage occurs for other reasons, it is an adulterous marriage. It simply means they in essence committed adultery against their original spouse by ending a marriage for other reasons and then compounded their unfaithfulness to the original spouse by entering into a new marriage with someone else. It does not mean the new marriage is "adulterous" it was the getting married...a one time act. Yes Jesus was seeking to prevent Jewish men from divorcing for any reason they wanted. But nowhere does Jesus say anyone MUST divorce their current spouse and either live celibate or return to the original spouse to be right with God. Nowhere does Jesus say that anyone is forbidden to have a new marriage.

I don't believe it is humanly possible for a person to be in an adulterous marriage because all evidence shows divorce ends a marriage and if you are in a new marriage and faithful to the new spouse you are not able to be guilty of adultery.

What has always puzzled me is that the proper way to understand what Jesus says is as I stated in my last answer. If a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery. If another man marries the woman who was divorced commits adultery. UNLESS the reason for the divorce was "fornication". If the reason was fornication, then there is no adultery for anyone. I am sure you believe Jesus was meaning adultery when He said fornication as the only reason for divorce too...but I just don't see how He could have meant adultery. As I pointed out, when Jesus says a man commits adultery by divorcing, he used the word Moichao which specifically means adultery. Had Jesus meant "except for adultery" He would have used that word "moichao" because it is very specific and He used it two other places in that same sentence.

Also, Jesus doesn't say anyone who was in a second or third marriage needed to divorce. No one in the entire Bible tells anyone that. No one in the first 400 years after the church was established did that either. The only time a marriage is condemned in the New Testament was when it was the case of Herod and Herodias...the problem with that marriage was not that it was a second or third or more marriage. It was the fact that Herod took his brother's wife and his brother was still alive.

Regardless, I firmly believe Jesus was just returning the Jews to the original intention of Deut.24:1-4 and it does not really apply to Christians. The part that applies is all Christians should only enter into marriage with the intent and focus that this is once for life. No thought should be in their heads that divorce is an option if the marriage doesn't go as well as you dreamed or imagined it would. God definitely wants us to marry once for life. Two Christians should be able to overcome any problem that might arise in their marriage too if they work together and keep their Christian mindset in place to guide them.

Now for the second part of your follow up.

I should have worded that better. ALL divorce occurs as a result of one or both committing some kind of sin. That's the bottom line. I hate divorce. My divorce nearly killed me it hurt so bad. My wife was unfaithful to me with a married man she worked with too. Yet I tried to save my marriage for over six months. I am NOT wanting to ever encourage divorce and new marriages. BUT, we do have God's grace and the ONLY sin that is not forgivable is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Yes divorce occurs when one or both become selfish and or their hearts become hard from some kind of sin taking over.

It is wrong for any Christian to divorce their spouse if there was no serious breaking of the marriage covenant. Unfaithfulness on a serious level as I see it includes physical and verbal abuse as well as sexual unfaithfulness. But even if a spouse is guilty of these things, the innocent spouse #if there is one# can and should try to save the marriage anyway. BUT #as in my case# when it's clear the guilty spouse has no desire to stop the sin and fix the problems in the marriage, divorce is necessary. God COMMANDED through Moses when and how to divorce under the Old Covenant with the Jewish nation. Jesus stated this was put in place due to the hardness of man's hearts. Mankind will always have hard hearts on occasion because sin is in the world and Satan is always seeking whom he can devour.

It is wrong to divorce your wife or husband just because you want a younger or more attractive spouse. To list all the other wrong reasons to divorce would be a very long list but I hope the things I have written have clarified my position better for you. But I don't believe two wrongs make a right and don't think it is for me or anyone to tell someone they MUST divorce their current spouse to be right with God. What I think pleases God more is that these people LEARN from their wrong behavior and make their current or future marriage one that will please God.

I am not implying that those who are in and remain in a marriage they entered into for wrong reasons are putting their salvation in jeopardy. I believe they can be taught and or learn they were wrong for divorcing and possibly wrong for how and why they married their current spouse. They can repent by working to make their current marriage one centered on living for God and focusing on making it last for life. I don't believe remaining in a marriage that was entered into for wrong reasons is an "adulterous marriage".

Paul clearly listed certain things as doctrines of demons in I Tim 4:1-3 and one of those things he listed was "forbidding to marry". Although I know that directly applies to the Catholic churches requirement of celibacy for their priests, there is no reason to limit it to just Catholic priests. Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons because as we learn from Genesis, it is not good for man to be alone. Obviously, homosexual marriages would be completely sinful but homosexuality is sinful with or without them being married. So is incestuous marriages. I do hope I have helped clarify my position better.

In Christian Love, Joe Norman