|
Voice of the Valley Volume 9, Issue 1 (January 2003) Observations On Matthew 19:9 By Brian Price Most are aware that there has been a contentious debate over the doctrine and application of Matthew 19:9. It is with some trepidation that I even write on the subject. As soon as these thoughts get published I set myself up for the biting and devouring of one another that has been so prevalent with this issue. I risk the accusation that I’m not scholarly enough or that I am unlearned in the things necessary to fully understand this passage. With that thought I am reminded that God has used the ignorant and unlearned before (Acts 4: 13) and pray that he can continue to use me in his service. It is my hope that if anything within this article is found to be untrue, that we can sit down and resolve those issues with love and respect for one another. 1st Observation: Over the years I have always been taught (and accurately so) that the specifics of a verse must be understood within the context. For example: Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:8 that the unmarried and widows should remain unmarried as he was unmarried. Yet, in 1 Timothy 5:14 he tells the younger women to marry. If we ignore the context of 1 Corinthians 7 we have an apparent contradiction in Paul’s teachings. However, a simple examination of 1 Corinthians 7 will easily illustrate that those comments are said under a “present distress.” Without context we would be unable to discern that point. In relationship to Matthew 19:9 we must remember that it is stated within a context as well. I have heard and read from men who emphasize the last 11 words of this verse (“and whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery”) to the point of ignoring the rest of the context of the verse and the entire passage. First of all I believe that verse 3 clearly sets the context of this passage. The question was asked of Jesus, “is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Notice the question. The question is not about procedure. The question is not about how does civil law and God’s law work together in relation to the problem of divorce. The question is about cause. To ignore that fact is to ignore the rule of context. That fact is also evident in examining the answer that Jesus gives. He teaches that God never intended for divorce to be acceptable. When the tolerance of Moses is questioned Jesus firmly restates God’s original intent. One man for one woman for life. He culminates his answer in verse 9 by stating that a man cannot be divorced for every cause but for one cause (fornication). I’m convinced I that many problems over this passage could be avoided if we would remember the question that prompted Jesus to teach these principles. There is another difficulty have noticed based out of the same problem of ignoring context. If we examine the verse closely I believe that we will see that those words (“and whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery”) apply to a specific group of divorced people. If you removed the exception clause from the verse it would read as follows, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” I believe that this statement is easily understood as applying to the divorced whose putting away was not for the cause of fornication. Again remembering the overall context will help us understand that Jesus is concluding his answer to the question, “is it lawful to put away one's wife for every cause.” This verse places the guilt of adultery upon both parties because fornication was not the cause of the putting away. When fornication is involved, Jesus permits the innocent party to remarry without the guilt of adultery. To apply the last 11 words of the verse to the innocent party whose spouse committed fornication, does not follow the context of the passage or the verse. 2nd Observation: This 2nd observation is similar to the first in that it deals with context as well. Some have attempted to turn Matthew 19:3-9 into a passage that deals with procedure and order rather than about cause. I agree that there is one aspect of order in this passage and that is that the fornication occurs prior to the putting away. For something to be the cause of a subsequent action it must of necessity occur first. When fornication is considered the cause of the putting away, it obviously must occur before the putting away. However, I see no mention of procedure as to how one puts away his fornicating mate in this passage or any other. Nor do I see any indication that the guilty one’s actions would nullify the innocent’s ability to put their guilty spouse away. Many have argued that this debate is not about a race to the courthouse. I’ll accept their honesty and acknowledge that it may not be a race to the courthouse. The truth is, what it has become is a race to the putting away. Because of what some are teaching, an innocent spouse wrestles with the problem of taking the time to attempt to save their marriage and running the risk of the guilty beating them to the putting away punch. They are told that if they get put away first, according to a procedure that I have yet to see in scripture, they will not be permitted to remarry without being considered an adulterer. Rather than run that risk, many will begin the “putting away procedure” without ever attempting to not “put asunder” what God had “joined together.” Friends, the reality of such a position is that it pits God’s law of not putting asunder one’s marriage against his permission to put away a guilty spouse. It does so by placing time constraints on one’s decision as to whether they should put their spouse away or attempt to save their marriage. I simply do not believe that this passage is about procedure. It is about cause and for us to begin to bind a particular order and procedure to the divorce process is to speak beyond the “oracles of God.” 3rd Observation: Finally I want to briefly note that I believe we have at times both over complicated and over simplified this passage. First of all I do not believe you have to be a Greek scholar or an English professor to be able to understand this passage. At times I believe we have so complicated the passage that most folks don’t have a clue as to what were talking about. Jesus intended for people to be able to apply this passage to their lives if need be. He intended to give the victims of a fornicating spouse the right of remarriage if they so choose. For us to complicate the desires of Jesus to the point that we deny the innocent what Jesus intended to give them is unfair and unscriptural. We have also over simplified the passage. The well intended attempts to make this passage easier to apply have actually created restrictions that are not found in the passage. To bind segments of the passage onto folks it was not intended for, even in an attempt to simplify the issue, only serves to bind where God has not bound. Let us speak all of the truth on this issue, no more and no less. Let us speak it in a way that is understandable to folks whose homes are not filled with the works of Greek scholars and who have not been tutored in ancient languages. Final Thoughts: Brethren and friends it saddens me to see the difficulties these issues have caused. There has been division and strife that could have been avoided. Let us work diligently to study God’s Word on this and all matters and let his truth be honored. May we teach and practice only the things that can be evidenced with book, chapter, and verse. As I close these observations let me, offer a brief request. One question that I have raised over the course of this controversy has been, “when one’s spouse is guilty of fornication and the innocent party desires to put them away and have the right to remarry, what procedure must they follow and what passages of scripture speak to that procedure?” Maybe there is something that I am missing. If so I want to know the truth of what the Bible speaks on that subject. May God give us the wisdom to understand and apply all of his will? This article is not an attempt to exhaust every aspect of this discussion. It simply serves to raise some observations that might help in our continued study of these principles. Voice of the Valley Volume 9, Issue 2, (July 2003) Further Thoughts On Matthew 19 By Brian Price The following article has taken on many forms over the past several months. Knowing that this issue would not be printed in a timely way, I shared with several some early versions of this article. For the sake of space I have narrowed the article to the following thoughts. It is my hope that these thoughts will answer some questions that a few folks asked concerning the original article. Do I believe that fornication that occurs after a marriage has already been “put asunder” can qualify the innocent of fornication to now remarry. No, I do not believe that to be true. I believe I clearly stated in the original article under the 2nd observation that fornication must occur prior to the putting away. The problem I raised in the article dealt with anyone who would attempt to bind a particular procedure to the act of “putting away,” that cannot be found in scripture. The reason for a non-descript procedure can be simply understood by acknowledging that this “procedure” would include a variety of things as God’s will on the subject is exercised throughout the ages and in varying cultures. I’m not trying to sound flippant but we need to remember that God’s Word was not written solely for US citizens with access to our laws. In the absence of an objective procedure we are left with the necessity of exercising expedient judgment to determine when the putting away occurs. In a laboratory we might be able to simplify this but in real life circumstances it is more difficult. Some say that the putting away occurs when I have put away my spouse mentally. While I agree that the “heart” and mind of a man direct his life (Proverb 4:23) I do not believe in “mind divorce” any more than I believe two people can claim to be “mind married.” If all one had to do was think to himself that he “put away” his wife, I imagine that in many strained relationships there would be a daily putting away that occurs. I believe that the decision to put away one’s mate must not only happen in one’s mind but must also be followed by action evident of one’s decision. I understand that in the United States that that action will at some point need to involve honoring the civil law, as God has demanded. (Romans 13:1-7) However, we must be cautious of making the civil proceedings the only source of evidence as to whether or not the innocent of fornication has “put away” the guilty of fornication. There may be other actions that took place that we should consider as well in determining whether one has a “scriptural divorce.” If “civil divorce” and “scriptural divorce” are always one in the same then really the only thing we have is “civil divorce.” I do not believe the Bible teaches their equality. Simply put, I believe that in the absence of a specific procedure, one who desires to put away their fornicating spouse should use actions that in the society and culture that they live, can be understood as their effort to put away their mate who is guilty of fornication. Elders, churches, brethren, etc. will be required to exercise righteous judgment in determining whether one has fulfilled that obligation. Sure it would be nice if there were a perfect procedure that removed all judgment out of the picture and made it all objective. The fact is that the civil procedure is going to require the cooperation of 3 individuals, the innocent of fornication desiring to put their spouse away for such, the guilty of fornication, and the judge (magistrate, law-master, etc...). The fact is that rarely does one get the cooperation necessary for the civil proceedings to shed light on the truth of what is taking place with that divorce. I believe we must weigh all actions to determine whether one truly put their spouse away for fornication leaving them with the liberty of remarriage. We don’t rely solely on the civil document to determine who is scripturally married so should we rely solely on the civil document to determine who is scripturally divorced? With all that said, let me share one word of caution. Although God places responsibilities of judgment with man, ultimately the lawgiver will judge every soul. If we are careless and dishonest in making these judgments, we will be held accountable. Any who would “put away” their spouse for the cause of fornication should desire to be 100% sure rather than jeopardize their soul by remarrying, as well as jeopardizing the soul of their new spouse.
Brian K. Price |
|