The whole chapter of 1Cor 7 is crucial to understanding Paul’s additional regulations and concessions concerning marriage. His teaching is the last word on the issue and he adds to what we have from the OT and to what the Lord has said as recorded in the Gospels. Any teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage that fails to consider 1Cor 7 is incomplete.
Maybe I should warn you that I am about to tread onto another "sacred cow" and some may disagree violently. That does not bother me. I only ask that they give their reasons for understanding Paul’s words here differently.
That Paul is answering questions regarding singleness, marriage, divorce, and remarriage is clear from the context. Paul starts off with, "concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1Cor 7:1). This seems to be a response to the question "Is it a good idea to remain single?" Paul responds, "If avoiding sexual sin requires one to marry, get married. And after getting married meet each others physical needs, except for mutually agreed on seasons of prayer and fasting. At the end of the time consecrated to the Lord, resume marital relations, lest you fall prey to Satan’s snares".
Then Paul states his preference that those can handle singleness, stay single, but this is not a command (v. 6-7, see also Matt 19:10-12).
Verse 8 introduces a word that appears nowhere else in Scripture but here in this chapter. The word "unmarried" (Greek - agamos) appears four times, in verses 8, 11, 32, 34. It is distinguished from "widows" "wives" and "virgins" (v. 8, 34). It is defined in verse 11 as one who has "depart[ed]" from her husband – "Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." The word "depart", Greek - chwridzw means divorce. Jesus uses this word to refer to divorce in Matt 19:6 – "What therefore God had joined together, let not man put asunder." I believe it is wrong to understand the departing as anything less than full divorce. Some have argued that Paul allows for separation, but not divorce in this chapter. Such an interpretation fails to take into account the Lord’s use of the word and that chwridzw is used in other Greek literature to clearly indicate divorce. The idea of a "Biblical Separation" that is less than divorce is a modern explanation that has no support from either the Greek or ancient custom. Paul defines "unmarried" as a wife who has departed from her husband or a husband who has "put away" his wife.
This is important to understand that Paul tells us that he is adding to the teaching of the Lord Jesus from verse 12 and on. – "to the rest, speak I not the Lord". Just as in verse 10, Paul told us that the command to remain married is from the Lord.
Jesus has given some clear instruction and in my judgment Matthew 19 allows divorce and remarriage for "fornication", or more broadly, almost any "sexual sin" (Greek - porneia). No doubt many will disagree with me here. But I will explain more fully after looking at the OT.
The original passage that the Pharisees quoted in attempting Jesus to side with the conservative Rabbi Shammai, or the liberal Hillel, was from Deut 24:1-4. Shammai allowed for divorce only for adultery and Hillel allowed for divorce for almost any reason. Hillel’s view was certainly the most popular but if they could force Jesus to choose one over the other, then the other crowd would be against Him.
The Jews understood the Deut 24:1-4 passage as a "command to give a writing of divorcement" (Matt 19:7). The AV wording can also be so understood – "then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house" (v. 1). Jesus replies, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered (emphasis added) you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). Jesus corrects the perception that Moses commanded divorce.
The actual Hebrew sense (protasis apodisis, sp?) of the Deut 24 passage is as follows: "When a man takes a wife, marries her, AND IF he finds some uncleanness in her, writes her a bill of divorce and sends her out of his house; AND IF she goes and marries another man; AND IF the latter husband divorces her, OR IF the latter husband dies, THEN she may not return to her first husband." The passage regulates the divorces that were already being practiced by the Jews as learned from either the Egyptians or the other nations. ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTICE HERE: God does not regulate that which He forbids! God regulates the practice of divorce, He does not forbid it.
Three other important points to notice here. 1) There is no thought of a betrothal period in Deut 24. 2) The divorce did break the marriage, and 3) the second marriage is recognized as valid since the man who takes her next is called "husband". The argument that "divorce does not break a marriage" (Gothard and others) and that any future marriage is therefore adultery fails to stand from the very first Biblical mention of the practice of divorce and remarriage. AGAIN, God’s regulation is not prohibition, it is tacit permission. God tolerated the practice, even though it was against His original plan. Why? Because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). His original plan was one man, one woman, one lifetime, period. Then sin entered the picture and God finally grants this concession regarding the practice – after a divorce and another marriage, a woman may not go back to her first husband.
Why is the Deut 24 passage significant? BECAUSE it is impossible to understand the NT correctly without a correct foundational understanding of the OT. The OT is the foundation upon which the NT stands. Jesus words must always be understood, interpreted, and reconciled in light of what we find in the OT.
Many have suggested that the Jesus’ use of the word "fornication" indicates that the divorce occurs during the betrothal period. Joseph was prepared to divorce Mary upon learning that she was pregnant. It is true that divorce was required to break the betrothal even before the marriage had been consummated. The question remains, is that what is in view here in Matthew 19?
The original passage that was used to introduce the passage has no thought of a betrothal period anywhere in the text. The fact that a return to the first husband would be "defile[ment]... abomination... [and] sin" seems to clearly rule out any idea that the marriages had not been consummated. Some have argued that the use of porneia rather than moichea suggests that sexual relations prior to marriage are in view. This understanding of the word "fornication" is naive and not in line with its use in either the NT or other ancient Greek literature. The word porneia is much broader than moichea and would encompass any kind of sexual sin, including adultery. The argument that adultery could not have been meant in Matthew 19 since the Mosaic Law provided for stoning in that case fails to take into account that the Jews were no longer able to carry out that sentence because of the Roman occupation.
The question by the Pharisees was an attempt to force Jesus into one of the two camps, either that of Shammai or Hillel. It would seem that Jesus chose middle ground after reminding them that God’s original plan and current desire was one man, one woman, for one lifetime. The concession to divorce was God’s concession because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). Then Jesus says, "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." Again, this must be understood on the basis of the foundation laid in Deut 24.
In Jesus’ day, the whole debate revolved around what was meant by "some uncleanness" (Deut 24:1). The only other place the same two words are used in Scripture is in Deut 23:14 – "And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee." (Vss 13-14). The word "uncleanness" (Heb. ervah) is used 54 times and is translated as nakedness (51), shame, unclean, and uncleanness (once each). In the Deut 24 passage it seems apparent that something less than adultery or premarital sexual activity is indicated since the Mosaic Law generally required stoning in both of those cases.
(continued below)
