Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this post are the author’s, and do reflect an official stance of Covenant Eyes. While recognizing the reality of brokenness caused by pornography, Covenant Eyes celebrates restored relationships whenever possible. We recommend our article 6 Powerful Stories of Marriages that Overcame Porn if you are looking for encouragement!
“I am hurting so much over this…If I believed in divorce I would already have done it, and I am beginning to maybe believe divorce is ok. After all, this seems like a type of adultery to me. Am I wrong?” – Mary Ann
After writing more than 1,200 articles for Covenant Eyes and having replied to too many comments and e-mails to count, undoubtedly the most heart-wrenching stories I hear are from women who are living with a porn-addicted husband.
When a woman has discovered her husband is entrenched in pornography, reactions can vary greatly, but for many women it is nothing short of traumatic. Whether she’s dealing with the initial blow of uncovering a 20-year-long secret addiction, or she’s facing the daily blow of her husband’s coldness, for these women their life feels like a living hell.
In the past, when asked if divorce could ever be a viable option for these women, my typical response has been a reluctant no. As much as my heart went out to these women trapped in horrific marriages, I simply didn’t see any biblical justification for divorce in situations of porn use.
About a year ago I decided I was going to write my Master’s thesis about this topic and had intended to write a robust biblical defense of my position.
I never imaged I would come to the opposite conclusion.
Some Caveats
Before we launch into this issue, let me state a few caveats.
- Divorce is ugly. We must acknowledge, when addressing the subject of grounds for divorce, the situation that even prompts us to ask this question is under divine judgment. It is a question that involves real hearts, real homes, and a real God who really hates divorce. So it is with great sobriety that we take up this study.
- Having grounds for divorce is not the same as actually getting divorced. This article seeks to answer the grounds question as it relates to pornography. But having legitimate grounds for divorce does not necessitate divorce.
- This article is long and heady. This is not a delicate how-to article for couples in crisis. It is a clumsy attempt to summarize a 33,000-word theological Master’s thesis. Reader be warned.
- The opinions expressed here are my own. Divorce is a contentious issue, and I won’t dare to assume a single article forever settles the debates. I only hope it is a significant addition to the discussion.
The Central Text: Matthew 19:9
The locus of the debate about whether pornography use is ground for divorce is Matthew 19:9:
“I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Time and space do not permit me to get into every detail of this text, but a few observations are important:
1. This comment comes after a very strong affirmation about the divine intention for marriage. Just a few verses prior, Jesus says, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5).
Jesus uses a type of exegesis common early rabbinic Judaism called gezerah shavah, where the activity of God in the first text (making us male and female) is inferred in the second text (the two becoming one flesh). Thus, God is one who joins man and woman together in the covenant bond of marriage. God is the one who unites husband and wife in whole-life oneness. Therefore, what God has joined together, man should not separate (v.6). Marriage is meant to be a lifelong, loving covenant bond.
2. Jesus strikes at the Pharisees’ liberal view of marriage by saying all remarriages after invalid divorces are adulterous. In Jesus’ day, the majority position, promoted by Rabbi Hillel, was “any cause” divorce: any kind of indecency—real or imaginary—was grounds for divorce. As such, divorce was actually quite common among the Pharisees. This view is reflected in the Pharisee’s opening question to Jesus: “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (19:3, italics added). In other words, they were asking, “Jesus, do you agree with Hillel’s position on divorce?”
Jesus’ answer is ruthlessly conservative: getting remarried to another is adultery after getting an invalid divorce. Jesus uses similar logic in other divorce texts (Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:12; Luke 16:18). Against all the cultural expectations of young men to get married, after hearing Jesus’ brazenly conservative view, even the disciples second-guess whether marriage is worth it (Matthew 19:10). Nonetheless, Jesus is stalwart in his view, assaulting the very attitude behind the Pharisees’ question. Marriage is never to be thought of as a casual union, subject to the cavalier whims of an lordly male. Marriage must be treated with respect and reverence.
3. Jesus nuances His view with an exception clause. Jesus’ conservative approach does not mean all marriages are completely undissolvable. After a marriage is severed, remarriage to another is not adulterous in the case of πορνείᾳ (porneia)—sexual immorality.
The majority Protestant position understands porneia to include any illicit sexual intercourse outside of marriage.*
The critical matter for our consideration is this: Would Jesus include pornography use as a divorcible offense?
Straw-Man Arguments
Generally, when I bump into those who think porn use can be grounds for divorce, I come across three very bad arguments. In the past, the weakness of these arguments kept me firmly convinced that pornography in itself could never be biblical grounds for divorce.
Bad Argument #1: Pornography is detrimental to a marriage, therefore it is grounds for divorce.
I agree pornography can be detrimental to a marriage, but grounds for divorce ought not be determined by how detrimental a sin is.
Some theologians want to stretch the definition of porneia to the breaking point, saying it encompasses all manner of offenses like emotional or physical abuse, blasphemy, or other generally destructive behavior. Quite simply, regardless of what we say about these terrible offenses, there’s nothing about the term porneia that suggests these meanings. Jesus was thinking of sexual sins specifically.
Bad Argument #2: Porn = Lust = Adultery = Grounds for Divorce
Viewing porn generally involves lust. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said the man who looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Jesus also said adultery is grounds for divorce—if we take porneia to mean adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). Therefore, it is argued, viewing porn must be grounds for divorce.
There are a couple major problems with this argument. First, it misapplies Jesus’ own words. The intention of Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount is to help His disciples understand the heart of the Law (Matthew 5:17). For instance, Jesus said to be innocent of murder is not enough; anger is also sinful and worthy judgment before the court and ultimately hellfire (v.21-22). It would be wrong to take Jesus’ hyperbolic comments about punishing anger and suggest we set up a formal tribunal to dish out penalties to those who speak harsh words to others. Similarly, to suggest spouses have grounds for divorce for moments of lust goes far beyond Jesus’ intention.
Second, to suggest instances of lust provide grounds for divorce is to give nearly any spouse in the world grounds for divorce. This liberalizes Jesus’ position so much it makes Him worse than the Pharisees he was rebuking.
Bad Argument #3: Pornography Comes from the Word Porneia
Some use a linguistic argument showing porneia’s relationship to the modern term “pornography.” The term “pornography,” meaning “writings of/about prostitutes,” stems from the Greek porn– word group.
However, this is an exegetical fallacy. To interpret a Greek term by how that term has impacted modern languages leads to illegitimate conclusions. For instance, when the Bible says, “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:8), it uses the term ἱλαρός (hilaros) from which we get the English word “hilarious.” If we tried to use a modern definition of “hilarious” to help us define the meaning of the original Greek term, we would come to erroneous conclusions. This makes a mistake of chronology: the Greek authors of the New Testament are not responsible for the development of another language hundreds of years after they wrote their materials.
Doubt Sets In
In the past when I’ve commented on the subject of porn and divorce, my motivation has been to defend Jesus’ conservative view of marriage against the encroachments of liberalism—all the while, trying to show immense compassion for the person whose spouse is deeply mired in pornography.
I reasoned, “Sure, in instances where porn addiction escalates to physical adultery or when an unbelieving spouse is so mired in porn they utterly abandon the marriage, we can talk about the possibility of divorce. But porn use in an of itself is not a legitimate grounds for divorce.”
Generally, the question tends to be phrased this way: “Can pornography use ever be considered adultery?” If it can, some reason, it could be grounds for divorce. Of course, answers to that question will vary depending on who you talk to.
But I now believe we come to misinformed stances on this issue because we’re simply asking the wrong question.
A couple years ago I watched a short video interview with Pastor Douglas Wilson where he addresses this very question. Wilson’s point is that when Jesus uses the term porneia in Matthew 19:9, it is a broad term for “sexual uncleanness,” including adultery but not limited to adultery.
Not too long after this I read these words by Pastor John MacArthur in his book The Divorce Dilemma: God’s Last Word on Lasting Commitment:
In the Greek text, Jesus employs the word porneia, which is capable of a broad range of meanings. It is a general term for fornication (illicit sexual intercourse), but can also apply to various kinds of lascivious or immoral behavior, ranging from a moral flaw in one’s character (such as an obsessive addiction to pornography) to the act of bestiality—or even worse. It’s not the specific Greek word for adultery, which would be moicheia—but certainly includes adultery. (The Divorce Dilemma, p.23-24)
Here were two conservative theologians saying essentially the same thing: Jesus didn’t say “except for adultery”; He said “except for porneia,” which is a broader term.
I knew further investigation was warranted, so I set out to find answers.
So, What Does Porneia Mean?
Often, lexicons will define porneia as illicit or unsanctioned sexual intercourse or any sexual activity outside of marriage. The word can also have a nuanced meaning determined by context—such as a specific kind of sexual sin like incest or prostitution.
A widespread Protestant position on Matthew 19:9 is that Jesus is speaking primarily of adultery, and there’s good reason to think this. Nearly any kind of porneia you can name, when committed by a married person, is adulterous in effect. Adultery was the commonly assumed ground for divorce in the Near East in Jesus’ day, so undoubtedly, this was the primary manifestation of porneia that would have come to mind for Jesus’ listeners.
But there are many reasons to believe porneia is not merely a synonym for adultery—even though the terms are closely linked.
- Porneia and adultery are often paired as separate sins in the New Testament (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Hebrews 13:4).
- In the New Testament, the term porneia sometimes implies not just isolated acts of sexual immorality but habitual immorality and an attitude of lasciviousness (Romans 1:29; Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5; Revelation 2:21).
- Other works of Greek literature show porneia is not synonymous with adultery, but is rather the disposition and behavior that leads to adultery (Sirach 23:23; Herm. 1:3-8).
- Sometimes the word is used to describe an attitude and motivation of lust and objectification (Tobit 8:7).
In other words, porneia focuses on the violating attitude and act, where as adultery focuses on a common effect of this act.
With this broader meaning in mind, it is best to not translate porniea as “adultery” (The Message) or “fornication” (KJV, ASV). The terms “unfaithfulness” (NLT, Phillips) or “sexual unfaithfulness” (CEB) could also lead be misleading. Rather “sexual immorality” (ESV, HCSB, NIV, NKJV) or “unchastity” (NRSV) are closer to the actual meaning.
Prostitution in Rome in the Days of Christ
The word porneia is also undeniably linked to the concept of prostitution. In Greek culture, the complexes where prostitution took place were called porneia. It was also a term of derision: people who held licentious parties in their homes were said to turn their houses into porneia. Thus, if we’re going to understand what the term porneia means, we need to understand the profession of prostitution as it was practiced in Jesus’ day.
Prostitution was practiced all throughout the Mediterranean region, including Israel, Egypt, Chaldea, Phoenicia, Syria—and especially Greece and later Rome. In the sixth century B.C., the statesman Salon of Athens was not only the “father of democracy,” he was also the father of state-sponsored sex slavery, establishing houses of prostitution in Athens and filling them with female slaves. Brothels were found throughout Athens, especially near the marketplace and in front of the citadel. Throughout Greece, it was generally accepted that young men and even married men would frequent prostitutes.
Rome essentially followed much of the Athenian model and developed laws to regulate prostitution. The first time Roman administrators established a full registry of Rome’s brothels there were 64 official bordellos containing 35,000 women and 2,000 men. Prostitution in Rome complimented the mixed sexual morals of the culture.
But the sex industry also had a vibrant and visible entertainment wing. In a class of their own were the prostitutes that engaged in formal entertainment: the aulētris (flute player), the psaltria (singer), and the orchēstris (dancer). These entertainers had a generally low sexual and social status, though highly talented entertainers were counted among the upper-class courtesans. These entertainers were common at Athenian banquets and private parties. Ionian and Phrygian woman were widely know and at times well paid for their skills: a performance of flute playing, zither playing, or drumming combined with erotic dancing that amounted to a striptease. Often they had other skills such as juggling, fencing, and acrobatics.
While these entertainers also worked the streets, they frequented Greek symposia (parties for socializing, drinking, intellectual discussion, and entertainment).There are numerous references to erotic dancers in comedic and sympotic literature. The comic playwright Aristophanes called these women “dancing pornai.”
Pornography as the Entertainment Wing of Prostitution
While the erotic dancers, singers, and flute players of ancient Rome were specialized entertainers in their own right, they were, at the heart of their profession, slave-prostitutes. Their erotic performances at banquets and symposia were a manifestation of their trade—the sale of their bodies for the pleasure of freemen.
The parallels between the modern porn industry and the symposia entertainers of Rome show us that the term porneia was not limited merely to behaviors involving sexual intercourse, but all kind of licentious behaviors, embracing both activity and attitude.
- First and foremost is the nature of their professions: the sale of their bodies for sex and their roles as “entertainers” for the lusts and enjoyment of men. For the orchēstris of Rome, the open door symposia was their stage. For prostituted women today, their stage is millions of publicly accessible websites. Thanks to webcam technology, for instance, there is virtually no line between “interactive pornography” and virtual prostitution.
- Like the brothels of ancient Athens and Rome, women in porn industry today are subjected to the same kinds of terrible conditions in their line of work: body-punishing sex, STDs, as well as a toxic and abusive environment.
- Like many of the lowest class of slave-prostitutes in ancient Rome, many of those featured in porn films today are indeed trafficked women and children. Others are in positions of economic desperation—they “consent” to a life of prostitution, but only in the most demented sense of the word.
- Like the few select aulētrides of ancient Rome who climbed ladder of success to be counted among the wealthy and elite, the porn industry too has its superstars. Big money-makers branch out beyond their personal appearances in porn films to build a brand around their name, and like the prostitute-entertainers of old, gain a measure of freedom and wealth.
- Like the socially respectable symposia of ancient Rome, the pornography industry in Western culture has become mainstream. With the proliferation of porn, in many circles casual or even routine engagement with porn is seen as normal and healthy. In addition, mainstream movies, television, theater, music, and advertising have become porn-like—what Brian McNair calls “the pornographication of the mainstream.”
The pornography industry is the entertainment wing of prostitution, just as the dancing girls of the brothels (the porneia) in the Roman Empire were the sources of entertainment for Roman nobility.
An analogy might bring some clarity to the question. At what point in the following series of scenarios does someone cease to be guilty of porneia?
- Scenario #1: A man openly, habitually, and unrepentantly frequents prostitutes to have sex with them (clearly porneia).
- Scenario #2: A man openly, habitually, and unrepentantly visits homes where prostitution is taking place, but instead of having sex with them, he immerses himself in the sex-saturated environment, watching the orgies, so he can masturbate in front of them.
- Scenario #3: A man openly, habitually, and unrepentantly connects to prostitutes online to watch live-stream videos of them having sex with others while he masturbates.
- Scenario #4: A man openly, habitually, and unrepentantly watches recorded videos of prostitutes having sex with others while he masturbates.
- Scenario #5: A man openly, habitually, and unrepentantly watches the same videos as scenario #4, but the women don’t call themselves prostitutes. They call themselves “porn stars.”
Drawing a hard line is no easy task. The change of physical proximity, timing, or labeling of the participants does not change the fact that in each scenario the man is seeking the services of prostituted women to immerse himself in a world of licentiousness.
Jeremiah 3-4: The Key to Application
In my studies about this issue, the million dollar question I kept asking is this: How does a person differentiate between the everyday lusts of the heart and the kind of porneia Jesus says is a divorcible offense?
The answer is found in the rest of Jesus’ comments to the Pharisees.
After stating his position on the matter, the Pharisees ask Jesus, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:7). The background to their question is the first century debate about Moses’ divorce legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. If Moses permitted divorce, how does this square with Jesus’ very conservative position?
Jesus replies with this statement: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). God permitted divorce under Moses, and still permits divorce, as a concession for the victims of partners with hard and stubborn hearts.
Behind Jesus’ answer is Jeremiah 3-4, God’s dire warning to Judah that judgment is coming unless she repents of her unfaithfulness. As her covenant husband (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 2:2; Ezekiel 16:8-14), God wants to shower blessings on her, but she is rebellious, prostituting herself before other gods. He threatens to divorce Judah just as He did Israel.
That this is the text in Jesus’ mind is evidenced by three major observations:
- Jeremiah is clearly alluding to Moses’ divorce legislation from Deuteronomy 24 in his prophecy (Jeremiah 3:1,8). In fact, it is the one indisputable text in the whole Old Testament that makes reference to Moses’ divorce law, so it makes perfect sense why Jesus would appeal to it in light of the Pharisee’s question.
- In the Greek translation of this text (the LXX), the term porneia is used to describe Israel’s sin. “Because she took her whoredom [porniea] lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree” (3:9). Repeatedly, Judah’s sin is likened to prostitution (3:1-2, 6-10, 13), a sin for which God sent Israel away with a decree of divorce (3:8).
- In the Greek translation of this text, the term “hardness of heart” (σκληροκαρδίαν) is used (4:4)—the same term Jesus uses to describe the reason why divorce is permissible in certain instances. Judah was not merely playing the whore. She treated her prostitution lightly (3:9). Judah refused to be ashamed of her sin (3:3). She was rebellious (3:13). Her seeming repentance was nothing but pretense (3:10). In a word, Judah was hardhearted in her unfaithfulness.
In other words, if divorces must happen at all, they should happen according to pattern given to us by God Himself. God divorced Israel because of her porneia and hardness of heart, which amounted to more than just adultery—it was unrepentant rebellion.
On this basis, some Christian denominations have recognized Jesus did not mean that single acts of sexual thoughtlessness are grounds for divorce—not even in case of a physical affair—but rather Jesus was talking about persistent, unrepentant sexual sin.
The same is true of pornography use. Alone, instances of using pornography or even a habit of looking at porn are not the only factors to consider. Rather, it is critical to assess hardness of heart.
Thus, we should not think of grounds for divorce as a solid line one crosses but rather a continuum of heart-hardening sexual rebellion. God did not divorce Israel after a single instance of spiritual adultery—had He done that, He could have divorced her at Mt. Sinai, or in the wilderness, or during the reign of the judges, or during Solomon’s reign. God was patient, but eventually He wrote Israel a bill of divorce and sent her away into exile because of her callousness.
Porn and Hardness of Heart: Practicing Discernment
Even if we’re convinced pornography use can be a manifestation of hardhearted sexual rebellion, how do we assess the state of someone’s heart?
The words of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17 are particularly helpful in this regard. Here Jesus offers for His followers a model of confrontation in cases of persistent sin.
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Jesus presents a three-tiered approach:
- In cases of pornography use, assuming the offending partner has not brought the offense to light of his own accord, the first people to discover the offense are often those closest to the situation. This can be spouse, a child, or even an employer. Regardless of the circumstances of the discovery, an individual Christian should approach the offending spouse to discuss the nature of his fault. This should be done with a motivation of restoration: “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”
- If this confrontation is not followed by a process of clear repentance and reconciliation, “one or two others” should then become involved. These two or three individuals—ideally those who are spiritually mature and objective—can lovingly confront the offender and, if necessary, provide witness to the confrontation should the case be brought to the church as a whole later on.
- If this conversation or series of conversations are met with a refusal to listen, the church should be made aware of the sin. How one should “tell it to the church,” of course, involves discernment and will depend somewhat on how the church is governed. In this third stage, the goal is still restoration, not unnecessary humiliation.
If this final confrontation is met with stubborn refusal to listen, the result should be excommunication: “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector,” that is, as an outsider and unrepentant sinner. And yet even this should be done in a spirit that aims at the sinner’s eventual repentance (1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15).
As for the offended spouse, this process of church discipline should serve as a divinely given means to both expose hardness of heart as well as push the erring person in one direction or another.
Vicki Tiede, in her book When Your Husband is Addicted to Pornography, advocates for women to go through these three levels of confrontation prescribed in Matthew 18:15-17. Tiede includes a couple helpful diagrams for wives to consider so they can discern the Lord’s will in their situation. First, she asks women to consider their own hearts: on a scale of 1 to 10, how forgiving they have been with their husbands?
Next, she asks women to examine their husbands’ hearts, evidenced by their behavior: on a scale of 1 to 10, how repentant have their husbands been as they have been confronted by the church?
Tiede writes, “Divorce enters the picture if heart is operating near the high end of the scale, with continuous movement towards ten, while your husband’s heart is operating very near the low end of the scale” (p.246).
Once the third and final level of confrontation is reached, Vicki Tiede recommends a time of mediated separation for the couple in order to “create the crisis necessary for him to seek help and finally work toward restoration,” with the goal still being the restoration of the marriage. She writes:
“Think of it this way: the greatest gift you can give your husband is to love God more than you love your husband. God can redeem your husband; you cannot. Thus you love him more by loving in light of his need to repent” (p.244).
It is important churches and spouses avoid unnecessary extremes when it comes to church discipline. On one hand, it is best to keep the number of people involved deliberately small. The tenor behind Jesus’ words is to keep the matter as narrow as possible when it comes to involving others in the communication. On the other hand, church members should avoid making promises of “confidentiality” in the strict sense of the word. To promise not to gossip or slander is biblical, but to promise confidentiality only closes the door to future biblical discipline.
Churches should not rush the process. Each stage of communication might take several meetings, especially if there are at least hints of cooperation from the offending spouse. Plus, only time will tell just how much the erring spouse has truly listened at any stage. The goal is not only the promise to stop the pornographic behavior, but the rebuilding of trust and intimacy in the marriage through changed behavior. Tiede comments:
“You will choose to trust your husband when you are ready. Don’t worry—trusting and forgiving are not the same thing. Rebuilding trust will probably take much longer than it will take to forgive. You will know it’s time to trust when your heart helps you to choose to believe that he will make the right choices. His behaviors will become your trust barometer” (p.89).
Conclusion
In my opinion, pornography use, when it is hardhearted and unrepentant, can certainly qualify as porneia and therefore grounds for divorce.
The Westminster Confession of Faith wisely urges, in the unfortunate and hopefully rare cases where divorce is being considered, that “a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion, in their own case.” As in many highly emotional and life-altering situations, when divorce is being considered, God does not want couples to be left on their own to discern His will and wisdom in the matter.
As the church we have a high calling to stand with couples in crisis and point them to the One whose love for His bride knows no end, whose justice is perfect, and whose grace increases more than all the infidelities in the world.
* For the sake of simplicity and brevity, in this article we do not address some of the other views of how porneia should be translated in this text, such as an unlawful or illicit marriage or as premarital sex before or during betrothal. These views have been championed by many intelligent Catholic and Protestant commentators, and they are dealt with at length in my thesis.
Read your article on Pornography and the power of “Coram Deo”. After repentance my husband is actively living out of the knowledge of God’s love for him, who he is in Christ and my love for him along with battle armor and accountability – I am grateful for what the Lord grace has done in his heart and mine thru forgiveness. The struggle I still have after our love as friends, brother/sister in Christ and compassion for a fellow human being has been restored and flourishing is the loss of feeling special in sexual intimacy, exclusivity and the self consciousness of nakedness in leu of the fact I’m one in a sea of thousands he’s experienced with his heart, mind – memory, and hands both virtual and literal. Believed the lie I was special to him for 20 years and now I don’t know how to be special with knowing I don’t measure up to his preference for facial beauty and knowing I’m one of his many. Want the Lord’s victory in this area of my heart and mind. This doesn’t hinder me from expressing the love the Lord’s given me for my husband and I’ve chosen to live out but it does hinder me feeling loved sexually and experiencing the pleasure from love making.
I wouldl suggest that you find a counselor who can help you through your own recovery process. Many many women will meet the clinical criterai for PTSD in situations like this, but so often receive little support in recovery. Find a counselor, find a trauma-focused group, get online with Bloom. Make sure you get the help you need in healing. Peace, Kay
Thank you. This post is very helpful for me.
Thanks, Susan!
I take Jesus Word as he said it! “ if a man even looks at another woman he has already committed adultery in his heart .”
You have to consider what this does to the spouse . Pornography can never be and should never be considered. It sounds like there’s a lot of people that just want to have an excuse ! There is no excuse for sin . Marriage is a higher standard ,Than just committing a sin, it affects generation after generation .
I believe if a woman feels a man has betrayed her . And he’s trying to make excuses . I believe that a woman should divorce .
Hi Neil,
I’m not sure more words here will help either of us budge—this forum is not proving to be the most fruitful place for discussion. We’re both fairly passionate about our positions on the matter, so I doubt either of us is willing to let the other have “the last word” on things. So I suppose I’ll leave it at this: since I address all of these matters your talking about in my thesis at length, if you or anyone reading our discussion wants a copy of it, I’ll be happy to send it along.
I’ve appreciated our discussion, Neil. Thank you for sharpening my thinking and my ability to articulate my thoughts. Blessings to you, brother.
Hi Luke, Icommented earlier on what i think of porn. I noticed your ongoing discussion wtih Neil in which he keeps saying that he believes remarriage is always adultery. One thing I find interesting about those hold this view and who refer to God’s “unconditional convenant” as evidinced by his committment to the church, the Bride, is that even in that scenario, unrepentant sinners are put out of the church! They fail to notice the obvious, that this has implications towards the marriage covenant, if God ordains that one be ejected from the bride for ongoing sin, and not just sexual sin but also idolatry, divisiveness, reviling/abusive behavour, etc.
I am wondering if in your theses you cover what to do in situations where one may hve wrongfully remarried? Perhaps one thought they had grounds to do so and then later arrives at a more nuanced understanding that leads them to conclude that they failed to really grasp their own contribution to the problem or deal with it and in fact, shouldn’t have remarried at all. Folks like Neil also tend to believe that if the new marriage is on questionable grounds it must be broken up. I have to admit I wonder that too. If one is an a wrong remarriage and you sincerely repent, how does it stop being adultery? i don’t know what to think as far as that goes and would be intereseted in your comments. Thank you.
1. Agreed
2. Divorce “happens” when sin is not accounted for.
3. The real choice as you understand is to use the word adultery..except for adultery. The Lord uses ‘fortification” specific to Matthew’s context.
4. Fornication during betrothal makes the wife not a virgin on the consummation day of the marriage. A man could write a divorce decree if she lied about being a virgin. This is the point. The Lord is instructing the Pharisees during their time period, and this is not applicable today.
5. If Matthew’s account was written primarily to Jewish Christians, why do scholars ALWAYS use Matthew’s account, and disregard Luke and Mark? I will tell you why. Because there are loopholes one can twist and turn to make marriage anything but a one-flesh covenant for life. Read early work on marriage by pre-Constitine Christians. Nearly every single one believes that it is adultery to remarry after divorce!
6. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
7. It is a spiritual allegory and to use this to validate your position is deceptive.
8. Gen 2:24 IS THE LAW OF MARRIAGE. This is what the Lord is telling us. The law of marriage is as it was in the beginning, not as it was at the time of Mosaic law.
9. According to your understanding of porniea, that is the word that the LORD should have used in these verses. If He used adultery in these verses, why did He not say, “Except for adultery”?
10. You can sugar-coat the Greek all you want, you can tell me you are a GREEK expert, but the truth is scripture is ONLY understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the words used as you use them do not corroborate with other passages, let alone does your understanding of marriage corroborate with the Gospel.
11. That contradicts verses 10-14 and 39 of the same chapter. It also contradicts the Gospel. Using the word “peace” to grant a spouse to divorce and remarry is not an example of Christ’s love for us…
12. Then you deny the Lord becasue He said Moses allowed divorced for the hardhearted. Divorce is NOT applicable today for the New Testament believer and teach otherwise is eternally damning! Divorce takes all credibility away from what God made good! And so do you!
Repent! There is still time!
Luke, it is very clear that your position defends divorce and remarriage just like the Pharisees defended divorce and remarriage. You will have to answer one day to all the people you deceived. I pray you repent before that day comes. You have been warned.
In Christ’s love,
Neil
Luke,
As a pastor, I deal with this issue on a regular basis. I would greatly appreciate finding out where I can obtain a copy of your thesis. Thank you.
Hi Brian – I’ve shared your comment with Luke. If he is still distributing copies of the thesis, he will get back to you.
Peace, Chris
Covenant Eyes
Dear Luke,
Thank you for replying. It seems you are not defending one-flesh covenant marriage.
///“You seem to believe a one-flesh union can never (or should never) be broken. Only death severs this bond. Thus, anything understood as an “exception clause” that allows for divorce is contrary to God’s revealed will.”///
You have written it. Death severs the bond. The “exception clause” is specific to the context of Matthew’s Gospel in the understanding of betrothal marriage.
///My opinion is based largely on what the word porneia actually means. In the Septuagint, porneia and its verbal counterpart porneuo are consistently used to translate a Hebrew term referring to sexual intercourse, often with reference to prostitution. Most Greek lexicons treat it as a broad term for any kind of extra-marital sexual intercourse, incestuous marriages, prostitution, unchastity, or fornication.///
Your opinion and my opinion mean nothing if it does not corroborate with the word of God.
//“The definition of the word can be narrowed by the context, of course,”///
So, you agree then? Why argue if the obvious if the the word IS narrowed to fornication during betrothal? Would this interpretation cause a problem for you? I know it has for me. I am called a Pharisee (Ironically, it was both sects of Pharisees which validated divorce and remarriage), I am told that I have zero compassion, and that this “view” would leave ALL current “remarriages” after a divorce of a living spouse in states of adultery.
The correct definition of marriage is not what the world wants to hear.
/// …”but should we narrow the definition of the word in this instance (Matthew 19) to a specific kind of sexual sin?” Does the context demand this? No, I see no reason to do this. First, there is no reason to assume Jesus cannot take a strong, conservative stance on marriage and still allow for divorce in certain limited instances. Second, and most importantly, the immediate context does not support the notion that premarital fornication is in view. The Pharisees were not discussing the breaking of betrothal contracts, and none of the passages cited by Jesus or the Pharisees are about betrothal.///
Luke, the Pharisees only understood marriage customs as “betrothal”. This is how marriage was done under the Mosaic law. A man took a wife and if she was found not to be a virgin on the consummation of the marriage, it was applied that she committed “fornication”. In Luke’s account, the author mentions Joseph as a “man” (Luke 1:27), not a “husband” (Matthew 1:19). Why would Luke need to mention that Joseph was already her husband if the Greeks knew nothing or cared little for Jewish betrothal customs? There was no need to include the exception clause in Luke’s account since it was specific to understanding betrothal marriage.
///As I state above, I think the best way to understand the text is to see Jesus’ statements as a commentary not just on Mosaic divorce law but on Jeremiah 3-4, where God Himself divorces Israel. Jesus’ point is that if we divorce at all, it should only be in following the example of God who only divorced Israel after hardhearted infidelity.///
Did God divorce Israel? Why then did He make a new covenant with His wife, Israel? Read the entire book of Jeremiah, in particular chapter 33. Do not apply God’s divorce from Israel as a way to validate divorce and adultery remarriage for one-flesh covenant marriage. That is a poor exegete of the text. The Lord was using divorce allegorically with Israel.
///Genesis 2:24 – This famous passage speaks of two people becoming one flesh. But nothing rules out divorce here. If we made this statement absolute, then not even death could sever a marriage bond. All this is saying is that marriage unites two people in whole-life oneness. Divorce is not discussed at all.///
The Lord Jesus Christ rules out divorce by referring to the very same passage (Gen 2:24) to the Pharisees. (Mt 19:4-6 and Mk 10:6-9) Death does not sever the marriage bond of Christ to His church. Earthly marriage is the representation in the flesh of eternal marriage in the spirit.
///Matthew 1:18-19 – You don’t mention why this passage is relevant, but I assume you mention it because you believe it offers context to Jesus’ statements in Matthew 19. I agree if Mary’s pregnancy had been a result of sexual activity, Joseph’s divorce of Mary (ending their legal betrothal) would have been acceptable. I agree that premarital sex or sex during betrothal is an example of porneia, but I hardly see why this specific story restricts the meaning of the word in Matthew 19. ///
Read the above example on Luke’s account. This is how people reading Matthew would understand that “except for fornication” is referring to betrothal. Matthew’s Gospel was written to Jewish Christians, Luke! We cannot take Matthew’s account and apply it today unless we view “fornication” during “engagement” as a lawful reason to break off the marriage. The jews during Jesus’ time could not simply break off the marriage, the husband had to write a certificate of divorce in case of fornication.
///“It is much more natural to say Mary’s presumed sexual sin during betrothal is one example of a divorcible offense, not the ONLY example of it.”///
Believe me, you’re not the only one who thinks this way So too did the protestant reformers when they handed marriage over to civil authorities…aka “Westminster Confession of faith”
///Matthew 18 – I’m not sure what in this chapter you specifically think contradicts my interpretation of chapter 19, but I’m willing to listen.///
There are specific ways to handle sin in these chapters, and if we apply what we know the Lord says about church discipline, it is very easy to understand that “sin” in a marriage can be resolved without divorce. In fact, all the Lord teaches on marriage is specific to understanding the Gospel.
//Matthew 5:27-28 – This passage is about adultery in the heart. I’m not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand, but I’m willing to listen.///
A person commits “adultery” by lustful thoughts. Notice the Lord did not use “porneia”. Why did He not use porneia? Well, the commandment is thou shall not commit adultery. If one can commit adultery by one’s thoughts, what more is it if one divorces to remarry another? Divorce changes the definition of marriage from a covenant, to a contract. Believing that a divorce can end a covenant and a that remarriage to another is acceptable, is basically sanctifying adultery.
///Matthew 5:32 – Jesus says that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of porneia, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Here I believe the exception clause means that in the case where a woman commits porneia, she is already an adulterer, thus the divorce does not make her one—she is one already.///
You would be incorrect. If she committed “adultery”, why would the Lord use porniea? The word would have been moichea (adultery). Except on the ground of moicheia? Also, the text reads that a man who “remarries” a “divorced” woman commits “adultery”. Can’t you see that a “divorce” does not end a covenant marriage? It is just a worthless piece of paper.
On your comments to Roman 7: And what is the marriage law? As it was in the beginning (pre-sin), or as it was at the time of Moses (after the fall during the time of a hardhearted nation)? If marriage TODAY, is as it was in the beginning, then you can understand why Paul used marriage as the example to illustrate the Gospel and the law.
///1 Corinthians 7:10,11,39 – Yes, Paul takes a very conservative view of marriage here, but in this same chapter he talks about scenarios where divorce is allowed (v.15).
No he doesn’t. Verse 15 does not free a spouse to divorce and remarry. You are adding to the text. Verse 15 gives a spouse peace to know that they are no longer unequally-yoked to an unbeliever. It also gives a spouse peace to know that they are not guilty of sin. No where will you find that we are to disregard an unbeliever as having no hope of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Since an abandoning spouse is unrepentant, he or she cannot even divorce and remarry. (However, many congregations and the wolves of these congregations(Pastors) will “remarry” anyone. Regardless of their background) Thus, you would have us believe that a believing spouse would no longer be required to love his or her prodigal spouse, or that the vow to love them is no longer necessary? Do you understand the Gospel?
///Ephesians 5:32 – I agree we need to be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other as God has forgiven us, but this does not rule out divorce. One can forgive an erring, unrepentant spouse and still not be married to them.///
Divorce is hardheartedness, not an example of forgiveness. Divorce is telling a spouse you will never forgive him or her. Divorce is “murdering” the other spouse without killing him or her. The point the Lord makes about marriage is this: If you choose to divorce, proving that your hearts are hard, then remain unmarried until one or both of you die.
Did you know that kindness leads to repentance? Remaining in marriage is the only way that glorifies God. God hates divorce, and so should we. Instead, the false church has provided all kinds of loopholes to live for the gratification of the flesh and not to remain in the spirit of Christ.
///1 Thessalonians 5:14-22 – You say my view doesn’t corroborate with the command to love our enemies, in particular the commands of this text. First, there’s nothing in this text about marriage, but second, I don’t see how my view contradicts this text at all. One can admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, do good to others, and be patient with all…and not be married to them.///
Your comments make me sad. In marriage, a husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church. What greater witness is the love of the Gospel then through a husbands’ love for his wife? You would have us believe that marriage is separate from understanding the mystery of the Gospel, yet that is exactly how Paul views marriage. (Eph 5:31-33)
I can see you have made up your mind to follow the ways of men and seek to view marriage as a contract to gratify the flesh. It does not surprise me that you have quoted Instone-Brewer, as he has twisted the word of God to validate divorce and remarriage for any reason. It is clear to me your “understanding” not only contradicts itself, it certainly does not corroborate with the Gospel. I pray that the Holy Spirit would convict you to see the clear picture of one-flesh covenant marriage. The world will divorce and remarry, those who are truly in Christ will believe that a vow before God is far more eternally important than any man can tell, and that marriage, and remaining in marriage, can only ever be a true witness to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Christ’s love,
Neil
Hi Neil,
It seems we’re at a bit of an impasse here.
1. You and I both agree that Jesus held a very conservative view of marriage—far more conservative than his contemporaries and far more conservative than most hold today. We disagree about the exception clause, of course, but we seem to agree that Jesus was trying to combat the liberal understanding of the “one flesh” bond that was prevalent in his day.
2. You and I both agree that church discipline is very important when considering troubles in marriage (I say as much in my article). I don’t think Matthew 18 specifically mentions divorce, but it certainly has a bearing on how the church community plays a roll.
3. You don’t seem to think the lexical definition of porniea has any weight in considering how the term is used in Matthew 19. The term has a very broad definition throughout the New Testament. We both agree the term can have a narrower definition if the context demands it. You clearly think the context demands it in Matthew 19, and I do not (see more on that below).
4. We disagree about the relevance of the Joseph and Mary account. I understand how Jewish people saw betrothal, but you’ve not yet convinced me that this should force a narrow meaning on the term in Matthew 19. Clearly Joseph was within his right to break his betrothal contract, but why do you think Joseph’s culture would think this is the ONLY way to break a marriage. As you yourself admit, the Pharisees actually held a very liberal view of marriage and divorce—the Rabbi Hillel school believed in “any fault” divorce. The competitive school of thought (by Rabbi Shammai) believed divorce was only permissible after some kind of sexual indecency (such as like adultery). The Pharisees specifically ask Jesus in Matthew 19 if he agrees with dominant Hillel position, to which he replies that he does not. In the context of the rabbinic debate, it would have been the most natural thing in the world to assume Jesus was using a broad definition of porneia.
5. We disagree about the reason why Luke (or Mark) did not include the exception clause. You think it is because the Greek cared little about Jewish betrothal customs, whereas Matthew (writing to a Jewish audience) would care a great deal. I disagree because the Greeks and Romans had betrothal customs of their own that would have made a statement about breaking betrothal contract very appropriate.
6. We disagree about the message of Jeremiah 3-4. I do believe God divorced Israel—as he said he did. The northern 10 tribes were largely diseased and underwent incredible judgment. I’m not saying he didn’t reengage a remnant with a new covenant—he clearly prophesies the new covenant in chapter 33—but this new covenant does not the negate the fact of God writing her a bill of divorce.
7. We disagree about the significance of Jeremiah 3-4. The argument I make is that this prophetic text was clearly anchor in which Jesus’ opinion about divorce rests (see my arguments in the article above). I’m not sure what you make of these arguments because you don’t say.
8. We disagree about Genesis 2:24 and its relevance to divorce. You really haven’t made it clear how this text actually forbids divorce. Yes, Jesus quotes it to the Pharisees, but the question is why. Not because it talks about divorce, but because he wants the Pharisees to know that it is God who joins to people together in marriage.
9. You and I disagree about the relevance of Matthew 5:27-28. I clearly state in my article that “lust in the heart” is not grounds for divorce (which you would agree with), so I’m not sure why it has a bearing on the question.
10. You and I disagree about the relationship between porneia and moichea. You seem to think they are mutually exclusive terms, but that’s simply not how the terms are used in Greek. They clearly aren’t synonyms either, but as I state in my article, porneia focuses on the violating attitude and act, where as adultery focuses on a common effect of this act (see my explanation in the article).
11. You and I disagree about 1 Corinthians 7:15. I believe “free” means “free to remarry.” I’m not sure what else it could mean. That person is as free as the single person.
12. You and I disagree about divorce and hardheartedness. Getting a divorce does not mean one is hardhearted. In fact, I specifically state the guidance in my article warning against this.
I understand I won’t persuade you with any of these arguments. I thank you for the discussion, however.
Thank you for publishing this. As a newly baptized follower at 47 I am really struggling with my Husband’s addiction. It used to be alcohol, drugs, gambling and porn or various combinations of those and now we are down to porn. I found out two weeks after we were married two and a half years ago (been together for seven). If I’d known he was an addict I would never chosen to marry him and can’t help but feel that I married a fraud. His vows were lies, he knew who we was and chose to cover it up. Now I am trying to come from a place of forgiveness, trying to understand the ‘addiction’ part of this and trying to decide whether or not to leave him. I’ve been married before and put through the wringer with narcissism, verbal and physical abuse. There is a wonderful side to my Husband but when my trust and respect for him are gone, as they are now, I feel horribly alone. This is the most painful thing I’ve had to deal with in my life. It was easier to be verbally and physically abused. I KNEW what to expect. This jumps out after or before what has been or should be our most happiest moments as a couple. I am unable to gain satisfaction intimately with him anymore. I don’t feel like we are even building anything, even with God’s word as our cornerstone. I feel even THAT is one sided. We were baptized the same day just a month ago and since then have discovered he is keeping money from me, lying about how it is spent and found him with porn 3 times. Just the week before last, after being unable to speak with him for three days in an effort to refrain from saying damaging things, he was full of heartfelt apologies and wished for therapy for himself. We had to take a business trip which delayed that process and the very FIRST DAY he was able to be alone for 5 minutes, I caught him again. A huge part of me just wants to kick him out and be done with it but I want so badly to follow the Word because I DO believe that is the single most important thing I can do. I’m seeking counseling for myself today. I can’t bear this pain. I wish I could have instant clarity on this. I pray for it, search the bible, research the internet for information and can’t find consolation. I can forgive easily as I know the things I’ve been forgiven of in my life but it feels very gray to me on whether to stay a wife when my Husband’s title is only that…a title…and one I don’t feel he deserves.
Hi Carole.
My heart just breaks for you. I am so, so sorry for the pain you’re experiencing.
First of all, let me say that as a counselor, I do conceptualize pornography use as a form of abuse. It has the exact same impact on women as verbal and physical abuse–as you’ve noted, it may even be worse! Many, many women in this situation will meet the criteria for PTSD. When we treat PTSD, our very first clinical concern is getting the victim to safety so that they are not being retraumatized and so that healing can begin. That to me often means separation to see if the husband will recover AND to give the wife time to heal and create healthy boundaries, followed by reconciliation if possible, divorce if necessary.
And this is the problem I find in the approach that so many religious approaches take. In the concern for “following the Bible,” in the concern for “forgiveness and reconciliation”, SO MANY TIMES, the needs of the victim are completely ignored. I just hear the voice of Jesus saying, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.” Matthew 23:23
You can forgive–in fact, I think for your own spiritual and emotional health that you MUST forgive. But forgiveness does not mean automatic reconciliation! Forgiveness does not mean that you’re required to be abused! Forgiveness does not mean you ignore reality and stick your head in the ground! Forgiveness sometimes means releasing that person who refuses to take the opportunity of forgiveness to repent and work toward reconciliation. Forgiveness does not control the other person, and it is not a magic wand.
Reconciliation is only possible when the other person repents of their sin and CHANGES so that a restored relationship is possible. I’ve written a short ebook about forgiveness that you might find helpful.
I do think a counselor could be a help to you, but only if you feel safe and supported. If you feel forced–by any counselor or church–into staying in a situation that feels WORSE than your previously abusive marriage, then I think that counselor or church is out of line, no matter what kind of Bible verse they trot out.
I hope that helps. Healing and Peace to you, Kay
Carole, get out. Your husband sounds very wicked and unwilling to repent. Trust me, it doesn’t get better with these men, only worse.
Dear Luke,
I started to read your “opinion” of the “exception clause”, and ran into some very confusing exegete of text as it applies to understanding of the Gospel.
You wrote: “After a marriage is severed, remarriage to another is not adulterous in the case of πορνείᾳ (porneia)—sexual immorality.”
AH, but what of Matthew 5:32? I will even use the popular, but less than accurate NIV
“Mt 5:31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
If it is permitted of a man to divorce his wife for the broad term of sexual immorality, why is it “adultery” if someone married her? Now if it was for the reason of “fornication”, “except for fornication” replacing the popular “sexual immorality clause”, a man did not commit “adultery” for the reason the marriage was not consummated. One commits adultery if the marriage was divorced after the marriage was a consummated one-flesh covenant. You can marry a woman divorced from “fornication” because she was not longer betrothed to her husband…she is free to marry and it is not adultery to marry her. However, it does corroborate with Deut 24 OT laws…an “uncleanness” is applicable to the Deut 22 laws. This is why the Lord came down during “Betrothal”, and the Holy Spirit did not impregnate Mary when the marriage was consummated with her husband!
You may counter with, one may marry a divorced woman which was divorced because she committed sexual immorality, but that conflicts with marrying someone who did not show fruits of repentance. Would you honestly marry a woman who was in unrepentant sexual immorality? I didn’t think so…
You could come back with, ‘It is permitted to marry a divorced woman of sexual immorality once she repents of her sin.”
Ok, but would not repentance from her sin reconciliation to to her husband? Well, that is unless he did not “remarry” another since we are led to believe that he would know that his sexually immoral wife would NEVER repent, right?
I ALSO would argue that marrying a “divorced’ woman in this context does not necessarily take into consideration that she was divorced because of her sexual immorality. If it did, why is it adultery to marry her? It is adultery to marry a “divorced” woman “period”. This corroborates with Roman 7:2,3 doesn’t it? Also, Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18…
Also, Mark’s account says: Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
There is no mention of the woman allowing to divorce her husband in Matthew’s account. If Matthew’s account is specific to understanding Jewish customs which did not permit a woman to divorce, we would understand that the exception clause is specific to fornication during the one year of betrothal, and not the popular majority position of the Protestants.
“The majority Protestant position understands porneia to include any illicit sexual intercourse outside of marriage.*”
The majority also crucified the Lord. Not sure what this has to do with your understanding of “porneia” if the majority are dead wrong about this word used as an all-encompassing word of sexual immorality. It just basically means the majority is wrong…
I am not a Protestant nor am I a Roman Catholic either…. I love you enough to tell you the truth. God loves you too and wants you to believe that marriage is a representation of Christ’s love for us. The church needs to preach, teach, live and represent marriage permanence, one man and one woman for life. I also believe no sinner is without hope if the Lord Jesus Christ is alive. Do you agree?
In Christ’s love,
Neil
Hello Neil,
Thanks for the lengthy comments. I’ll see if I can address everything you said, but if I miss something, let me know.
You seem to believe a one-flesh union can never (or should never) be broken. Only death severs this bond. Thus, anything understood as an “exception clause” that allows for divorce is contrary to God’s revealed will.
Let me state my opinion about the so-called “betrothal view” and then dig into it in more detail.
My opinion is based largely on what the word porneia actually means. In the Septuagint, porneia and its verbal counterpart porneuo are consistently used to translate a Hebrew term referring to sexual intercourse, often with reference to prostitution. Most Greek lexicons treat it as a broad term for any kind of extra-marital sexual intercourse, incestuous marriages, prostitution, unchastity, or fornication.
The definition of the word can be narrowed by the context, of course, but should we narrow the definition of the word in this instance (Matthew 19) to a specific kind of sexual sin? Does the context demand this? No, I see no reason to do this. First, there is no reason to assume Jesus cannot take a strong, conservative stance on marriage and still allow for divorce in certain limited instances. Second, and most importantly, the immediate context does not support the notion that premarital fornication is in view. The Pharisees were not discussing the breaking of betrothal contracts, and none of the passages cited by Jesus or the Pharisees are about betrothal.
As I state above, I think the best way to understand the text is to see Jesus’ statements as a commentary not just on Mosaic divorce law but on Jeremiah 3-4, where God Himself divorces Israel. Jesus’ point is that if we divorce at all, it should only be in following the example of God who only divorced Israel after hardhearted infidelity.
You cite a number of passages here, and I’m not exactly sure how some of them pertain to the topic, but I’ll do my best…
Genesis 2:24 – This famous passage speaks of two people becoming one flesh. But nothing rules out divorce here. If we made this statement absolute, then not even death could sever a marriage bond. All this is saying is that marriage unites two people in whole-life oneness. Divorce is not discussed at all.
Matthew 1:18-19 – You don’t mention why this passage is relevant, but I assume you mention it because you believe it offers context to Jesus’ statements in Matthew 19. I agree if Mary’s pregnancy had been a result of sexual activity, Joseph’s divorce of Mary (ending their legal betrothal) would have been acceptable. I agree that premarital sex or sex during betrothal is an example of porneia, but I hardly see why this specific story restricts the meaning of the word in Matthew 19. Certainly Joseph was within his legal (and moral) rights to call off his wedding, but I have a hard time seeing why this should force a narrow definition on a word that has a much broader meaning in the Greek language many chapters later. It is much more natural to say Mary’s presumed sexual sin during betrothal is one example of a divorcible offense, not the ONLY example of it.
Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 – I assume you’re mentioning these passages because they are parallel statements to Matthew 19, only in these instances no exception clause is mentioned. I address this issue in an above comment: https://www.covenanteyes.com/2015/10/08/porn-use-as-grounds-for-divorce-how-my-opinion-changed/#comment-2530424
Matthew 18 – I’m not sure what in this chapter you specifically think contradicts my interpretation of chapter 19, but I’m willing to listen.
Matthew 5:27-28 – This passage is about adultery in the heart. I’m not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand, but I’m willing to listen.
Matthew 5:32 – Jesus says that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of porneia, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Here I believe the exception clause means that in the case where a woman commits porneia, she is already an adulterer, thus the divorce does not make her one—she is one already.
Romans 7:2-4 – In this text Paul is not talking directly about marriage as his main point but uses marriage law to make a point about Christ and our relationship to the law of Moses. For a Jewish woman who was desperately unhappy with her marriage, the death of her husband was the only hope she had. In Jewish law, she could not initiate a divorce (unless her husband neglected one of the obligations of Exodus 21:10), and she had no means to just walk out. She couldn’t just shack up with another man expecting to force her husband into a divorce because rabbinic law forbade a divorced woman from marrying anyone with whom she had committed adultery. Her only hope was that her husband would die.
So, Romans 7 is an illustration by which Paul described how Christ has released us from the Law. The only way we could be released from our marriage to the law is through death, but the law couldn’t die. So, instead Christ releases us by his death, which we share in if we are united to Him. Our marriage to the Law ends when we die in Christ—and when we are raised with Him, we are free to be wed to him.
Therefore, the passage isn’t denying the possibility of divorce universally—that would be denying what the Law of Moses actually says. Paul using his own Jewish cultural context, telling a story about a woman who longs to be free from her husband but can’t, and using that as a springboard to talk about our relationship to the law has changed.
1 Corinthians 7:10,11,39 – Yes, Paul takes a very conservative view of marriage here, but in this same chapter he talks about scenarios where divorce is allowed (v.15).
Ephesians 5:32 – I agree we need to be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other as God has forgiven us, but this does not rule out divorce. One can forgive an erring, unrepentant spouse and still not be married to them.
1 Thessalonians 5:14-22 – You say my view doesn’t corroborate with the command to love our enemies, in particular the commands of this text. First, there’s nothing in this text about marriage, but second, I don’t see how my view contradicts this text at all. One can admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, do good to others, and be patient with all…and not be married to them.
In the context in which Matthew’s Gospel was written, porneia is fornication during the betrothal marriage. To define it ANY other way is a lie and subverting from the truth that marriage is a one-flesh covenant which can only end in death. (Ro 7:2,3 The law of marriage today is as it was in the beginning-Not my words, the Lord’s words Mt 19:4-6; Mk 20:6-9) In the context of understanding when a person will come to repentance is not determined by the dissolution of the marriage through a civil right handed over by the congregations of men, but rather by the proper administration of church discipline in concordance of remaining in a covenant vow. Also, it is very important to understand the covenant vow as it pertains to the life of those who are in Christ and how this person loves the unrepentant sinner. A website called “CoveanantEyes” should understand the significance of a vow, who oversees the vow, who determines the purpose of the vow , and who provides the remedy of those who remain in or break the vow. Also, whenever one makes a direct assumption of scripture, it must corroborate with other scripture on topic. The Adultery View, which make the exception clause uses a multitude of reasons as these reasons pertain to “sexual immorality” does NOT corroborate with Gen 2:24;Matthew 1:18,19; Mt 5:27,28, and the whole preceding chapter 18; Mk 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Ro 7:2-4; 1 Cor 7:10,11,39, nor does it corroborate with loving your enemies, in particular 1 Thess 5:14-22.
It is important to note that the Westminster Confession of Faith would have us believe that we have full knowledge of when a person will repent of his or her sins, or that we have omniscience to foresee the outcome of s person’s willingness to repent or spend eternity in hell. It would be a greater witness to the body of Christ, and the witness to a fallen and wicked world to remain in a one-flesh covenant until the death or repentance of a prodigal spouse. The true representation of marriage is Christ’s love for His church. This Gospel rendition views a sposue as loving a sinner while they are yet a sinner, and as the kindness of God leads to repentance, so too will the love of a spouse be a witness to a fallen spouse who desperately needs the Lord. Eph 5:32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
In Christ’s love,
Neil
GREAT WORDS!! That has the TRUTH of GOD to back up your thoughts!