Latest / Reformed Thinking / What God Has Joined Together Let No Man Separate, for Whoever Divorces and Marries Another Commits Adultery | John Piper

Transcript

What God Has Joined Together Let No Man Separate, for Whoever Divorces and Marries Another Commits Adultery | John Piper · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking, the show where we take big
0:02
ideas, challenging questions, and some of the most vital
0:06
discussions from scripture and thought leaders, and we sort of
0:10
distilled them for you. Our goal really is to equip you
0:12
with clear understanding and maybe some fresh insights
0:15
helping you grasp significant truths for Christian living.
0:18
And it truly is our privilege to dig into these crucial topics
0:22
with you. Our desire, I think, as always,
0:24
is for you to gain knowledge quickly.
0:26
But you know, with a rigorous and thorough approach, right?
0:30
Uncovering those pivotal insights that shape our
0:33
comprehension of God's ways and His divine plan, we want to get
0:37
beyond just the surface level. Absolutely.
0:40
And today we're tackling a topic that stands really at the very
0:43
center of God's design for humanity and Christian living,
0:47
marriage, along with the difficult but let's face it,
0:50
often encountered issues of divorce and remarriage.
0:52
Yes, our deep dive today focuses on the direct teachings of Jesus
0:56
on these matters. It's seen through the keen
0:58
analysis of John Piper and his work All the Jesus Commanded.
1:02
Significant work. It is, and this is a topic that
1:05
touches nearly every life. And Jesus's words here are,
1:08
well, they're especially pertinent.
1:10
They really are, and we have a rich collection of source
1:13
material before us for this discussion.
1:15
We've got direct biblical passages from Matthew, Mark and
1:18
Luke. The.
1:18
Cortex. Exactly.
1:20
Alongside John Piper's careful interpretive work, his exegesis
1:25
trying to get at the original meaning, our mission today is
1:28
pretty specific. To unpack Jesus's standard for
1:31
marital faithfulness and to consider how radically it stands
1:35
apart from, you know, current cultural views and even how it
1:38
contrasts with certain prior interpretations within Jewish
1:42
tradition at the time. And a big part of that is
1:44
understanding the meaning of those so-called exception
1:47
clauses in Matthew's Gospel. Yes, those have certainly caused
1:50
a lot of head scratching over the centuries they have.
1:53
So let's unpack this first part. Jesus clearly did not simply
1:56
echo the prevailing views on marriage and divorce of His day.
2:00
No, not at all. Our sources indicate he set a
2:02
remarkably higher standard for marital faithfulness than was
2:06
commonly practiced or even, you know, allowed by Moses's law or
2:10
by the Jewish teachers of his time.
2:11
That's right, it was quite a bold declaration, especially
2:14
when you think about the long standing authority of the Mosaic
2:17
law. So what exactly made his stance
2:19
so different? Well, what's truly striking here
2:21
is that Jesus didn't affirm the general permission for divorce
2:24
found back in Deuteronomy 24, OK?
2:27
Instead, he made this pivotal statement as in Matthew 19.8,
2:31
explaining that Moses's concession was owing to the
2:33
hardness of the human heart. Hardness of heart.
2:36
It's a key phrase. It is, and it's a critical point
2:39
because it suggests Jesus wasn't just adjusting some minor
2:43
regulation. He was recalibrating the very
2:46
core understanding of marriage. To really grasp how
2:49
revolutionary that was, we need to picture the world he was
2:52
speaking into, right? Divorce was, well, pretty
2:56
common. Distressingly common, yes, and
2:59
often initiated by a man for a whole range of reasons, some
3:02
frankly incredibly trivial. Can you give us a bit more
3:05
context on those reasons? What were the sort of debates or
3:08
common understandings back then? Sure, you had these rabbinic
3:11
schools, most famously the schools of Hillel and Shamai,
3:15
and they passionately debated the grounds for divorce.
3:18
But the basic right to divorce? That was rarely questioned.
3:21
So the debate was why not if? Largely, yes.
3:25
The school of Hillel, for instance, took a very liberal
3:28
approach to Deuteronomy 24.1. They interpreted the phrase some
3:32
indecency to mean almost anything that displeased the
3:35
husband. Like what?
3:37
It could be as minor as burning his dinner, speaking
3:40
disrespectfully, or even if you just found another woman more
3:42
attractive. Their position was essentially
3:45
that a man could divorce his wife for any cause.
3:47
Wow. OK.
3:48
And Shamay? The school of Shamay was
3:50
stricter. They argued that indecency
3:52
referred only to actual sexual sin or serious moral misconduct.
3:57
So a higher bar, but still allowing divorce.
3:59
Exactly. Even the stricter view
4:01
recognized grounds for divorce. OK, so Jesus steps into this
4:05
environment. You've got a popular view
4:07
allowing divorce for almost anything, and a stricter view
4:11
allowing it for serious misconduct.
4:14
How does his hardness of heart comment directly challenge all
4:18
of that? Well, when Jesus says Moses made
4:20
this concession because of the hardness of your hearts, he's
4:23
doing more than just pointing out human stubbornness or
4:27
sinfulness. He's saying in essence, look,
4:30
this provision was never God's ideal.
4:32
It was never the plan A right. It was a regrettable necessity
4:35
born out of human fallenness and the, you know, the deep seated
4:38
resistance of the human spirit to God's perfect design.
4:42
So he wasn't endorsing it as a good thing.
4:43
None at all. He was acknowledging a reality
4:46
of human sinfulness that required some kind of regulation
4:49
to prevent even worse chaos and injustice.
4:52
But crucially, Jesus isn't there just to regulate sin.
4:56
What's he doing then? He's saying I'm not here to
4:58
lower the bar to accommodate your heart and hearts.
5:00
I'm here to raise it back to God's original, unbreakable
5:03
design for marriage from the very beginning of creation.
5:06
Back to Genesis. Back to Genesis.
5:09
He's recalibrating our understanding, shifting it away
5:12
from a human track you can just tear up towards a divine
5:16
covenant that reflects God's own faithfulness.
5:18
That's a huge distinction, not just adjusting a law, but
5:22
appealing to a foundational reality.
5:24
So what are the actual components of this higher
5:28
standard that Jesus is championing?
5:30
How does it look in practice? Well, his opposition to
5:33
remarriage after divorce is really rooted in how firm he
5:36
understood the marriage bond itself to be.
5:39
OK, he affirmed, and this is quoted in Matthew 19.6 and Mark
5:42
10.9, that God has joined married couples together and
5:46
therefore no man should separate them.
5:47
What God has joined that famous line?
5:50
That's the one, and it points to marriage as A1 flesh
5:52
relationship. That's a a deep spiritual and
5:55
relational unity that goes way beyond just the physical.
5:58
To joining by God himself. Yes, and he saw this implied not
6:02
only in 2.2 for the creation account, you know, leave father
6:05
and mother, hold fast to his wife, become one flesh, but
6:08
also, and this is surprising to many, he saw hints of it within
6:12
the wording of Moses's law itself.
6:14
OK, hold on. Moses's law hinting at this
6:17
higher standard? That sounds counterintuitive,
6:20
given that Moses allowed divorce.
6:22
How could the law both permit divorce and imply this higher,
6:25
unyielding standard? Seems paradoxical.
6:28
It does at first glance, but it's a subtle and often missed
6:31
detail. Deuteronomy 24, the very passage
6:34
allowing divorce versus one through 4, describes a woman who
6:37
gets divorced, remarries, and then if that second husband
6:40
divorces her or dies, she cannot return to the first husband, and
6:45
the reason given is that she has become defiled.
6:47
That word defiled is key. Why defiled?
6:50
It suggests that the initial one flesh relationship, the one
6:53
established by the first marriage, isn't entirely wiped
6:55
out by the divorce, or even by the second marriage, At least
6:58
not in God's eyes. Interesting.
7:00
So while Moses permitted divorce as a concession, this defilement
7:03
implied it wasn't the ideal path, not the one most honoring
7:06
to God. And it suggested that the
7:08
original bond still held some kind of spiritual reality.
7:11
So the concession itself contained a hint of the ideal it
7:14
was falling short of. Exactly.
7:16
It was a concession to human stubbornness to sin in a fallen
7:19
world, not a celebration of God's original plan.
7:23
That defilement indicates something sacred, Something of
7:26
God's design was still, in a sense, active, despite the legal
7:30
split it signaled. The ideal was still that single,
7:34
lifelong union. That discussion about Moses's
7:37
concession and the sort of lingering reality of the first
7:41
bond, it really brings up incredibly complex real world
7:45
situations for people today. Oh, absolutely.
7:47
What does this suggest for those in second or third marriages may
7:51
be entered into after a divorce, especially if the first marriage
7:54
was, say, really difficult or even involved abuse?
7:57
Does this high standard mean those current unions should be
7:59
dissolved? That's where it gets incredibly
8:02
painful and practical. It does, and that's an extremely
8:04
vital question. It's where the nuance of grace
8:07
has to apply alongside the truth of the standard OK.
8:09
Our sources, including Piper's analysis, indicate that even a
8:13
marriage entered into that is considered disobedient to God's
8:16
ideal, like a second or third marriage after a divorce, should
8:20
not then be broken. Should not be broken.
8:22
What? Well, part of the reasoning goes
8:24
back again to Deuteronomy 24.4. That same passage.
8:28
It explicitly forbids a wife from returning to her first
8:30
husband after a second marriage, calling such a return an
8:34
abomination. An abomination that's strong
8:37
language in Scripture. Very strong.
8:39
It signifies something deeply offensive to God, something that
8:42
violates his moral order. And the implication drawn is
8:46
that while a second marriage might exist outside God's
8:49
perfect initial design, dissolving it would be creating
8:52
yet another broken covenant, another offense.
8:55
So don't add another broken promise on top of whatever ever
8:58
happened before. Precisely.
8:59
Instead, such unions, though may be initiated imperfectly, should
9:03
be acknowledged as less than ideal, Yes, but they can still
9:07
be made holy through God's mercy and forgiveness.
9:10
The point is not to pile additional violations on
9:12
previous ones. It's seen as better in God's
9:15
eyes not to create more broken promises by dissolving a present
9:19
established union, even if it began outside God's perfect
9:22
will. So the call is for faithfulness
9:24
within the current reality. Yes, faithfulness within the
9:27
current circumstances, seeking God's mercy and living honorably
9:32
within that relationship rather than trying to unravel existing
9:35
bonds which would often just bring more chaos and pain,
9:38
especially to children involved. That's a really crucial pastoral
9:41
point. So while Jesus is setting this
9:44
incredibly high bar, there's also this recognition of the
9:48
brokenness of the world and how grace applies to existing
9:52
situations. Yes, exactly.
9:54
Now let's turn to Jesus's own direct, very powerful
9:56
declarations on this, as recorded in Mark and Luke.
9:59
These statements are often where the discussion really starts for
10:02
many people because they seem so clear, so absolute.
10:05
They do. They seem to offer very little
10:07
wiggle room. Take Luke 16.18.
10:09
Right, Luke 16.18 states everyone who divorces his wife
10:14
and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a
10:16
woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
10:18
Just lays it out there. It does, and it's plain reading.
10:21
It appears to call all remarriage after divorce
10:24
adultery, full stop. That is very firm declaration.
10:27
It leaves almost no ambiguity in the phrasing itself.
10:30
No, it sets an extraordinarily high bar for marital fidelity
10:34
and permanence. Really pushing against those
10:37
cultural assumptions we talked about, Jesus is speaking in a
10:40
way that directly challenges the legal norms of his day.
10:43
And this point always gives me pause.
10:46
If a divorce is legally recognized, maybe even state
10:49
sanctioned, why does Jesus still call a subsequent marriage
10:53
adultery? It's like he's operating on a
10:55
completely different legal framework.
10:57
That's really the heart of it. The core argument based on
11:01
Jesus's words is that the first marriage is considered still
11:04
valid in God's eyes, regardless of any civil or legal divorce
11:08
decree. So the human paperwork doesn't
11:10
nullify the divine bond. That's the idea.
11:13
Jesus was directly opposing the common cultural assumption of
11:16
his time we're getting. That divorce certificate was
11:18
basically seen as a green light for remarriage, right?
11:21
His statements in Mark 10 and Luke 16 were a direct rejection
11:24
of that view. For Jesus, the human certificate
11:27
didn't and couldn't nullify the divine bond God himself had
11:31
established. He was speaking to the spiritual
11:33
and covenantal reality of marriage.
11:35
Which he viewed as a creation ordinance.
11:37
Yes, a divine institution and humans don't have the ultimate
11:41
authority to sever what God has joined.
11:43
Therefore, to enter into a new sexual union while that original
11:47
divinely recognized covenant is still considered active, well,
11:51
by definition, that's adultery. So if the bond remains in God's
11:55
eyes, what about the person who is, let's say, the innocent
11:58
party? If someone's spouse divorces
12:02
them, maybe completely against their will, does this strict
12:06
rule still apply to them? It seems particularly hard to
12:09
expect the wrong person to remain unmarried, potentially
12:12
for life. According to Luke 16.18, yes, it
12:15
does seem to apply. The verse also says he who
12:18
marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
12:21
Even if she was the innocent party.
12:23
Even if she was presumably the innocent party in the divorce,
12:26
meaning her husband maybe had no right in God's eyes to divorce
12:29
her. That's a tough teaching.
12:30
It is. It's a challenging declaration
12:32
because it calls the forsaken person, man or woman, to
12:36
demonstrate the holiness of their vows and the nature of the
12:38
marriage covenant by not marrying someone else.
12:41
So it highlights that Jesus's opposition to remarriage isn't
12:44
based on fault. It seems based on the sacred,
12:46
unbreakable nature of the marriage bond itself, not
12:50
primarily on who was at fault for the divorce or the suffering
12:53
caused. The Covenant remains regardless
12:56
of the circumstances of its civil dissolution.
12:59
It implies the innocent party is called to a radical kind of
13:02
faithfulness. Yes, to live out the truth that
13:05
their first marriage is still valid in God's eyes, even if
13:08
their spouse has abandoned it. It's a very high calling,
13:11
requiring deep reliance on God for strength and contentment in
13:15
what might be a life of unwanted singleness.
13:18
And Mark's account reinforces the same absolute prohibition.
13:21
No exceptions there either. Precisely.
13:23
Mark 10.1112 repeats the core prohibition, but makes it
13:27
explicit for women too. Whoever divorces his wife and
13:30
marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces
13:33
her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
13:36
So it covers both spouses initiating divorce.
13:39
Yes, just like in Luke. There are 0 exceptions mentioned
13:42
here. While men initiating divorce was
13:44
far more common, women initiating divorce wasn't
13:47
completely unheard of in certain Roman or Hellenistic contexts.
13:51
Mark makes sure the principle applies equally OK.
13:54
So from Mark and Luke, what we have are these seemingly
13:58
absolute prohibitions against remarriage after divorce.
14:02
Doesn't matter who initiated it doesn't matter who is perceived
14:05
to be at fault. That's right, they present a
14:07
unified and very strict view. Marriage as an unbreakable
14:11
covenant, a lifelong bond divinely instituted, not easily
14:14
dissolved by human action or decree.
14:17
These passages really set the baseline for Jesus view.
14:21
A vision of permanence and faithfulness that stood in
14:24
really stark contrast to a surrounding culture.
14:26
Definitely. OK, so we've established Jesus's
14:28
incredibly firm stance for Mark and Luke.
14:31
But here's the twist. Here's the challenge that keeps
14:34
scholars and just regular readers up at night.
14:37
Matthew's Gospel. It introduces clauses that, on
14:40
the surface anyway, seem to allow for exceptions to this
14:42
absolute prohibition. Right, this is the friction
14:45
point. This is where the Gospel seem
14:46
maybe to be at odds, and it's the source of so much steady and
14:50
frankly, disagreement. What are these specific clauses
14:53
in Matthew? OK, there are two key passages.
14:56
Matthew 5.32 states everyone who divorces his wife except on the
15:01
ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery, and
15:05
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
15:08
Except on the ground of sexual immorality.
15:10
That's the phrase. And then again in Matthew 19.9,
15:13
whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and
15:16
marries another, commits adultery.
15:19
Same exceptions. Same exception phrase.
15:21
These clauses are what make Matthew's account stand out, and
15:24
they've sparked literally centuries of intense discussion
15:27
and quite varied interpretations.
15:29
They introduced this phrase that's just absent from the
15:32
parallel accounts in Mark and Luke.
15:34
So how are these clauses generally interpreted?
15:36
What's the sort of common understanding of sexual
15:39
immorality here that has shaped so much Christian thought and
15:42
practice? Well, the most common
15:43
interpretation held by most commentators and many Christians
15:46
throughout history is that these exception clauses mean Jesus did
15:50
allow for divorce and subsequent remarriage in cases where there
15:54
has been sexual immorality by one spouse.
15:57
And sexual immorality is usually taken to mean.
15:59
Typically it's understood as meaning adultery, we Shia in
16:03
Greek, or perhaps a broader category of marital
16:06
unfaithfulness happening within an established consummated
16:10
marriage. OK, this interpretation is, you
16:14
know, the prevailing view that has guided a lot of Christian
16:16
thinking and church discipline on the issue for centuries.
16:20
It essentially grants one specific ground, marital
16:23
unfaithfulness for divorce that would then permit remarriage
16:26
without committing adultery. But as we've set up, this
16:30
traditional interpretation seems to create a pretty significant
16:34
tension, maybe even a contradiction with those
16:36
absolute statements we just looked at in Mark and Luke.
16:38
Exactly. If Matthew allows this exception
16:41
for adultery in an existing marriage, and Mark and Luke
16:44
present no exceptions at all, how do we reconcile that?
16:47
That's the puzzle. It feels like the Gospels are
16:49
saying different things on a really fundamental issue.
16:52
This is the crucial point, and it's where our author John Piper
16:55
shares his own sort of intellectual wrestling with
16:58
this. He mentions that he initially
17:00
held the common view that adultery and desertion were
17:03
legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage.
17:06
That was the standard view, he learned.
17:07
Yes, it was the air he breathed theologically, you could say.
17:11
But that assumption started to break down for him precisely
17:15
because it forced Matthew's Gospel to disagree with the
17:18
plain, absolute sense of Mark and Luke.
17:21
He found that inconsistency troubling.
17:23
Deeply unsettling, It seems he found it puzzling that so many
17:28
writers just assume Matthew was making explicit something that
17:31
supposedly would have been implicitly understood by Jesus's
17:36
original audience or by the readers of Mark and Luke.
17:38
He questioned that assumption. He did.
17:40
He asked. Would they really have assumed
17:43
such exceptions when faced with such clear, unqualified
17:46
rejection of remarriage in the other Gospels?
17:49
It felt to him like an assumption made to smooth over a
17:51
perceived difficulty, rather than a conclusion flowing
17:54
naturally from the texts themselves.
17:57
He reasons that if the Gospels are indeed God's inspired word,
18:00
they should ideally present a harmonious message, especially
18:03
on something as foundational as marriage.
18:05
Right, you expect coherence. Yes, and this intellectual
18:09
struggle led him to search for an interpretation that could
18:12
bring all the gospel accounts into a unified, coherent
18:15
understanding without playing one against the other.
18:17
OK, so if the common interpretation creates this
18:19
textual tension, what's the alternative?
18:22
Understanding that Piper and others propose, how can we bring
18:25
harmony to these accounts so they all speak with a consistent
18:28
voice about Jesus's teaching? What's the key to unlocking
18:32
this? The reinterpretation he landed
18:34
on hinges on two really significant clues, both found
18:37
uniquely within Matthew's Gospel.
18:40
The 1st is linguistic, focusing on the specific Greek word
18:44
Matthew uses in those exception clauses.
18:46
OK, the word itself. Yes, the word is porneia.
18:49
It's often translated as sexual immorality or sometimes
18:52
fornication. Porneia.
18:53
Porneia, and this word is distinct from moichea, which is
18:57
the specific Greek word for adultery, the word that directly
19:01
refers to marital unfaithfulness.
19:03
US breaking the marriage vow. OK, porneia versus Moche.
19:06
Why is that distinction so critical?
19:08
I mean, if it's sexual sin within a marriage, wouldn't
19:11
porneia just be adultery anyway? What does Matthew's choice of
19:13
porneia tell us? That's the exact question that
19:16
bothered Piper. If Matthew really meant that
19:19
adultery was the ground for divorce and remarriage, why
19:23
didn't he just use the common specific word for adultery,
19:26
moishea? Good question.
19:28
The answer, Piper argues, lies in Matthew's own careful usage
19:32
elsewhere. For instance, in Matthew 15.19,
19:36
Matthew lists various sins coming from the heart, and he
19:39
lists pornea alongside more Share.
19:41
Heals them separately. Separately, yes, suggesting he
19:44
clearly saw them as distinct terms referring to different
19:47
kinds of sexual offenses. Interesting.
19:49
And there's strong scholarly work like that by Abel, Essex
19:52
and Piper references reinforcing this distinction.
19:55
They show that in pre Christian Jewish writings and in the New
19:58
Testament, pornea consistently refers to a broader range of
20:02
illicit sexual relations, like what things like fornication,
20:05
sex between unmarried people, incest, prostitution, or really
20:09
any sexual activity outside God's ordained boundaries.
20:12
Moishea, on the other hand, seems reserved specifically for
20:15
breaking a marriage promise for actual marital unfaithfulness.
20:19
So Matthew's deliberate choice of pornea suggests he had
20:22
something other than adultery within a consummated marriage in
20:25
mind. That's the argument.
20:27
It suggests he had a very specific non adulterous kind of
20:30
sexual sin in mind for this unique exception clause.
20:33
OK, that's a fascinating linguistic detail.
20:36
It definitely shifts the perspective.
20:37
So if porneia is distinct from adultery in an existing
20:41
marriage, what's the second clue?
20:44
What brings this alternative interpretation into sharper
20:46
focus? The second clue connects
20:48
directly to Matthew's unique story, the one only he tells
20:52
about Joseph and Mary's betrothal.
20:53
That's in Matthew 1.1820. Right Joseph finding out Mary is
20:57
pregnant. Exactly, and here Joseph and
21:00
Mary are actually referred to as husband and wife even though
21:03
they are only betrothed. Guy is that it reflects the
21:06
extremely significant and legally binding status of
21:09
betrothal in that culture. It wasn't like modern
21:12
engagement. It was essentially the first
21:14
stage of marriage and it required a formal divorce to
21:17
break it off. OK, a legal divorce just for
21:19
betrothal? Yes, and Matthew tells us
21:21
Joseph, finding Mary pregnant and assuming the worst, planned
21:25
to divorce her quietly. Why?
21:28
Because he assumed she was pregnant due to pornea,
21:31
fornication, premarital sex, since he didn't yet believe the
21:34
define explanation. Now here's the kicker.
21:37
Matthew explicitly states Joseph was just or righteous in
21:41
considering this divorce. And Matthew uses the exact same
21:45
Greek word for divorce, apolysi, that appears in the exception
21:48
clauses in Matthew 5 and 19. Wow.
21:50
OK, so let me see if I'm getting this.
21:52
The interpretation is that Matthew's exception clause,
21:54
except for pornea, isn't about adultery and a consummated
21:57
marriage at all, correct. Instead, it's a specific
22:00
clarification designed for situations like Joseph and
22:03
Mary's betrothal, where premarital sexual activity was
22:07
discovered. Precisely.
22:09
The argument is that since Matthew is the only Gospel
22:11
writer to tell Jason's story and highlight the specific betrothal
22:14
dilemma, he felt the need to clarify something the other
22:17
gospel writers didn't need to. What needed clarifying?
22:19
He needed to clarify that Jesus is very firm.
22:22
Absolute prohibition against divorce and remarriage, as
22:26
stated strongly in Mark and Luke and generally by Matthew too,
22:30
did not apply to breaking a betrothal due to pornea
22:33
discovered before the marriage was consummated.
22:35
So the exception clause would basically mean whoever divorces
22:39
his wife in a consummated marriage and marries another
22:42
commits adultery. But obviously we're not talking
22:45
about justly breaking a betrothal because of premarital
22:48
fornication like Joseph considered that's.
22:51
The sense of it, yes. Whoever divorces his wife, not
22:53
including of course the case of cornea between betrothed couples
22:56
and marries another, commits adultery.
22:59
And this clarifies that Joseph's plan was righteous.
23:02
Yes, it clarifies that his intended action was just, and it
23:05
implies that if he had gone through with that divorce of
23:07
their betrothal due to suspected pornea, neither he nor Mary
23:10
would have been guilty of adultery if they later married
23:13
someone else. Why?
23:14
Because the marriage proper hadn't begun, it hadn't been
23:17
consummated, and the issue was premarital.
23:20
That radically redefines the scope of the exception.
23:23
It's not a loophole for existing marriages, it's a very specific
23:27
clarification about patrol. Exactly.
23:29
It narrows it right down to that premarital context that only
23:32
Matthew describes. That's a significant
23:33
reinterpretation. It certainly brings a powerful
23:35
coherence to the Gospels on this point, but I can imagine some
23:39
listeners thinking maybe that feels a bit too neat, a bit too
23:44
convenient for resolving the tension.
23:47
Could someone argue that Matthew's use of pornea could
23:49
still apply more broadly even if it includes the Joseph
23:52
situation? Or are there other reasons why
23:55
this Joseph, Mary context is seen as the definitive key?
23:59
That's a fair challenge. And yes, some scholars do argue
24:02
for a broader meaning of pornea, suggesting it could encompass
24:05
any illicit sexual activity, maybe even severe sexual sin
24:09
within marriage, making it still a ground for divorce.
24:12
However, the real strength of the interpretation we're
24:14
discussing, the patriotal view, lies in its remarkable ability
24:17
to harmonize all the gospel accounts without forcing any of
24:20
them into contradiction. That's a huge plus.
24:23
Consistency across the Gospels. Yes, and it does this by relying
24:28
specifically on Matthews own careful linguistic choices,
24:32
Pornea, not Morchea, and his unique narrative focus, the
24:36
Joseph story. It uses clues within Matthew to
24:40
explain Matthew. Exactly.
24:42
Think about it. You have the consistency of Mark
24:44
and Luke presenting this absolute prohibition.
24:47
Then you have Matthew, who includes that prohibition but
24:49
adds this one specific clarifying phrase using a
24:52
specific word, pornea, right after telling a unique story
24:56
involving precisely that kind of premarital pornea and the
24:59
justice of dissolving the betrothal over it.
25:01
The pieces seem to fit together quite well.
25:03
They do. If Matthew had intended A
25:05
broader meaning, like allowing divorce for adultery and
25:08
existing marriages, why would he deviate from Mark and Luke so
25:11
subtly? Why use Parnia?
25:13
Why not explicitly address the apparent contradiction?
25:16
The most internally consistent reading suggests he was
25:19
addressing the specific edge case that only he recorded.
25:22
Fascinating. OK, so beyond just solving A
25:24
textual puzzle, which is significant in itself, what are
25:26
the practical advantages of understanding it this way?
25:29
How does this reading maybe strengthen our grasp of God's
25:31
plan for marriage? Well, this interpretation offers
25:34
several really compelling benefits. 1st, as we said, it
25:38
allows Matthew's Gospel to align perfectly with the plain sense
25:41
of Mark and Luke. No contradiction.
25:43
That's a major gain for understanding the unified voice
25:46
of Scripture. Huge for biblical authority.
25:49
Yes. Second, it gives a solid,
25:51
convincing explanation for why Matthew chose pornea instead of
25:55
Morgea. It wasn't random, it was a
25:58
precise choice fitting the context you provided.
26:01
Makes sense of the language. 3rd It fits seamlessly with how
26:04
Matthew himself uses these terms distinctly elsewhere in his
26:07
Gospel, showing his consistency. Internal consistency.
26:10
And 4th, it fits exceptionally well with Matthew's specific
26:13
story of Joseph's dilemma, the story only he tells, providing
26:17
the necessary background for this particular clarification.
26:20
The apparent sort of irrelevance of cornea fornication to an
26:24
already established consummated marriage becomes the whole
26:27
point. Because it doesn't apply to
26:28
established marriages. Exactly.
26:31
It means this exception only applies to that specific
26:34
premarital circumstance. It turns what looked like a
26:37
contradiction into a coherent, unified teaching from Jesus
26:41
across all the synoptic gospels. OK.
26:44
If this interpretation holds water, it carries really weighty
26:47
implications for how we grasp marriage today.
26:50
It certainly does it. Forces us to confront a pretty
26:53
challenging truth. Yeah, Jesus's standard for
26:56
marriage is far more absolute than many modern views allow,
26:59
asserting A permanence that even civil divorce doesn't undo in
27:02
God's eyes. So what does this higher
27:04
standard really mean for understanding marriage in God's
27:07
plan, especially when you contrast it with how our culture
27:09
often views marriage and divorce?
27:11
Well, it signifies that marriage, once it's entered into
27:14
and consummated, establishes an essentially unbreakable bond in
27:18
God's eyes. Jesus's opposition to remarriage
27:20
isn't primarily based on the circumstances of the divorce or
27:23
who was at fault. It's based on the bond itself.
27:26
It's founded upon the stability and the God ordained nature of
27:29
the marriage covenant itself. This means that even someone who
27:32
is technically the innocent party in a civil divorce is
27:36
still, viewed from this perspective, as bound by their
27:39
original marriage covenant in God's sight.
27:41
And remarriage for them would still be considered adultery.
27:44
According to this interpretation of Jesus's words in Mark and
27:47
Luke and even Matthew, when understood this way, yes, this
27:50
standard elevates the marriage to a level of permanence that
27:54
profoundly challenges our contemporary societal views.
27:58
It asserts that the union is fundamentally God's doing what
28:01
God has joined together a divine act, not merely a human
28:05
agreement that can be undone just by human will or a legal
28:08
decree. It calls us to see marriage not
28:11
just as a contract but as a covenant.
28:14
A sacred oath, A. Sacred oath made before God,
28:16
intended to last until death parts the couple.
28:19
OK, this inevitably leads to that very difficult pastoral
28:23
question again. Yeah.
28:24
Touching on real lives in our churches and communities, Yes.
28:26
What about individuals who are already in a second or third
28:29
marriage following a divorce, if that first mayor's bond is still
28:33
considered valid in God's eyes? Under this view, does this high
28:36
standard mean those current unions should be dissolved?
28:40
That seems like it would create immense upheaval and a crisis of
28:44
conscience for so many. How do grace and truth work
28:47
here? This is an extremely vital
28:49
question, and it's where pastoral wisdom guided by
28:52
Scripture is absolutely crucial. As we touched on earlier, the
28:56
sources, including Piper, point back again to that passage in
28:59
Deuteronomy 24 point. 4 The Abomination passage.
29:03
Right. The one forbidding a wife from
29:04
returning to her first husband after a second marriage, calling
29:07
it an abomination. The implication drawn is that
29:10
even subsequent marriages, though perhaps entered into
29:13
disobediently according to God's highest standard, should not be
29:16
broken by yet another divorce once they are established.
29:18
So don't unravel the current situation.
29:21
Correct. Instead, the path forward
29:23
involves acknowledging the reality that the current union
29:26
perhaps began outside of God's perfect initial will, but the
29:29
call now is to seek God's mercy and forgiveness within that
29:32
existing marriage. It's about not compounding 1
29:35
error with another. Exactly.
29:36
It's seen as better in God's eyes not to create more broken
29:39
covenants by dissolving an existing, albeit imperfectly
29:43
formed union. So what does seeking God's mercy
29:46
within that setting practically look like for someone in that
29:49
situation, especially within a Reformed framework that values
29:54
both God's law and His grace? It means the instruction isn't
29:57
to divorce again to try and somehow fix the past.
30:00
That would likely just introduce new broken promises and more
30:04
pain. Instead, it involves first,
30:07
repentance for any past actions that were contrary to God's
30:10
standard, acknowledging that before God, and then, crucially,
30:14
A dedication to live faithfully within the current marriage.
30:17
Faithfulness now loving their current spouse.
30:19
Caring for any children, Seeking to honor God in their present
30:22
circumstances. Striving for holiness in their
30:25
daily lives together. So God's grace can work even in
30:28
imperfect situations. Absolutely.
30:31
The grace of God is vast. He can bless and sanctify a
30:34
relationship, even if its origins were flawed.
30:38
It's a recognition that while God's ideal is absolute, His
30:41
mercy extends to people living in the messy realities of a
30:44
fallen world. He calls them to faithfulness
30:46
now, right where they are. It becomes a path of
30:49
sanctification within that existing union.
30:51
Precisely. And for church leaders, it means
30:53
carefully upholding God's high standard for marriage as the
30:56
ideal, while also extending genuine compassion and clear
31:00
biblical guidance to those already in these complex
31:03
situations, helping them understand how to honor God in
31:06
their present reality. What a deep dive this has been
31:09
into Jesus's teaching on marriage, divorce and
31:11
remarriage. It really has.
31:13
We've seen how Jesus set this truly high standard, moving way
31:16
beyond the concessions Moses allowed because of human
31:19
hardness, really to uphold the original nature of the one flesh
31:22
bond from creation. It's a challenging vision, but a
31:25
deeply coherent 1 when you see how he grounds it.
31:28
And we've also seen how a really careful, precise look at the
31:31
specific words Jesus used, pornea versus mohia, and paying
31:35
attention to the unique context of Matthew's Gospel helps
31:39
reconcile what initially look like contradictions among the
31:42
accounts. All right.
31:43
The teaching then, stands as this firm declaration of the
31:46
well, the lasting nature of the marriage covenant in God's eyes,
31:50
with that unique exception in Matthew likely referring to
31:53
specific premarital circumstances, not a general
31:56
allowance for divorce and established marriages.
31:59
This understanding certainly gives us a lot to think about
32:01
regarding God's design for marriage.
32:03
It challenges cultural norms both back then and maybe even
32:06
more so today. It really does.
32:08
It forces us to reevaluate our deepest assumptions about what a
32:12
marriage vow truly entails and its sacred reality before God.
32:16
He calls us to reflect on the seriousness of those vows,
32:19
doesn't it, And the kind of faithfulness God expects from us
32:22
within this foundational relationship?
32:23
Yes, the biblical text asks us to think seriously about how we
32:27
honor the covenants we make, especially those made before
32:29
God, recognizing His presence and His authority in them.
32:32
So maybe the final thought for you listening is what does all
32:35
this mean for you as you reflect on marriage and faithfulness?
32:39
How might this high lasting standard Jesus presents reshape
32:44
your perspective on what it truly means for God to join two
32:47
people together? And how does that divine act
32:50
inform your understanding of a relationship that's meant to
32:53
reflect something of his own faithfulness and enduring
32:55
nature? Lots to consider.
32:57
Indeed, for Reformed thinking. Thank you for joining us on this
33:00
deep dive. Until next time, keep thinking.