The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Divorce

madmax,

I have read through all the material referenced by your two links. I have also read each individual reply in this thread and your responses to them. My conclusion: your view is unsubstantiated by the biblical record.

You have accused John Murray of basing his exegesis of Matt 19:9 on a faulty assumption, i.e., that divorce was permitted. But your reasons for charging Dr. Murray with an erroneous exegesis are based upon a faulty assumption of your own, i.e., that the Fall had no effect on the state of man, and his further relationships with other men, particular in this area of divorce. I think that there is no need to go into all the different misinterpretations you offered in those two sources for there is one that shows the fallacy of your view quite sufficiently. Ironically, it is the previous verse to which you take exception to the "exception" clause of Matt 19:9:

Matthew 19:8 (ASV) "He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so."

The Lord Christ mentions Moses not to establish the origin of divorce but rather as the one to whom much that had been known and practiced by oral tradition was given to put in writing. A perfect example of this is the Decalogue. It is incontrovertible that all that the Decalogue teaches, the Ten Commandments, was known and established as the moral law of God, immediately after the Fall. (Rom 5:12-14) Even though there was no written law prohibiting murder, it was established in the hearts of men that this was a grievous sin; one worthy of death to the perpetrator. (cf. Gen 4:8ff; 9:6)

This irrefutable truth goes to show that what the Lord Christ was referring to when He said: "Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so." is that due to the noetic effects of the Fall, GOD had allowed divorce among His people. There is no mention whatsoever of divorce as a sin, but rather it was something which GOD had given to Moses as legally legitimate. Secondly, we must recognize that this broad treatment of divorce was given to Moses as part and parcel of the covenant established with theocratic Israel; i.e., particular to the Old Covenant and the nation of Israel. Being that I hold to a non-theonomic view, this law was abrogated by the establishing of the New Covenant in Christ. This again is clearly seen by the passage under consideration; Matt. 19:8, 9.

With the establishment of the New Covenant, the law of divorcement was modified to reflect the righteousness of GOD in Christ. It did not annul the noetic effects of the Fall, but rather it magnified it. A breaking of covenant with GOD through the practice of sin was made to appear even more sinful and its effects were eternal. (cf. 1Cor 6:9, 10). Thus adultery as pertaining to the flesh is paradigmatic of that spiritual adultery which leads to permanent divorce; i.e., damnation. Thus the Lord Christ maintains that those who have entered into a marriage covenant and commit adultery effectively break that covenant and are subject to being cast off. When GOD "divorces" those who have made covenant through a profession of faith and thereafter gone after other gods, GOD is not "bound" to that faithless individual, but remains "free" as the innocent party. So, even though GOD "hates divorce", He is yet bound to divorce all those who commit spiritual adultery against Him.

To the matter of divorce on the grounds of desertion, a similar biblical analogy is established in that all those who went after "other gods" were not only guilty of adultery but desertion/abandonment of that oath and covenant established by such individuals. Thus, in the milieu of marriage, a spouse who abandons/deserts the one to whom he/she has vowed to keep covenant, releases the innocent party and having broken that covenant is guilty of a most heinous sin and leaves the innocent party, the one left is thus allowed to divorce and remarry, for they are no longer "bound" (Gk: doulow, i.e., as a slave to the other, free. (cf. Rom 6:16)

The bottom line is that Murray's exegesis of Matt 19:9 is established and in full agreement with the biblical record. On the other hand, your view is fallacious and guilty you are guilty of sophistry.

In His Grace,