Marriage Divorce and Remarriage
Part 7
Rex Banks
Appendix 1.
a. It is clear from Jesus’ teaching
on marriage divorce and remarriage that with but one exception, the individual
who enters into a second marriage relationship while the first spouse is living
is involved in ongoing sexual sin in
violation of the marriage covenant. Such individuals are said to “commit
adultery” (present tense). Unfortunately some are attempting to evade the force
of the Lord’s clear teaching on this point, and the various attempts to
accommodate unscriptural unions include the argument
that the verb form of moichao (adultery)
in Matt 5 and 19 does not speak of
ongoing sexual activity in violation of the marriage covenant, but
rather of a one time act of “covenant
breaking.”
b. For example Homer Hailey makes the following comment:
“The sin was in breaking the covenant by the
wife (or husband) in order to marry another and not in a ‘continuous sexual
adulterous condition.’ Therefore, repentance demands they do not break such a
covenant again” (The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come to God).
Thus “adultery” is covenant breaking rather than sexual sin and as a corollary, repentance simply involves the cessation of “covenant breaking” and does not involve the renunciation of a sexual relationship with a second “spouse”. The adulterer or “covenant breaker” simply resolves to give up covenant breaking and is free to remain with the new marriage partner.
Adultery: Covenant Breaking?
a. Very little can be said in defence the argument that “adultery” means something other than sexual sin, and the bankruptcy of this position is evident from the admissions and the bizarre linguistic gymnastics of those who attempt to defend it. For example Truman Scott who defends the “covenant breaking” position says:
“Up front let me tell you that every
publication, I mean Bible dictionary, commentary, Greek Lexicon, Greek word
study, specific treaties on divorce and remarriage … everything that I am aware
of that has been written or translated within the last 350 to 400 years define
adultery as follows: ‘Sexual intercourse between a married person and someone
other than his or her spouse’” (Wayne
Jackson, Truman Scott Divorce and Remarriage).
b. Really this candid admission kills the “covenant breaking” position stone dead. Unless we are prepared to jettison all authoritative sources we must accept that the literal meaning of moichao is “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (Thayer).
The
woman caught in the very act of adultery was not involved in “covenant
breaking” (Jn 8) and Jesus did not warn men not let their minds be inflamed by
thoughts of “covenant breaking” (Matt
The
literal meaning of na'aph (Heb) in the Old
Testament is equally clear. Adultery committed with “another man’s wife” (Lev
c. Because there is no real argument about the verdict of the lexicons no useful purpose is served by multiplying quotations from various Hebrew, Greek or English word studies.
d. Complete lack of support for the novel definition of adultery as “covenant breaking” is enough, in and of itself, to demolish the above argument, but we will also say a word about the claim that the verb “commits adultery” denotes a one time act in Matt 5 and 19. However, first consider another difficulty encountered by proponents of this position.
Suppose a Christian broke his covenant with Christ and pledged himself to serve a false god. Clearly this is a sinful act, and if pledging oneself to a false god is a sinful act, remaining in a relationship with that false god continues to be sinful. In the example under consideration, repentance involves not merely the repudiation of the original pledge to serve a false god, but also the cessation of any activities associated with that pledge.
This is another
reason for rejecting the “covenant breaking” position, regardless of whether moichao speaks of ongoing activity or a
one time act in Matt 5 and 19.
e. Some who
argue that adultery is to be defined
as divorce and remarriage appeal to a rule known as the Present General Supposition. They argue that according to this
rule, the present tense of the apodosis indicates what will happen whenever the
conditions set forth in the protasis are met. (The protasis is the “if-clause” of a conditional sentence which describes the conditions that allow
something to happen, while the apodosis
[sometimes introduced by “then” or the equivalent] sets forth what will
happen). They argue that according to Jesus in Matt 19:9 the two acts of
divorcing and remarrying constitute the committing of adultery. This is clearly
not the case.
f. In his Syntax of Moods and Tenses in
New Testament Greek, Ernst De Witt
“The supposition refers to any occurrence of an act of a certain class in the (general) present, and the apodosis states what is wont to take place in any instant of an act of the class referred to in the protasis” (emphasis mine).
As an example
g. Note
carefully that
h. Finally, some
are confused about the meaning of adultery because they fail to distinguish
between the literal and figurative meaning of moichao. Brother
Olan Hicks falls into this trap when he argues:
“Limiting the meaning of the word
"adultery" to sexual cohabitation is a mistake. Thayer gives also
this definition of it: "to usurp unlawful control over the sea, to
falsify, to corrupt" (Lexicon, pg. 417). The Bible also uses the term
variously. James uses it of friendship with the world (Js. 4:4). Jeremiah used
it of Idolatry (Jer. 3:9). Jesus used it of lust in the heart (Matt.
Brother Hicks
fails to mention that the quotation from Thayer deals with the figurative use of moichao, and the fact
the figurative use of a word does not alter its literal meaning. (Certainly
there can be no suggestion that “adultery” is figurative in Matt 19:9 given the
context and the fact that “immorality” is undoubtedly literal). Hugo
McCord points out:
“When Jesus spoke of adultery he
referred to it in three ways: (1) physical, fourteen times (Matt. 5:27, 32;
15:19; 19:9, 18; Mark 7:21; 10:11-12, 19; Luke 16:18; 18:11, 20; Rev. 2:22);
(2) mental, one time (Matt. 5:28); and (3) figurative, a general unfaithfulness
in all of life, three times (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38). James added one
more figurative use, unfaithfulness to God (4:4). But neither Jesus nor James
nor any other NT wrier spoke of adultery as ‘unfaithfulness to a covenant of
marriage’” (A Scholarly Book of Errors [I cannot identify the publication in which this article appeared]).
The Matter of Tense.
Lacking an in depth knowledge of the Greek language I will restrict my comments to a few general points which have been the focus of much discussion in the debate on marriage, divorce and remarriage.
a. In the
indicative mood it is possible for simple undefined (“aoristic”) action to be
expressed by the present tense, (although this is not true of the subjunctive,
the optative or the imperative where “the so called present [is] practically
always linear unless the Aktionsart
[kind of action – Rex] of the verb
itself is strongly punctiliar” A.T.
Robertson, A Grammar of
the Greek NT). It
is because of this peculiarity of the indicative that a great deal of
discussion has arisen in connection with the verb translated “commits
adultery,” some insisting that the verb speaks of ongoing action and some insisting that punctiliar action is in view.
b. Invariably
those on both sides of the argument appeal to various language specialists in
support of their own position. Such appeals can be quite daunting to those of
us who lack the specialized knowledge to comment on the debate. For example, those who insist that the final
verb in Matt 19:9 signifies durative action frequently cite the following from Ernest De Witt
“The Aoristic Present. The Present Indicative is sometimes
used of an action or event coincident in time with the act of speaking, and
conceived of as a simple event…. This usage is a distinct departure from the prevailing use of the Present tense to
denote action in progress.” (Emphasis mine) (Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New
Testament Greek).
c. Usually this
is countered with an appeal to other language specialists like A.T Robertson who says in his Grammar:
"(It)
is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as
denoting 'action in progress' like the imperf. as
Burton does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the
'Aoristic Present,' which he calls a 'distinct departure from the prevailing
use of the present tense to denote an action in progress.' In sooth, it is no 'departure' at all. The idiom is as old as the
tense itself and is due to the failure in the development of separate tenses
for punctiliar and linear action in the ind. of
present time."
d. In similar
vein Dana and Mantey has:
“It is a mistake to suppose that the durative
meaning monopolizes the present stem. Since there is no aorist tense for
present time, the present tense as used in the indicative, must do service for
both linear and punctiliar action” (Manual Grammar).
Usually this elicits a counter claim, for example the assertion that according to Dana and Mantey “the progressive force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods, when the nature of the case does not need any ‘present punctiliar’ tense.”
e. Most of us find such discussions quite intimidating, but before giving up in despair here are a few points which are generally agreed upon and not difficult to understand:
i. The fundamental characteristic of the present indicative
is action in progress, and unless some
compelling reason exists for rejecting ongoing action in the final verb of Matt
19:9 such durative action is preferred.
ii.
The verb root may suggest punctiliar
action or durative action. For example the statement “I turn 20” should be
considered punctiliar because of the action described (it is not ongoing)
whereas “My heart beats” clearly suggests iterative or repetitive or
interspersed action. The kind of action
which the verb describes (the aktionsart)
helps determine if durative or punctiliar action is intended. A.T. Robertson explains in his Grammar::
“We can see this difference in
our English. To blink the eye is punctiliar, to live linear. Hence it is not
enough to learn the force of voice, tense and mode. The real meaning of the
verb root has to be considered. In a broad general way the Greek tenses were
developed to make plainer the root idea of verbs so that almost any verb might
be used either as punctiliar, linear or state of completion." (Grammar).
And:
"The verb-root plays a large part in the history of the verb. This essential meaning of the word itself antedates the tense development and continues afterwards." (ibid).
(In the Divorce Debate Olan Hicks insists that the aktionsart of “commits adultery” is settled by the fact that the
first two verbs in Matt 19:9 are punctiliar. He insists that “The other one
relates to them so that it can be said that this one is also punctiliar.”
Brother Jim Waldron points out in response that according to A. T Robertson, [Grammar] “the aktionsart concerns the action of the verb itself.”)
iii. Clearly in light of ii above, since “adultery” involves sexual activity in violation of the marriage bond (see above) there is every reason to insist that the final verb in Matt 19:9 describes ongoing activity. The adultery is ongoing as long as illicit sexual activity continues.
iv. Also significant is the fact that the verbs “divorces” and “marries” in Matt 19:9 are both aorist tense verbs, but “commits adultery” is present tense. The fact that Jesus changes from the aorist to the present strongly suggests that He was stressing ongoing action in the third verb. He was not restricted to the present tense and could have expressed aorist action clearly
f. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that even if Jesus did employ the aorist here, it is not correct to say that the aoristic present must speak of punctiliar action. The term “aorist” simply means undefined. (See Burton’s Syntax p 9).
Conclusion: In Matt 19:9 Jesus is saying that the one who divorces (aorist) his wife and marries another (aorist) keeps on committing adultery. It is possible to live in adultery that that is the sad plight of the unscripturally married individual.