Mr. Yeager: God did not evolve his standards over time, but He did initially reduce them, because there was no way for people to meet them. In Matthew 19:8 it says, “Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.’”
Once Jesus came to earth, it became possible for people (through the Holy Spirit’s reforming work in their lives) to meet God’s true standards of morality.
Evidence for this change in the standard for marriage is found in passages like 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6. Also, in Mark 10:11 it says, “He answered, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.’” If He said that, why would it be OK to marry another woman *without* divorcing your first wife?
Tom: I am glad you raised these points and once again commend my book as a systematic response to the issues at hand. You really should order a copy.
Let me respond sequentially to the above-referenced points you make.
First, it is sheer equivocation to say, “God did not evolve his standards over time, but he did initially reduce them.” A reduction of moral standards is an evolution, a change, of standards. I can’t really blame you so much for such hair-splitting, shoddy logic when such logical absurdities are heaped upon us ad infinitum by “authorities” who should know better. So I appeal to your God-given rationality to solve this puzzle for yourself and to lean not on the arm of flesh. Do you not see the patent non-sequitur in this assertion? Is it not, in fact, self-evident once you actually consider what kind of proposition it is? It is to say, God did not change his standards over time but He did change His standards over time.
Secondly, as you may have already gleaned from the exerpt from my book, I have a few things to say about the “party line” interpretation of Matthew 19:8. We have already established that God’s moral Law does not evolve, a proposition you have indicated you agree with—though, as I have pointed out, subverted with equivocation.
Since we are in professed agreement with one another that God’s moral standards do not evolve over time, we can proceed on a firm foundation to Matthew 19:8. First, since we agree that the New Covenant standard with respect to divorce is the necessity of fornication preceeding it; and second, since we agree that God’s standards do not evolve over time, then we must of necessity agree that the New Covenant standard is the same as the Old Covenant standard both of which require fornication as a necessary pre-condition for a man to divorce his wife; therefore, we must agree that the allowance for divorce under the Old and New Covenant does not represent any kind of concession to man’s sinfulness which would in fact be an evolution of God’s moral standards over time.
The necessary conclusion is obvious: divorce is not a change of moral standard, it is not a concession to man’s sinfulness, but in fact a form of punishment against man’s hard-heartedness demonstrated in marital unfaithfulness on the part of adulterous women and demonstrated in the hard-heartedness of men who commit adultery with other men’s wives. This hard-heartedness and the consequent necessity of divorce were not so from the beginning because Adam and Eve were created upright. But when sin entered in, so did divorce as a means of redress against this evil. The idea of divorce (or polygamy) as a concession to man’s sin on God’s part is the superimposition of an antibiblical concept onto the pages of Scripture.
Can you really believe that the divorce provision concerning an unfaithful wife does not involve some kind of penalty and punishment?
As to the second point about the empowering work of the Holy Spirit, there is nothing I see to quarrel with.
Finally, you cite I Timothy 3:12, Titus 1:6 and Mark 10:11 as “evidence” of a “change in the standard of marriage,” though you have already professed to believe that “God did not evolve (H)is standards over time.” Well, which is it? Your declarations are rife with confusion and contradiction. I think I have already dealt sufficiently with this above, so let us proceed to the passages you cite.
The Greek phrase in I Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 is “mias gunaikos andra.” New Testament Greek scholar, and respected Evangelical commentator, Jay E. Adams, tells us that this phrase, found only in these two instances, is an “unusual construction,” (Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, pg. 81). This “unusualness” is conceded to by many other Evangelical scholars. This, of course, should immediately raise the question in the minds of astute readers, “If this construction appears so ‘unusual’ to experts in New Testament Greek, then could there be a more natural understanding of the meaning of the passage which would render the phrase more ‘usual’?” Is it possible that commentators, blinded by presuppositions about what the phrase could possibly be talking about, have overlooked an obvious alternative?
Evidence for this is right in the epistle of Titus itself, in 3:10; “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition…” The word “first” here, “mian,” is a form of the word “mia” that is used earlier in 1:6. The word for “one” in Greek is “mia.” But the precise form of the word, “mia,” is also used in John 20:1, “The first day of the week, cometh Mary Magdalene…”
Notice that in John 20:1 and Titus 3:10, we have 2 forms of the word “mia,” (“mia” and “mian”) both of which are translated “first” in English. This word, “mia,” is therefore capable of being translated as either “one” or “first.” Since understanding the word “mias” in I Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 as “one wife man” results in an “unusual construction,” permit me to suggest that the correct translation here is “first wife man.” What we have in I Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 is the rule that ordained elders and deacons in the Church should still be married to their first wives. That is to say, we have a regulation here concerning divorce, not polygamy. This rule echoes and reiterates the warning and condemnation of Malachi 2:14-16 against the priests who divorced their wives:
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been a witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Note well that this Old Covenant passage addresses the priests (Mal. 3:1), the ecclesiastical officers of Israel, admonishing them against divorce; and the parallel fact of Paul addressing the ordained elders of the Christian church in reference to marriage. Is this a “coincidence” without any significance? No, the issue in both passages is the unlawful divorce of wives. The subject of polygamy only appears to be dealt with in I Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 because of poor translation informed by faulty doctrinal premises (that is, the monogamy-only doctrine).
In essence, I Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 are irrelevant to the issue of polygamy because it is not polygamy but divorce at issue. If, in fact, these two passages lay down a “one wife man” rule, then it is the only place in Scripture to do so in contradiction to the entire body of relevant scripture permiting polygamy.
Concerning Mark 10:11 (and parallel Matt. 19:9), and your question, “ ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.’ If He said that, why would it be OK to marry another woman *without* divorcing your first wife?”
This is, indeed, a pertinent question and one which does have a very good biblical answer. The key biblical passage to consult and compare with Mark 10 & Matthew 19 is Exodus 21:10-11:
If he take him another wife, her…duty of marriage shall he not diminish. If he do not (this) unto her, then she shall go out free without money.
This passage (as well a several other OT passages) rather clearly makes provision for polygamy, more precisely, polygyny, plural wives. What is notable, and seldom commented upon by commentators, is that the factual circumstances addressed by this law are directly relevant to the issues addressed by Christ in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. I quote to you what I have written in my book:
In Matthew 19:9, Jesus states, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” This statement is commonly cited as refutation of polygamy. But is it? Is it not rather a refutation of divorce on demand? What if a man does not put away his wife and marries another? If the one flesh relationship, that is the “duty of marriage” (Exo.21:10), with the first wife remains intact, then the marital bond has not been divided asunder. Is this not, in fact, precisely what Exodus 21:10 informs us? The adultery in the example given us by Christ consists of the dissolution of the marital bond with the first wife and the substitution of her with a second wife.
Exodus 21:10-11 commands: “If he take him another wife…her duty of marriage shall he not diminish.”
It is the failure of the husband to continue providing sexual relations with the first wife, not taking a second wife, which releases the first wife from her marriage. In short, taking a second wife does not constitute adultery, but doing so to replace the first wife does.Since the concubine is permitted to divorce her master on grounds of failure to provide sexual relations, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the master has violated the marital union. What word best describes the violation of the marital bond? Is it not adultery? We see, then, that this law both permits polygamy and at the same time does not permit the putting away of the first wife. If, however, the master should put her away via desertion of the marriage bed, the concubine is then given the right of divorce. How else are we to categorize the offense of the master other than as adultery? I see no plausible escape from this conclusion. This is directly relevant to whether or not Christ’s words in Matthew 19 invalidate polygamy because Exodus 21 addresses the exact same scenario as does Christ, that is, the putting away of a first wife, substituting her with a second wife, but it explicitly permits polygamy in the same context. There is, therefore, no valid way to conclude that Christ’s words in Matthew 19 invalidate polygamy.
I hope you will consider this above quotation from my book very carefully. For it is not the imposition of extra-biblical concepts onto the pages of Scripture but Scriptural considerations themselves which bear directly upon the issue at hand.