Adultery as Hyperbole?

BrotherElliott
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:19 pm

Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by BrotherElliott » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:52 am

I've been wrestling over the issue of marriage, divorce and remarriage for several years now, not because I find myself in these circumstances but have seen much painful division in the body of Christ because of the various views on this topic. I thought I was familiar with all the views on this issue until recently I found the following interpretation below and was hoping to dialogue about it here with other Christians. This is some highlights from Remarriage after divorce in today's church: 3 views By Gordon J. Wenham, William A. Heth, Mark L. Strauss, Craig S. Keener:
First, Jesus regularly used hyperbole and other graphic rhetorical devices...

Second, the very context of the divorce saying in Matthew 5:32 is hyperbole. Jesus not only calls remarriage "adultery" in 5:32; he calls lust "adultery" in 5:28. If we are ever tempted to break up subsequent marriages as acts of "adultery" based on 5:32, we ought to take equally seriously Jesus' remedy for the adultery of lust in 5:29-30: "If you right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away...

Third, and more significantly, Jesus' other teachings in fact assume the dissolubility of marriage. When I say "dissolubility," I do not mean that Jesus elsewhere permitted us to divorce; he taught against it. But I mean that Jesus elsewhere contradicts the notion that marriage is ontologically indissoluble, i.e., that in God's sight one remains married to one's original spouse (the grounds for making remarriage adulterous)...

Jesus does not say to the woman at the well, "You were married once and have lived with five men since then."...

Mark 10:11-12, recognizes that marriage is ontologically dissoluble. "Therefore" Jesus warns, "what God has joined together, let no one separate." There is little point in forbidding a separation that cannot occur in any case. Jesus forbids it because it can but should not occur.
To me, this view seems to take a conservative stance on marriage as well as provide insight into how we ought to apply Jesus' teaching about divorce and remarriage in the lives of Christians who find themselves in these circumstances. I guess the root of my question deals with distinguishing hyperbole from literal language. I think we'd all agree that Jesus used hyperbole when talking about a camel going through the eye of a needle and Pharisees swallowing camels, but is this only because we cannot take these remarks literally? Is the literal interpretation our default reading of the Bible?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by Homer » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:03 am

BrotherElliot,

I agree marriage can be dissolved but not always in God's eyes. I see it as a covenant or contract.

Let us say I own a manufacturing business. I need "widgets" to make my product and I sign a contract with Acme Mfg. to make widgets exclusively for me. I can use all Acme can make. One day Jones Mfg. tells me they will give me a better deal if I will switch all my business to them, so I drop Acme as a supplier. Acme now has no one to purchase their widgets. Analogous to marriage/divorce, I would think God would say I am still "married" to Acme as long as Acme wants my business. However, if Acme finds another customer for all their product and goes into a business contract with them, I think God would say my "marriage" with Acme is over, although I need to repent of my immoral business dealings.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by steve » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:06 am

I was writing the following when Homer posted, so I had not seen what he wrote. It will be obvious that I see things as he does on this.
---------------------------------------

I agree with the basic premise that marriage is ontologically dissoluble, in certain cases. However, I do not agree that Jesus is using hyperbole in teaching that a wrongful divorce, followed by remarriage can be (and usually is) actual "adultery." The point is that a man (or a woman, of course) who departs from his spouse and becomes sexually involved with another is committing an act that is the very definition of adultery.

This is true whenever there has been no justifiable divorce from the first spouse. If the state illegitimately breaks up a legal marriage, this does not constitute a divorce—since the state has no competence either to create or to dissolve covenants made between partners before God and the Church.

If a man sleeps with a woman other than the woman he married, he is committing adultery—even if he has persuaded a corrupt court to declare this legitimate by issuing his a worthless and invalid decree of dissolution. Where a covenant exists, nothing short of death or renunciation by the other party can free one from its obligations.

Thus, a man is not divorced because of a state decree (any more than he is married by a state decree). A man can be divorced only if God recognizes his having grounds to be divorced. Short of this, the man is still married, regardless of courtroom antics designed to destroy his wife's rights. If a married man sleeps with another woman (even with the permission granted by the State through an invalid marriage certificate), what he is doing is strictly-speaking (not hyperbolically) "adultery."

If someone has done this, what should he/she do? The answer, I believe, depends on the issue of whether covenant obligations continue relevant to the first marriage. If the jilted first spouse is faithfully waiting for the return of the adulterous party, then the latter must return home, renouncing the adultery. This would be obvious to all, if the matter had not been confused by the insertion of an invalid decree of dissolution and a subsequent invalid certificate of (re)marriage. If a man leaves his wife for another woman, then, plainly, he must repent and return to her.

On the other hand, if the jilted spouse has subsequently renounced the covenant, by pursuing or acquiring another mate, then the original offender must repent, seek the forgiveness of the wronged original spouse, and (I believe) count himself/herself free to enter into a legitimate marriage before God with the new partner (assuming this is not precluded by other legitimate considerations, like the new partner is not really free to be remarried or is not a Christian).

The solutions are as numerous as are the scenarios. However, I believe that the simple principle is: "Is there some innocent partner who is continuing to be cheated out of his/her covenanted rights, and if so, what is the fastest way to a godly remedy?"

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by steve » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:28 am

Having said that, I do believe there is much hyperbole in Jesus' teaching, including (possibly) this specific verse on divorce. This would include the statement "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced..." which does not mention, but may properly be understood to exclude, the cases where the woman has become legitimately free from her first husband.

Also, the phrase "except for the cause of porneia" may possibly contain a hyperbole (I am not sure). It may be that "the cause of porneia" could be intended to include "and other offenses of equal magnitude."

User avatar
mikew
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: so. calif
Contact:

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by mikew » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:31 am

In Matt 5, Jesus was addressing his "sermon" directed toward the Jews of that era and situation. Jesus was doing at least two things...

He was showing the contrast between their behavior and the behavior expected of the godly. These contrasts were primarily shown within the section we call the 'beattitudes."

The second task was to extend the law, just as the Jewish lawyers were doing. Yet Jesus, as one approach, was extending the law in the fashion that addressed the motives of the heart (such that murder was wrong cause the hatred against one's brother is wrong -- this is the best I can explain at the moment).
Then in 5:32 Jesus then extended the law on marriage so that the effects of divorce were shown also to break the law.

In effect, Jesus was saying "if you want to follow the law to obtain righteousness, and if you want to add more laws, then here's what you gotta do." There is an aspect of hyperbole but also of truth here.

As believers we can glean some insight into the nature and depth of the sin or flesh problem. We learn some of what the ideal is. However, we are not to also fall into the legalism trap. We can pray that God brings forth His ideal -- mostly this appears to be something that happens in the resurrection.

In effect I can see the words as literal and the true problem of sin. But the words are not given as law binding on us.
//
Image
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by steve » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:23 pm

I don't think the Sermon on the Mount was so much addressed to the observant Jews, in general, as to the specific Jewish men who had become His disciples (Matt.5:1-2; cf., Luke 6:20).

I also don't think Jesus was imposing a greater legalism through His teaching, but that He was, in fact, teaching about the nature of true righteous conduct, which is, of course, mandatory for disciples (Matt.5:20; 1 John 3:7-8; Rev.19:8; etc.).

Righteousness does not consist in trying to keep a legal code, but by having internal priorities of justice, compassion and faithfulness. Jesus described these as the "weightier matters" of the law, which were neglected by the legalists (Matt.23:23). It is clear that these "weightier matters" really are nothing other than aspects of the Christian's one obligation, which is to love one's neighbor as oneself (Rom.13:8; Gal.5:14)—doing to all other people the things consistent with what we want done to us (Matt.7:12).

No one wants to be treated unjustly—so just dealings toward others are a necessary part of loving. No one wants to be ignored in their time of need, so showing mercy is an essential component of loving. No one wants to be lied to or betrayed by others, so faithfulness is an indispensable part of loving.

To cheat on one's marriage vows is an act of unfaithfulness, injustice and mercilessness. It is in all ways unloving and is thus not consistent with discipleship (John 13:35).

The Sermon on the Mount describes and expounds upon what it means to love. This is not optional. The person who does not love does not know God (1 John 4:7-8), and has no reason to regard himself/herself to be a Christian (1 John 3:10-15).

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by Paidion » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:52 am

But I tell you that every one who looks at a wife with desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mt 5:28 )

Clearly, the translation above shows that Christ is teaching that a man who looks at someone else's WIFE lustfully had committed adultery in his heart.

The Greek does not distinguish between "woman" and "wife". The word γυνη can refer to either one. There is no need to take this as hyberbole. As an old Mennonite preacher once said, "If the literal sense of a passage makes sense, then there is no sense in taking it in any other sense."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
mikew
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: so. calif
Contact:

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by mikew » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:39 am

I think I was misunderstood if it was thought I was saying that Jesus was imposing greater legalism. I only meant to say that Jesus was showing, for example, that the law against murder was addressing at its heart the issue of anger with one's brethren (5:21-22). Part of Jesus' effort to combat the legalism of Jews was to show them that their efforts to do works of the law had not sufficed to fix the motives of their heart, e.g. such motives of anger that would lead to murder.

Jesus was dealing with problems of traditions saying "you have heard it said..." (5:21) and was rejecting the teaching and example of the Pharisees (5:20) and false prophets (7:21). So the discussion was getting into specific cultural problems.

In presenting this, I do not disagree that a big part of the message was about the qualities of love. However, the
"sermon" has more facets that commonly realized.

...
Now regarding another point presented on hyperbole. I see a weakness in this quote
Second, the very context of the divorce saying in Matthew 5:32 is hyperbole. Jesus not only calls remarriage "adultery" in 5:32; he calls lust "adultery" in 5:28. If we are ever tempted to break up subsequent marriages as acts of "adultery" based on 5:32, we ought to take equally seriously Jesus' remedy for the adultery of lust in 5:29-30: "If you right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away...
The man quoted here has made the mistake of equating a direct teaching "divorce causes the woman to be in adultery" with a conditional hypothetical passage in 5:29-30. The fact is that you eye does not cause you to sin. It is more likely your mind. When Jesus, therefore, has spoken with the hypothetical phrase "if your eye causes you to sin..." there is no obligation to gouge out an eye unless your eye actually was what caused you to sin. We can create the same sense of logic in saying "if eating carrots last month caused you to crash your car this week, then stop eating carrots." So, assuming you crashed your car last week, there is no reason to think that the carrots caused this to happen. (I hope I haven't muddled things up here.)

Paul has used the same rhetorical technique in Romans. For example:
Rom 2:3 And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Paul doesn't say here that anyone in Rome was going to be judged by God. He merely made a persuasive point that it is not good to judge others if you are doing the same thing.

Therefore we don't find no similar rhetorical effects in Matt 5:32 to allow us to reject its literalism in interpreting the effects of divorce.


//
Image
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com

BrotherElliott
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:19 pm

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by BrotherElliott » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:17 am

I appreciate the dialogue. Thank you brothers for your input.

It sounds like we'd all agree here that marriage is dissoluble. If so, is it only for the exception of adultery (Matt 5:32; 19:9), or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor 7:15) as some, but not all, would argue? Or was Jesus teaching us a principle that can be applied to other cases such as physical abuse, etc. Perhaps Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, understood the principle Jesus was driving home regarding divorce and had liberty in Him to make another exception (abandonment of an unbelieving spouse) in addition to unfaithfulness: "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment (v.6) . . . But to the rest speak I, not the Lord (v.12) . . . I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful (v.25) . . . I think also that I have the Spirit of God (v.40)

I think what Keener is trying to bring out is that Jesus is not attempting to legislate a new law for divorce and remarriage, higher than the standard of Mosaic Law, but bringing out the higher principle regarding divorce. It seems that Jesus' colorful language is not always intended to convey truth in every detail, especially His parables, but to drive home a certain point. In this case, perhaps Jesus is seeking to drive home a point on divorce using the vivid language of adultery to speak against divorce.

In my experience, the cases of divorced and remarried couples can be so diverse that, I believe, they must be handled individually in the fear and love of God, not necessarily according to a black and white set of rules from Jesus or Paul. For instance, let's say that a Christian man makes the mistake of divorcing his Christian wife without any legitimate biblical cause. (God forbid!) He remarries another Christian woman and they have a family of several children and are growing in grace. All the while, his first wife is waiting for him to repent and return to her. While this probably could never occur with mature Christians, cases like this and others exist. Based on Jesus' teaching, do we exhort this man to go back to his first spouse and break up his family (and "adulterous" marriage), or is it more righteous and just that this family be preserved? It seems the whole reason God hates divorce is because He seeks godly seed (Mal 2:15,16). Could this concern for children and godly seed trump the general teaching we have in the NT in certain unique cases in terms of righteousness and justice? Or do we base all of our counsel on this issue in strict obedience to Jesus and Paul? Certainly if they were bringing out a general principle according to the law of the Holy Spirit, then we would not be in disobedience in certain unique cases even if we weren't following the letter.

There are endless situations and factors that could be considered such as children, ignorance, abuse, past lives (even prior to one's new birth in Christ), that could, in my mind at least, provide biblical grounds for remarriage for circumstances beyond adultery or desertion if we base our judgment upon biblical principle that is consistent with the character of the explicit exceptions in the NT, rather than strict adherence to the NT letter. Granted, most divorce and remarriage cases may be open-and-shut based upon what we have from Jesus and Paul. Clearly, Jesus and Paul are against divorce! I do believe that remarriage in many cases is wrong and that the solution may be that the original marriage be preserved. Perhaps Keener and I differ on this, but I think he makes a very strong argument that should be considered in dealing with situations that are not as simple as many divorce-and-remarriage camps make them out to be. In such cases, two wrongs (a second divorce) will not create a right!

More from Keener:
Because I am convinced that Jesus' saying about remarriage being adultery is hyperbole, I believe that its point was (as in all other NT teachings on divorce) to prevent the dissolution of marriage, not to prevent remarriage per se. Therefore, I conclude that we need not consider breaking up subsequent marriages, whether or not we would have approved of the divorce.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Adultery as Hyperbole?

Post by steve » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:36 pm

Therefore, I conclude that we need not consider breaking up subsequent marriages, whether or not we would have approved of the divorce.
This comment is more likely to come from one who has never been betrayed by a departing spouse than from one who has. It is similar, in principle, to saying: We need not consider requiring restitution and the return of stolen property to the robbed party—whether or not we approve of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the robber's act of stealing it. This is easy to say, unless one is the robbed party. Christians who have never been robbed, however, ought to stand for the cause of those who have been.

If the cheated spouse still is holding out for the return of the prodigal partner, and wishes to have the children's two-parent home righteously restored, it is hard to imagine any arguments that would favor the rights of a mistress or paramour (even where illegitimate children have resulted from the sinful union) over those of the covenanted partner and of the "children of the vows" (Prov.31:2).

Obviously, since I opted for remarriage, I believe that remarriage is not adultery in every case. Where it is the case, though, it must be remedied before the offender can be thought to be restored to right relationship with God or with the Christian community. When Israel broke covenant with God, and became joined to false gods (thus committing adultery), God did not assume that Israel could be righteous again without breaking off that adulterous relationship and returning to her true husband (Jer.3:1).

I agree that Jesus is not really wishing to focus on the right to remarry, so much as to point out how heinous an illegitimate divorce, followed by remarriage, is. The divorce is itself the breaking of a sacred covenant. The wrongful remarriage simply adds additional sin (adultery) into the mix. Both sins require repentance—and also restitution, where applicable.

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”