Anabaptists Now: Taking Exception to Jesus’ Exception Clause

“I don’t know if what you are doing is right or not. I really don’t know. I feel I have to tell you that. But… yes, I will play piano at your wedding.”

That is what I told a friend, in words I can’t recall specifically now, roughly twenty years ago. I had met my friend through the Christian student club at Nipissing University, where I was pursuing an English degree. I’m not sure which year we had that conversation, but in one of our years together my friend, a Pentecostal, was the Bible study teacher for the club and I, a Mennonite, was the club president. (He also played an energetic guitar while singing “I’m Trading My Sorrows.”)

My friend had been married before. I never met his first wife, for she had left him some years previously. He didn’t want their marriage to end, but she made the decision for him. Despite her blatant unfaithfulness, he repeatedly sought to win her back. She refused, and eventually they divorced.

Now my friend had met a new friend, a smiling young lady who also attended the Christian student club and had a ready testimony. After their wedding, they moved overseas where they served as missionaries until she tragically died less than ten years later.

I have a terrible long-term memory, so I can’t tell you any details about their wedding; but I do remember I played piano. The main reason I remember even that basic fact is because of the conversation I had to have with my friend before I agreed to play.

I grew up in a congregation that was first part of the Conservative Mennonite Church of Ontario (CMCO) and then, since my early teens, part of Midwest Fellowship. In that setting I clearly caught, however it was taught, that divorce was terribly wrong and that remarriage was even worse.1 Adultery was certainly no excuse for remarriage, for remarriage itself was adultery. I imagine I learned that through simple presentation of relevant Scripture texts and also through our congregational study of books by people like Daniel Kauffman and John Coblentz.

As I grew older and moved out of our congregational bubble, I naturally met people from other denominations with other understandings of what the Bible teaches about divorce and remarriage. I have never lost my belief that every time divorce happens a marriage has fallen short of God’s design; someone, somewhere, has sinned. And I’ve always remained convinced that there is far too much divorce and remarriage happening among people who claim to follow Jesus.

But I’ve also had persistent, unresolved questions throughout my adult life. What did Jesus mean by “except it be for fornication” (to use the KJV expression)? If divorce is ever justified, when is it? And is remarriage ever blessed by God? What about couples who have wrongly remarried; should they now separate?

A number of years ago I was asked to express my affirmation with a Mennonite denominational position statement on divorce and remarriage. The statement said that initiating divorce or remarrying while a spouse is still living is always wrong and that those who thus remarry must separate. In response, I summarized God’s creation design regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. But also, being honest, I added more, including these words:

God’s ideal is crystal clear: marriage should be for life, a mirror of Christ’s loving relationship with the Church. God’s perspective on less-than-ideal situations is not always so clear. I notice that the NT texts about marriage (both Jesus’ words and Paul’s teachings) are presented as discussions of what a Christian should do. They are not directly presented to answer every question of the appropriate response of either a repentant Christian or the church after this ideal has been violated. Thus we rely on exegetical and theological deduction when we address questions like, “What about someone who has already divorced and remarried and now wants to faithfully honor Christ?” While such secondary questions are crucially important, I think it is honest and helpful to observe that no NT text appears to have been directly intended to answer that question. Most attempts to answer such questions either rely on the witness of church history or are based on important but slender and difficult exegetical data.

I am confident that my experience is not unusual among those of us who have grown up in the conservative Anabaptist world.2 Many of you, I’m sure, could tell similar stories. Others of you, who are more confident in your interpretations on this topic, could probably tell stories of when your beliefs bumped up against differing beliefs within our own conservative Anabaptist world.

The diversity and uncertainty of conservative Anabaptist beliefs about divorce and remarriage were driven home to me recently in an informal poll I conducted on Facebook.

I was curious how accurate my hunches were about how conservative Anabaptists handle Jesus’ exception clauses. Here, to refresh our memories, are the two times Jesus mentioned some exception to his prohibition of divorce:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt. 5:32)

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matt. 19:9)

The two clauses are very similar and are usually understood to mean the same thing. But how do conservative Anabaptists handle them? I created a poll to find out.

I’ll share the results of that poll here and use it as a springboard for discussion. You are also welcome to add your own responses in the comments below.

Here is the poll I presented:

In your experience, what are the most common ways that conservative Anabaptists handle Jesus’ exception clauses in the Matthew 5 and 19 passages about divorce and remarriage? Which of the following is most common in your experience?

A. The exception refers to fornication during the Jewish betrothal period. It allowed for “divorce” from a betrothed “wife” or “husband” and gave permission to marry another. It has no application for married couples today.

B. The exception refers to adultery after marriage. It allows for divorce (or separation) only, but no remarriage.

C. Either of the above are equally possible as a matter of biblical interpretation; what is clear is that Jesus is prohibiting remarriage in all cases.

D. Focusing on exception clauses is just looking for loopholes; let’s focus on Jesus’ and Paul’s clear teaching instead.

E. Some other approach?

I’m not asking what you believe, just trying to see if I’m discerning the most common approaches within the conservative Anabaptist world. Thanks in advance for your help!

A brief explanation is in order about options A and B above.

Option A is what I will call the “betrothal” view. This view says that Jesus’ exception clauses refer only to the Jewish practice of betrothal, not to fully married persons. A Jewish person who entered a betrothal covenant was already called a husband or wife, even though the wedding might not happen for another year. They could have their marriage annulled (the term “divorce” was even used) if unfaithfulness was discovered in their partner. They were then completely free to marry another. This is what Joseph initially planned to do with Mary when he discovered she was pregnant (Matt. 1:18-19).

Option B is what I will call the “divorce-only” view. This view says that Jesus’ exception clauses refer to fully married persons. According to this view, Jesus is giving permission for a married person to divorce their spouse if that spouse commits sexual immorality (usually defined as adultery). Jesus was not, however, giving permission to remarry.

Now to the results of the poll. Sixty-four people answered this poll, representing a fairly diverse range of conservative Anabaptist church influences in at least twenty American states, two Canadian provinces, and Mexico. It is not possible to tally the results with scientific accuracy, for some people gave multiple or qualified responses. But the general picture is clear enough.

First, here are the responses from respondents who offered only one answer to my poll, shown as a percentage of all respondents. (The raw vote total is included below each heading.) For example, about 17.2% of all 64 respondents (11 people) said they have heard only the betrothal view taught:

(You can enlarge the images by clicking on them.)

Here is a record of all responses, showing how many times each answer was mentioned in any way. Many people gave answers like “Mostly A, but also sometimes D.” In such a case, this chard treats both A and D alike, without recognizing that A was prioritized over D. For example, about 54.7% of all 64 respondents (35 people) said they have heard the betrothal view taught, whether often or rarely:

Finally, here is another graph displaying all responses, also including (in orange) a rough attempt to represent the weight respondents intended for each answer when they gave more than one answer:

How can we summarize these results?

  • My hunches were probably right; only one person suggested an alternative conservative Anabaptist approach to Jesus’ exception clauses, which was really option D with some ugliness added.3
  • The most common approach is probably the betrothal view, mentioned by over half the respondents. My perception is that many Anabaptists today have encountered this view through popular-level Protestant teachers such as Bill Gothard and Joseph Webb (Till Death Do Us Part? What the Bible Really Says About Marriage and Divorce). More professionally-published sources have also been influential, such a paper by John Piper (“Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper”) and a recent multi-authored book called Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View. I am not sure when this view entered Anabaptist circles, but already in 1950 John L. Stauffer was promoting it,4 and in about 1992 John Coblentz wrote that “this view has had wide acceptance among conservative people.”5 Note: This paragraph originally indicated that J. Carl Laney promotes this view, but I was mistaken.
  • The divorce-only view is also very popular among conservative Anabaptists, mentioned by nearly half of the respondents. This view appears to have somewhat longer roots within Anabaptism (more on that in another post), but Protestant scholars such as Gordon Wenham and William Heth (Jesus and Divorce) have also been influential within some Anabaptist groups. Anabaptist influencers David Bercot (“What the Early Christians Believed About Divorce and Remarriage”) and Finny Kuruvilla (“Divorce and Remarriage: What About the Exception Clause?”) are also promoting this view through their summaries of early church practices.
  • Over a third of respondents have heard both the betrothal and divorce-only views presented as being equally-valid interpretative options.
  • Over a third of respondents have heard warnings against looking for loopholes and encouragement to focus on clearer texts instead of the exception clauses.

What can we learn from this poll about how conservative Anabaptists approach Jesus’ exception clauses?

For most of the rest of this post I plan to discuss some weaknesses I perceive in some conservative Anabaptist approaches to these words of Jesus. I will cite specific examples to support my observations. Please know that when I name names, I have absolutely no desire to belittle anyone. People whom I highly respect and love as past mentors and teachers are among those who may feel challenged by some of my words. This is a difficult topic and many good Christians have not reached full agreement. Part of me does not want to name names, but I think citing some public documents can make this discussion more fruitful. My desire is simply that together we will learn to better hear and understand Jesus’ words. If you feel I am mishandling his words, you are welcome to let me know.

With those expressions of love in mind, here are four general observations about the poll results:

First, it appears that most conservative Anabaptists do not rely on or allow these exception clauses to determine their theology and ethics of divorce and remarriage. Rather, for these texts, their desired theological ends justify their uncertain interpretive means. Why are only these two specific interpretations (betrothal and divorce-only) currently popular among conservative Anabaptists—especially since these interpretations are very much the minority within Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and the Orthodox Church? It is surely because, rightly or wrongly, many conservative Anabaptists have their minds made up about what Jesus could not mean before even considering these texts.

An example of this is a tract available from the conservative publisher Rod and Staff. It rebukes those who use Jesus’ exception clause as a loophole but never offers a positive interpretation of what Jesus actually did mean:

Sometimes the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 is used to support divorce in cases of unfaithfulness. But such reasoning cannot be reconciled with the other New Testament passages on divorce and remarriage, which are very clear in their statement. The hardness of heart would grasp for a loophole here and fail to reckon faithfully with the clear statement of God’s Word in a number of other passages. This is hardly a safe approach to the Word.6

Second, it is clear that conservative Anabaptists have not reached a consensus about what Jesus did mean when he said “except it be for fornication.” They do not even agree on whether this clause has any direct relevance for Christians today or whether it was something spoken only for Jewish listeners.

Here I want to emphasize an important side point: If the betrothal view is correct, then we have zero verbal permission from Jesus not only for remarriage, but also for separating a marriage for any reason whatsoever. According to this view, Jesus’ words “Let not man separate” are given no qualification whatsoever for married couples—only for those who were betrothed. If we are going to allow for any separation of married persons (even when we don’t call it divorce), we have to assume that Jesus would have been okay with it and find possible justification elsewhere, such as from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:11. This assumption may indeed be valid; maybe we should consider the possibility that Jesus sometimes used typical Jewish hyperbole in his teaching. But if we adopt this interpretation, we must be honest: we are affirming that an unspoken qualification is attached to Jesus’ words, “Let not man separate.” We are saying, “Jesus said ‘Let not man separate,’ but we know that there are times when he would approve of separation anyway.”

Third, many conservative Anabaptists are deeply uncomfortable with these exception clauses. Truth be told, they would be happier if Jesus had not spoken them. These clauses throw a wrench into the otherwise clear teaching of Scripture. The term “exception clause” makes it feel too much like Jesus is “making an exception” for something that is intrinsically evil. If you’ll pardon another pun, many conservative Anabaptists “take exception” to Jesus’ exception clauses. This is evident in several of the examples I share in this post.

Fourth, when conservative Anabaptists do try to explain Jesus’ exception clauses, they are often quite happy to present mutually opposing interpretations as equally possible.  As long it can be shown that there are ways these exception clauses can possibly be harmonized with other biblical texts that appear to forbid divorce and remarriage, many conservative Anabaptists are content not to decide between contradictory interpretations.

I want to underscore that the two popular conservative Anabaptist interpretations of Jesus’ exception clauses indeed sharply disagree with each other on an exegetical level.

In pastoral practice, the two probably lead to similar results in conservative Anabaptist churches. The divorce-only view allows a believer to divorce from an adulterous spouse; but is rarely put into practice. The betrothal view technically does not give authorization for any sort of separation; but, as with the divorce-only view, sometimes separation is permitted for a variety of difficult circumstances without any direct authorization from these texts. Most importantly, both approaches strongly prohibit any remarriage, so the practical results are similar.

Despite the similar theological and practical results, on an exegetical level these two views are diametrically opposed. There are two key exegetical questions that must be solved to properly understand Jesus’ exception clauses:7

  1. What do the exception clauses themselves mean? Especially, what does porneia (πορνεία; the word translated “fornication” in the KJV) mean? This is a lexical question, a problem of word definitions.
  2. How do the exception clauses fit within Jesus’ complete sentences? In particular, in the Matthew 19:9 exception clause (which is where much of the debate is focused), does the exception clause modify only what comes before it, or does it modify Jesus’ entire statement? That is, does it identify an exception for divorce only, or also for marrying another? This is question of syntax, or sentence structure.

On these two key questions the betrothal and divorce-only views completely disagree. On the first question, the betrothal view says that porneia refers narrowly to premarital sin—fornication. But the divorce-only view says porneia is a more general word referring to a variety of sexual sins, including adultery.8

On the second question, the betrothal view says the exception clause modifies the entire subject-portion of Jesus’ sentence (“whoever divorces his wife and marries another”). Thus, Jesus was recognizing an exception for both divorce and marrying. What Jesus was really saying in Matthew 19:9 could be paraphrased like this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, except if his betrothed wife commits sexual immorality; then he is free to divorce her and marry someone else.”

The divorce-only view, in contrast, says the exception clause modifies only the first half of the subject of Jesus’ sentence (“whoever divorces his wife”). Thus, Jesus was recognizing an exception for divorce only. Jesus’ statement could be paraphrased like this: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, except if his wife commits sexual immorality; then he may divorce her, but remarriage would still be adultery.”

The exegetical disagreement between these two views can be summarized in chart form.

Here is the exegesis that leads to the betrothal view:

And here is the exegesis that leads to the divorce-only view:

Given these distinct differences, a thoughtful reader needs to come to a confident conclusion on only one of these two questions to eliminate one of these views (betrothal or divorce-only) as a possible reading.

The betrothal interpretation of the second question (about syntax) demands further comment. I get the sense that few people take time to consider the implications of how the betrothal view interacts with the syntax of Jesus’ statement; most discussions of this view focus on the lexical question instead, along with possible supporting historical evidence.

The betrothal view, however, demands that we understand Jesus’ exception clause as modifying both the divorce and marriage parts of the subject of his sentence. If this were not so, then Jesus would have been saying this: A betrothed person who discovers that their husband or wife has been sexually unfaithful may be released from the betrothal covenant, but they may never marry anyone else. This proposal is self-evidently and historically unreasonable.

(It may be useful to point out that Jesus does not say “remarry” but “marry another.” Further, as I understand it, the Greek can be understood to say “marry an other”—referring not to a second woman but a different woman.)

The point I want to emphasize here is that, if the exception clause does not modify the marriage part of Jesus’ statement, the betrothal view is impossible.

This fact is sometimes missed. In a Christian Light Publications book, for example, Coblentz notes how the exception clause comes after Jesus’ mention of divorce and before his mention of adultery. Based on this sentence order, he concludes that “the exception refers to the putting away.”9 Despite establishing this firm conclusion, Coblentz later says, “Unfortunately, seeing the exception clause as referring to the ‘putting away’ does not resolve all the controversy.”10 After this statement, he proceeds to discuss the strengths of the betrothal view. In the end, he seems to prefer the divorce-only view, but he still affirms the betrothal view as possible.11

Clair Martin, in an official publication of the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, relies significantly on Coblentz. He agrees that the betrothal and divorce-only views are “both in line with scripture.”12 He examines only the lexical question of the definition of porneia and never addresses the syntactical question of how the exception clause modifies Jesus’ statement. He seems unaware that this factor also separates the betrothal and divorce-only views. His main concern seems to be to close “one of the most prominent loopholes that people use to get around this subject.”13

The inverse, of course, is also true: If you are going to say that the betrothal view is a valid interpretive option, then you must acknowledge that one of the most commonly-cited arguments in favor of the divorce-only view is not conclusive: The syntax of the sentence does not prove that Jesus is making an exception only for divorce. This means, if we are honest about our exegesis, that those who promote the betrothal view should acknowledge that the syntax of the sentence also permits Jesus to be making an exception for both divorce and (re)marriage.

What does it say about conservative Anabaptists that so many are content to hold mutually-contradictory interpretations as equally valid? Positively, it reflects a determination to honor the teaching of Scripture that is understood to be clear, without letting disputed texts prevent obedience. It could also reflect exegetical humility—an awareness that the Bible is not always as plain as our Anabaptist heritage likes to claim.

Negatively, it could reflect the fact that most conservative Anabaptist church leaders have never studied Jesus’ exception clauses carefully; indeed, that they are not equipped to do so. It could also reflect a proof-text approach to Bible interpretation and systematic theology that does not sufficiently consider the original literary and cultural contexts of the biblical texts. More positive and negative implications are surely involved, and not everyone who takes a both-and stance shares the same mix of positive or negative motivations.

One way to avoid such tension, of course, is to simply ignore Jesus’ exception clauses altogether (response D in the poll). Two particularly clear examples of this are provided by publications from the Southeastern Mennonite Conference and the Beachy Amish-Mennonites.

The former group adopted a “Statement of Position on Divorce and Remarriage” in 1983. This statement lists both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 among its proof texts, but never quotes them and never makes any mention of “fornication.” It does quote (with commentary) Mark 10:11, which is parallel to Matthew 19:9 except for the crucial difference that it lacks the exception clause: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth [or continues to commit] adultery against her.” Avoiding Jesus’ exception clauses altogether, this statement simply states, “The act of adultery does not dissolve the marriage bond.”14

A doctrinal position statement ratified by Amish Mennonite (Beachy) ministers in 2003 takes a similar approach. (In fact, though it presents itself as an original publication, it is obviously an adaptation of the former document, virtually identical in many sentences and following the same overall structure.) This statement cites seventeen different passages of Scripture, including some verses from Matthew 19. But it never once cites or alludes to either of Jesus’ exception clause statements (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Romans 7:1-3 (or a particular interpretation of that text) is cited in whole or part seven times in this brief document and clearly serves as the interpretive lens through which all other texts are read—or excluded.15

The approach exemplified by these two documents, while understandable on one level given the desire to uphold God’s creation design for marriage, is functionally dishonest in its handling of Jesus’ words. We do not honor Jesus when we avoid his “hard sayings” and quote Scripture selectively to support our theological positions. We do not serve God’s people well, either, when we do this. Unfortunately, this approach is a relatively common way that some conservative Anabaptists “solve” the topic of divorce and remarriage.

What is a better way to solve the interpretive dilemma of Jesus’ exception clauses?

Are there better options than either (a) promoting two mutually-contradictory interpretations of Jesus’ words or (b) pretending he never said what he did? What solution might conservative Anabaptists be likely to adopt?

Without professing prophetic ability, I suggest several possible outcomes. First, either the betrothal or the divorce-only view may be successfully championed by someone until it becomes the consensus view. This would significantly shore up the goal of preserving a rare-divorce, no-remarriage culture in conservative Anabaptist churches. And I must emphasize that nothing I have written in this post proves that either of these two views is wrong, even though I do see some weakness in both that are beyond the scope of this post.

Second, if a significant consensus is not reached, I suspect a growing number of people, observing the uncertainty, will question the current conservative Anabaptist approach to divorce and remarriage more broadly. We will continue to see people, either quietly or publicly, walk away from the unqualified no-divorce, no-remarriage teaching they have absorbed.

It must be acknowledged, after all, that there are not only two possible ways to deal with Jesus’ exception clauses. There are several views that are similar to the betrothal view, for example, which suggest that Jesus was referring to incestuous or otherwise unlawful marriages. Others have proposed, without any hard evidence, that Matthew added the exception clauses in an attempt to tone down Jesus’ rigid stance against divorce and remarriage (which is different from the proposal that Matthew added the clauses to accurately reflect Jesus’ unspoken assumptions). Still others argue that the exception clauses are not really exceptions at all, but rather Jesus’ way of saying that he was making no comment on the Deuteronomy 24 exception that the Pharisees asked him about (the “preteritive” view).

But apart from either adapting the betrothal view or finding a way to functionally remove any exception from Jesus’ lips, there is also the possibility of revisiting how our two key exegetical questions might fit together.

There are two primary options. One option makes little sense, as we noted above; there is no good reason to imagine Jesus was prohibiting betrothed persons from ever marrying if their first betrothal was ended by the discovery of sexual immorality:

The other option is that Jesus was recognizing that both divorce and marrying another are honorable options when a spouse (or betrothed person16) violates a marriage through sexual immorality:

For conservative Anabaptists, the problem with this last view is not only that it appears to directly contradict clear Scriptures that prohibit both divorce and remarriage; it also is the most common Protestant way of interpreting Matthew 19:9.17 This, to many conservative Anabaptists, makes it doubly suspect and likely to undermine their Anabaptist vision of obedience to Jesus.18

How, then, are we to resolve this dilemma that conservative Anabaptists have with Jesus’ exception clauses? One necessary solution, most certainly, is to engage Scripture more closely in search of more sure answers. In doing this crucial task, however, I suggest that we also take a closer look at our own Anabaptist heritage.

You may be surprised, as I was, to learn that it is only in recent history that Anabaptists have taken exception to Jesus’ exception clauses. But that is a story for another post.

Thank you for reading. Please pray for me as I continue to study and write, and please share your insights in the comments below!

If you want to support more writing like this, please leave a gift:

  1. The congregational “Statement of Faith and Practice,” as of 2002, simply says, “Divorce and remarriage is contrary to God’s Word.” Constitution and Statement of Faith and Practice of the Otter Lake Mennonite Church, Revised Constitution 2002, pg. 14.
  2. I normally use that term as it is commonly used in my world, to refer to anyone from Amish or Mennonite churches that range from Old Order churches on one “end” to roughly the Biblical Mennonite Alliance on the other “end.” In this post I am referring mostly to the car-driving subset of that group, since I have almost no direct experience with Old Order groups.
  3. He described like this: “I grew up in Joe Wenger Mennonite church. My takeaway would be that they are teaching no divorce for any reason. Yet, if you leave or show any inclination to leave, they’ll gladly try to take your spouse aside and try to convince them you’re off in the head. My point being, in teaching not acceptable but in action there are plenty of divided marriages. The go-to verse would be, ‘In the beginning it was not so, but through the hardness of your hearts,’ etc.”
  4. John L. Stauffer, “Biblical Principles–Divorce and Remarriage,” The Christian Ministry, Scottdale, PA, III, 3 (July-September, 1950), 89-94; as mentioned in an annotated bibliography by J. C. Wenger, Separated Unto God (Harrisonburg, VA: Sword and Trumpet, 1990; orig. pub. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1950), 182.
  5. John Coblentz, What the Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (Harrisonburg, VA: Christian Light Publications, 1992), 34. This booklet is available in full online:
  6. “Divorce—Is It Lawful?” 12-page tract (n.a., n.d.), Rod and Staff, 5-6. Accessed online, June 20, 2020.
  7. Gordon Wenham says that interpretations of Jesus’ Matthew 19:9 statement “hinge on two main issues”: “the meaning of the Greek term porneia” and “the grammar of the exception clause” in relation to the rest of the sentence (Gordon Wenham, Jesus, Divorce, and Remarriage: In Their Historical Setting (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 78). Both the nature of Jesus’ statement and my reading of other authors confirm Wenham’s claim.
  8. Some suggest it refers narrowly to adultery, but that position is harder to defend on lexical grounds and also unhelpfully excludes other forms of sexual immorality that married persons may commit, such as homosexual relations or bestiality.
  9. Coblentz, ibid., 29.
  10. Coblentz, ibid., 34.
  11. Coblentz, ibid., 38.
  12. Clair Martin, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: A Biblical Perspective, Biblical Perspectives on Present Day Issues, #2 (Publication Board of Biblical Mennonite Alliance, 2010), 6.
  13. Ibid., 6.
  14. “Statement on Divorce and Remarriage,” (Southeastern Mennonite Conference, 1983). Available online, as copied by a student of Mark Roth:
  15. “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” (Sugarcreek, OH: Calvary Publications: 2003). Available online: A note at the beginning of this statement says this: “This doctrinal position statement was formulated by a five-man bishop committee and ratified by the Amish Mennonite (Beachy) ministers…” I presume the five bishops were Beachy, not Southeastern Mennonites.
  16. In this approach, Jesus’ exception clause explains Joseph’s plan to divorce Mary while also referring to sexual betrayal within marriage; sexual unfaithfulness is seen to permit divorce and marrying another at any stage of the relationship.
  17. It must be noted, however, that merely adopting this reading of Matthew 19:9 does not mean one agrees with most Protestants on the topic of divorce and remarriage in general. Most Protestants allow divorce and remarriage not only in cases of adultery, but also in cases of desertion, citing a “Pauline privilege” in 1 Corinthians 7:15. In addition, many Protestants say that “other actions that break the marriage covenant such as physical abuse” are also grounds for divorce and remarriage (Andrew David Naselli, “What the New Testament Teaches About Divorce and Remarriage,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 24 (2019): 3–44, pg. 5. Available online:
  18. I have learned that this wariness about Protestants surprises some of my friends who are not from Anabaptist roots. For such readers, here are a few excerpts from a twenty-page Rod and Staff Publishers tract titled “More than Protestantism: The Thrilling Story of a Church Founded upon Christ”: “Born-again Christians everywhere are being urged today to work toward the revival and unification of Protestantism. Before we rush to make common cause with this ecumenical movement, let us look at the record of history… At first Luther and Zwingli defended the principle of liberty of conscience and denounced all persecution, but, tragically, both leaders depended heavily upon the support of favorably inclined secular rulers… This eventually involved them in the use of persecution against religious dissenters… Many born-again Christians at this point began to break with Protestantism… A long and bloody persecution ensued in the next 50 years, in which from 20,000 to 50,000 of these New Testament Christians were martyred by the Roman Catholics and the Protestants… Thus these churches founded upon Jesus Christ and His Word had to break with the compromises and evils of Protestantism, just as the reformers ultimately broke with the Catholic organization… They were called ‘Anabaptists’ (rebaptizers) by their enemies because they practiced believer’s baptism… But the main difference between the Anabaptists and their opponents was not the question of baptism, but the question of the relation between the church and the rest of society…  It is a sad fact of history that all the prominent reformers approved of persecution and death for the Anabaptists. A certain Baptist scholar of our own time discovered through exhaustive research that more Anabaptists were put to death for their religion by the Protestants than were similarly put to death by the Roman Catholics!… ‘Why not Protestants?’ you may be asked. The record of history shows us the answer clearly: from the false teachings of Protestantism… come the hellish evils of the unholy alliance between State and Church, the persecution of religious dissenters, the ‘religious’ wars that killed millions, modern nationalism, racism, and dictatorship! Surely Protestantism is only another ‘lamb-like beast’ drunken with the blood of the martyrs!”
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Save, print, email, or share this post:

21 thoughts on “Anabaptists Now: Taking Exception to Jesus’ Exception Clause”

  1. Jesus viewed marriage as making two one. Just before Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus was talking about cutting out hindrances to heavenly attainment. Reading it all together made me wonder if Jesus was preaching against divorce as a way to get rid of distractions and attain heaven. Paul himself said that being single allowed your first priority to be Christ while being married meant your focus had to shift to another person and taking care of their needs. I Corinthians 7:32-35

  2. it is interesting to think about the questioners and the question at hand. Really a contest between two opinion on the Torah section involved The Hillel camp was holding to a new concept that the phrase regarding putting away was saying “for any cause”while Jesus was simply coming down on the side of historic ,at that time,understanding that putting away was for adultery ? al longenecker

    1. Hi Al. Yes, Jesus was definitely responding to the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammaites over what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 meant. He clearly disagreed with the Hillel camp, but I think he also was more stringent than the Shammai camp. The Shammai camp thought the Deuteronomy passage allowed divorce only for adultery, but they considered a lot of things as equivalent to adultery–such as a wife going out in public with her hair disheveled or working in view of others with her arms/armpits bared. Jesus, no matter how we read his exception clause, was clearly not agreeing with such a position, but only allowing divorce/separation only for actual “porneia.” (Note: This also means that Jesus did not have to be forbidding any remarriage to be stricter than the Shammai camp, so the disciples’ surprised response can be explained well without insisting that he was saying remarriage is forbidden.)

  3. About every 20 years this subject comes up for discussion and debate in my experience. it is necessary but proceed with caution. You slightly changed the wording of BMA’s position and policy statement but not far outside our goal. We do well to embrace a high view of marriage which I think you do. God for instance, Hates divorce. he hates the putting away. Our statement says it is outside the will of God which you affirm. Something deeper has gone wrong when it happens. While this does not solve the exegetical challenges, one does well to consider or ask, why do so many remarriages fail that are justified by the larger body of Christ. Cause and effect?? Your evaluation that many Anabaptist will likely head toward Protestant views is happening in alarming ways. Money, Military, Modesty Material we wear, , Marriage, Media, Headship order. Anabaptist forebears were distraught that so many verbal “believers” did not demonstrate the fruit of Jesus.

    1. Thanks for taking time to comment, James. Yes, we share a concern that there is an erosion of biblical faithfulness on too many fronts. You and I both share that concern that our Anabaptist forebears demonstrated. (And I think my next blog post will demonstrate more of that from them on this very topic.)

      Regarding me changing the wording of BMA’s position and policy statement; I actually did not specify in my blog which denominational statement I was interacting with. I tried to paraphrase it accurately, but didn’t want to quote it because I had decided I would not go into details about that part of my personal story, especially since that story involves others (not you!) in not entirely pain-free ways.

      But I don’t mind that you understood what I meant, and am honored that you took time to comment. Thank you for being a dependable example in my life of both devotion to biblical faithfulness and also gracious interaction with others! Thanks also for your statement that this discussion “is necessary but proceed with caution.” That is indeed my goal, and you may pray to that end.

  4. Good evening,
    I look at the interpretation of this subject through the lens of the definition of the word ‘ adultery’. Collins Gage dictionary gives this definition for adultery – sexual unfaithfulness of a husband or wife.
    Gal. 5;19 – 21 , 1Cor 6; 9,10 state that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore if I am sexually unfaithful to my wife, I will not inherit the kingdom of God. I cannot expect to enter into Christ’s presence. I will be among the ones cast out, unless I repent.
    I believe Jesus is clearly saying that if your wife is unfaithful, you can separate from her, but to enter into another marriage or relationship is adultery, which is not permitted. { Otherwise theoretically, you could expect to see a person marry multiple times within these parameters, and chaos is the result, as we know from observation. God is not the Author of confusion and chaos.} I don’t believe this is what Jesus is teaching the Pharisees.
    So whether fornication was involved at any time, or not, is not the main point of what Jesus is saying here.
    The main point, or focus that Jesus is driving at is, that if I am married and am unfaithful sexually {or otherwise}, to my marriage partner, I won’t have a good outcome for my soul in eternity.
    So I ask the question…If I leave my first wife,{ or am unfaithful to her…ie – pornography, flirting with other women or men, as we see in our society, even if we stay together} and marry another, how can that not be adultery, and a violation of our marriage? How can adultery not be adultery?
    To repent of adultery, while living in an adulterous situation, is where it gets tricky. I don’t believe we have clear instruction how that needs to be done in a practical way. But it makes sense to me that living apart, at least sexually , is a safe way to go as far as eternal salvation for an individual goes. An unlikely exception, {but with God all things are possible,} would be if both partners of the original marriage repent, and both desire to be reunited in their relationship.
    Further, and more importantly, if I am the innocent party, {as Jesus alludes to in Matt 19 } and my wife is unfaithful to me, if I then move on into another marriage, it closes the door to repentance or restoration of the original marriage, because I am then being unfaithful to her also, and have broken the covenant as well, even though she did if first. Is our marriage vow a conditional agreement, or unconditional vow/covenant? Does one party breaking the vow, end the marriage as such? I say ‘No’. The only condition from Scripture that I know of to dissolve a marriage, is death.{ Rom 7} Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    I cannot find justification from Scripture, for a person living in a situation with a broken marriage vow, { ie. remarriage } which is adultery, and not
    repenting of it. A person can still be faithful to the marriage covenant on an individual basis, even if their partner has left them or been unfaithful. A marriage vow is a personal commitment to God to be faithful to my marriage partner. And when both partners do, He blesses it beyond expectation, and the joys are ‘over the top.’
    But I am certainly not qualified, and relieved, to not have to make the judgement on it. There may be a situation where God makes a
    way that I don’t see. He knows things about people and their hearts that we don’t see, and I make room for that. But if I were to counsel a person on the matter, the thoughts expressed here, is where I would take them. I would not try to find justification for remarriage, even if a partner is unfaithful.

  5. Thank you for this contribution to the science. It certainly favours the betrothal view, which is also the only way of harmonizing the three versions of this teaching.
    An example from Scripture in which divorce was only allowed during betrothal was the case of David and King Saul’s daughters. Saul promised Merab to David, but then ended up marrying her to Adriel instead, taking her off David’s potential wife list. David was then promised Michal, and actually took her to wife after paying off the gruesome bride-price. Saul took her away anyway and married her to Phalti, but David never accepted that arrangement, and as soon as he had to power to enforce it, demanded her return. Phalti was heartbroken at the repossession of his stolen property, but the law was clear; once the marriage was consummated, she could belong to no one but David so long as he lived; neither Michal nor Phalti, both apparently happy in their new relationship, had any right to continue it.

  6. The exception in Mat. 5:32 is more detailed, so I focused my studies on that one. It says, “saving for the cause of fornication.” The “cause of fornication” is ‘logos porneia’ in Greek (‘logos’ could also be translated “matter” or “word”). So I searched for the ‘logos porneia’ in the Greek Septuagint, which was written in the 3rd century BCE.

    I found it in Deu. 22:13-21. IF a man brought a ‘logos’ (vs 14) against his bride, saying that he found her to not be a virgin, and the ‘logos’ was true (vs 20), THEN she ‘ekporneuo’ (gave herself over to ‘porneia’) in her father’s house (vs 21).

    Some say that the bride had to be stoned to death, rather than divorced, and that it therefore does not apply to our Lord’s exception clause (Mat. 5:32, 19:9). However, the text does not say that the groom had to bring the ‘logos’ against the bride. It only says that IF he brought the ‘logos’ against her, and the ‘logos’ was true, THEN she would be stoned to death.

    So, the groom had a choice under the Law of Moses. EITHER he could bring the ‘logos’ against the bride (Deu. 22:14) OR he could write her a bill of divorce (Deu. 24:1). The latter was an option, because he “found some uncleanness in her” (Deu. 24:1) when he “found her to not be a virgin” (Deu. 22:14).

    The groom’s choice can be found in Matthew 1:19. When Joseph found out that his betrothed wife Mary was pregnant with Jesus, he knew that he could EITHER “make her a public example” OR “put her away privily” (Mat. 1:19). His first option corresponded to bringing the ‘logos porneia’ against her (Deu. 22:14); and his second option corresponded to keeping the ‘logos’ to himself and putting her away instead Deu. 24:1.

    Since Joseph was a “just man,” he was going to choose the second option. But then the angel convinced Joseph that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Ghost and that he should therefore take Mary and Jesus into his home. Of course, the Pharisees never believed the virgin birth, and that’s why Jesus had to live with the stigma of being “born of porneia” (John 8:41) even though he wasn’t.

    I did not find any ‘logos moicheia’ (Heb. ‘dawbawr nawaf’) in the Law of Moses, only a ‘logos porneia’ (Heb. ‘dawbawr zanun’). Therefore, we can prove that our Lord’s exception clause (Mat. 5:32, 19:9) applies to fornication (before or during the betrothal), and it is purely speculative to think that it also applies to adultery.

    1. Daniel, thank you for sharing the research you have done. What you shared is indeed one argument sometimes presented in favor of the betrothal view, and it is an important piece of evidence to consider. However, I do not agree that it is “purely speculative” to consider that Jesus’ phrase may also apply to adultery. First, I am aware of scholarly analysis that suggests Jesus was adapting terminology used by the Shammaite school in their exposition of Deuteronomy 24, which would indicate that he, like them, was probably discussing situations involving fully married couples, not merely the betrothed. Second, the early church writers, many of whom spoke Greek and also were familiar with Greek translations of the Old Testament, have left no clue (to my knowledge) that they ever considered the betrothal view. They appear to have consistently understood that Jesus was talking about sexual unfaithfulness after marriage.

      There is a lot of linguistic data to weigh here. Thanks for presenting part of it clearly.

      1. Dwight, thanks for the reply. Since you mentioned the early church writers, I thought I should mention that I found one who appears to have understood the exception clause, as pertaining to premarital sin. His name was Athenagoras, and in his 177 AD “Plea to the Christians,” he writes about Matthew 19:9, saying:

        “For whosoever puts away his wife, says He and marries another, commits adultery; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again.”

        Here we see Athenagoras interpreting “not for fornication” (Mat. 19:9) to mean “whose virginity he has brought to an end.” The full interpretation would go like this: whoever puts away his wife, whose virginity he has brought to an end, and marries another, commits adultery.

        Thanks again and God bless you.

        1. Thank you, Daniel.

          I read over that Athenagoras quote several times just now, and I confess I cannot see how he is referring to Jesus’ exception clause at all. It appears to me that he is quoting a version of Jesus’ statement that does *not* have the exception clause. His phrase “her whose virginity he has brought to an end” is an elaborate paraphrase of Jesus’ simple phrase “his wife.” A wife, in Athenagoras’s understanding, is a woman who was a virgin until her husband ends her virginity.

          I suspect he paraphrases Jesus as he does because he wants to show how shameful it would be for a man to first bring a woman’s virginity “to an end” and then dump her in divorce to marry another.

          Sorry for disagreeing once again, and sincere blessings from God to you.

    2. Daniel, you are very close and on the right track, but have not quite got it right.

      logos in Matthew always means an authoritative statement or judgement, for example, one’s “statement” as good as an oath (5:37), the Lord’s teachings (i.e. his commands) (7:24,26,28), the authoritative command to heal (8:8) or cast out demons (8:16), or a person’s judgement rejecting the Son of Man (12:32, 36-37). It is also used for a financial account statement (18:23; 25:19), and for an earnest petition (26:44) or a report (28:15).

      It is never used for a person’s deed, or for a thing or matter, or a ground. Perhaps it can be used as a charge, as the Septuagint does in Deut. 22:14 as you note, but this is still distinct from the conduct that the charge relates to. Accordingly, logos porneia must mean the porneia law and cannot mean the conduct of porneia.

      The law of porneia is the case in Deut. 22:13-21. This is the only divorce law (or rather, the anti-divorce law with a narrow exception for the situation where the woman was “whoring in her father’s house”) in the Torah. The law of porneia is a reference to the whole set of circumstances in the case where such post-wedding divorce might be possible, rather than simply any conduct within the disputed definition of “porneia”.

      The woman’s “whoring” is “in her father’s house” i,e, she was having sexual intercourse with someone else before she was betrothed to the man in question, falsely presenting herself to be a virgin at the time she was betrothed. The term “whoring” (zanah which is generally translated porneia in Greek) refers generally to the unlawful sexual relations by or with an unmarried woman. When a woman is betrothed, she is no longer an unmarried woman, and her unlawful sexual intercourse is generally not zanah / porneia but instead adultery — and she is, at this stage in “her husband’s house” legally but not physically. She can be divorced by mere written notice without any grounds proven, per Deut. 24:1-4, which action, by itself, moves the woman out of her husband’s house (legally). There is no direct connection between the fault that the husband finds in Deut. 24:1 and the “whoring” in Deut. 22:21, as the former is generic and non-specific and the latter is specific and limited. This is because the contexts are totally different, in the former, the betrothal step has been done but no more, in the latter, the wedding has been celebrated and then he “goes into her” before the problem erupts. But if her adultery is not detected till the wedding consummation, it is too late for the husband to divorce her: she was not “whoring in her father’s house” she was committing adultery in her husband’s house.

      The choice between the charge of “whoring in her father’s house” and finding something wrong with her is incorrect. There are two distinct contexts here: the pre-wedding case, and the post-wedding case. During the pre-wedding case, no charge is necessary and none should be permitted to be made. If the man hates his wife, that alone is sufficient ground for divorce (e.g. Deut. 24:3). The requirement is that she finds no favour in his eyes because he found something wrong with her: what he actually found is irrelevant and need not be proven to anyone. He can divorce his wife and he should to it quietly and he should not give her a bad name by accusing her of sexual misconduct. The law in Deut. 22:13-21 teaches that the man should not give her a bad name by making such an allegation, whether the procedure is pre-wedding or post-wedding, although the case itself is a post-wedding case. Joseph was righteous in his intended following of this law for his pre-wedding divorce.

      The choice in the post-wedding case is the choice between violating the law and keeping it. Well, that is at least one of his choices. In the case he chose to violate the law by raising his charge against the woman and giving her a bad name, rather than quietly filing his case in the court for judgement, granting him divorce if he could prove she was “whoring in her father’s house.” For his misconduct he is given a capital case he can never win. No bride will die on account of this law! The bride wins every time. However, if he did not misconduct himself, he would not have lost his divorce remedy. If he could quietly and properly prove his case, that she was “whoring in her father’s house” he could win and receive the remedy of divorce.

      Proof that the woman was “whoring in her father’s house” is inherently difficult. If she later claims to have been raped by another man during the betrothal period, how can this be disproven? (Mishnah Ketubot 1:6) If she claims her hymen was ruptured by wood and not by a man, how can this be disproven? (Mishnah Ketubot 1:7) The point of the law is to put hurdles in the way of the man who would try to divorce his wife after the wedding. The exception for fraud is by implication admitted, but in practice hedged off.

  7. Thanks Dwight,
    That was a lot of work and detail, over 3000 words, but you never mentioned a parallel passage, Luke 16:18.

    1. Thanks for reading, Paul! You are right, I never quoted Luke 16:18 (though I did allude to the existence of such verses that appear to prohibit all divorce and remarriage). This is because I was giving a survey of how conservative Anabaptists are currently interpreting Jesus’ exception clause, which is not found in Luke.

      When constructing a comprehensive teaching on divorce and remarriage, it is certainly important to include Luke 16:18. If you have thoughts on how that verse should be understood, you may share them if you wish. Blessings!

  8. I believe the exception applies only to the betrothal. Other wise Mark and Luke would be very irresponsible and inaccurate for not including it.

    1. Thanks for sharing your understanding, Paul.

      I’m curious: I have not found anyone before the 20th century who held to that interpretation of Jesus’ exception clause (that it refers only to a betrothal period). Are you aware of anyone before that who held that view?

      If not, does it concern you to think that the church could have misunderstood Jesus’ words for nearly 1900 years?

  9. Okay, thanks. This means we need to ask how the KJV translators used the English word “fornication,” right? After all, that word has been used in a variety of ways over the centuries.

    Here is one example from the KJV, from a passage where God is rebuking his unfaithful “wife,” Judah:

    “Thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by… Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians… Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan… as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!” (from Ezekiel 16:15-32, KJV).

    This passage clearly uses the word “fornication” to refer to a wife’s acts of adultery.

    There are also some New Testament uses of “fornication” that seem unlikely to refer to only the sins of unmarried persons. For example, see:

    * 1 Corinthians 6:13-18 – Is it only singles who must be warned against uniting with prostitutes, here called “fornication”?
    * 1 Corinthians 7:2 – Here married persons are urged to fulfill each other sexually, to “avoid fornication.”
    * 1 Corinthians 10:8 – How likely is it that the 23,000 Israelites who committed “fornication” with the Moabites were all unmarried?

    Based on these examples, I don’t think we can be sure that the translators of the KJV meant for “fornication” in Jesus’ exception clauses to refer only to sins committed by unmarried persons. It is more likely that they thought the word referred to gross sexual promiscuity of various kinds committed by anyone.

    Thank you again for engaging. Grace and peace to you.

    1. Hi, our son directed your post(s) to me this pm so I was reading and trying to dissect the various interpretations and yes I have mine. I’d like to comment on your reference in Ezekial. I notice you have Judah as “wife”. “quotation marks”. The verses quoted in your text say she committed fornication and then it says … as a wife. I think that is of importance. Judah is not the wife. Fornication I define as being outside of marriage. Why do I say Judah is not the wife? Let’s think about the return of Christ. Is he returning for his wife or for his bride? I think we would all agree that he is coming for the church which is his bride and all the saints of all the ages will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb. So at this time the saints of today and of all the ages, OT or NT, are in the bride stage and that is why the KJV says Judah committed fornication. Judah was in the bride stage. We are all invited to the marriage supper but once that supper begins the invitation is closed. It’s over and done. And yes, my view of fornication is a narrow one, if you please. Another thing I had best be certain of is that what I believe and teach/promote is going to get the other person(s) and myself where they/I want to be in eternity because if it doesn’t get them there it won’t get me there either. God bless!

      1. Hello Loyal. Thank you for taking time to read my writings and respond.

        Was Judah the wife of the Lord? According to the Old Testament prophets, the answer is clearly Yes. In this same chapter, Ezekiel records God as saying this about Judah: “I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine” (Ez. 16:8). The following verses describe a bride on her wedding day: “I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.” (Ez. 16:11-12).

        If that is not clear enough, later we read this: “Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me…” (Ez. 16:20). Unless we want to argue that God portrays himself as having sex outside of marriage, we must conclude that he pictures himself as fully married to Judah.

        So, yes, Judah was God’s “wife” in Ezekiel 16. And when the KJV translation says that Judah committed “fornication,” it is referring to adultery, not pre-marital sex.

        May God help us be faithful in our handling of his word. Peace to you.

      2. The underlying foundation of this question, as with Anabaptist thought and practice more broadly, inevitably depends somewhat on the degree to which we embrace restitutionalism and the role of the Church, per Franklin Littell in “The Anabaptist View of the Church.” If we see the apostolic Church as being “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) , then our own interpretations and conclusions carry much less weight than the Reformers were willing to arrogate to themselves via the doctrine of sola scriptura.

        A bride, in the ancient Jewish sense, is under the covenant of betrothal and, as the Scripture states with respect to Joseph when Mary was found to be pregnant prior to their wedding, divorce was required to end the betrothal, not just a marriage. Further illustrating this in the context of the Church, when Saul is stopped in his persecution of Her on the road to Damascus, Jesus does not ask him why he is persecuting the Church. He asks, “Why are you persecuting Me?” He identifies Himself as already being one with Her. In that light, not only was God’s own doing of what He hates–divorcing His chosen People–a fearful thing, but it is also instructive. He did not divorce them to marry another. Indeed, the New Covenant is very specifically described as an ingraft, an inclusion in the singular and previous relationship, not a new relationship with a different bride on a different basis (Rom. 11).

        The most profound and early view of the use of divorce among the early Christians just happens to line up quite remarkably with God’s own example (Eph. 5:1). In “The Shepherd” allegory, referenced with approval by various early Christian writers, Hermas is told that divorce is essential as a last-resort family discipline, much like excommunication in the Church more broadly. In fact, a spouse’s failure to use it to get known sexual sin in the marriage stopped meant being a sharer, a participant, in the others’ sin. However, its purpose was expressly redemptive just as God’s was, whether or not redemption and reconciliation could be achieved. The allegory is clear, lined up with 1 Cor. 7:10-11, that such a divorce, given its aim, was never a license to marry someone else and that doing so was then sin on the part of the wronged spouse as well.

        Especially for those swayed by Protestant-Evangelical influences, there is a strong tendency to see those who are not living in accordance with Christ’s teachings as nevertheless being Christians, just not very good ones. In addition to John the Apostle writing of the impossibility of this, that one born again cannot abide sin, Justin Martyr and Tertullian both reject this “cheap grace” ideal flatly. The former states, “Let it be understood that those who are not living by Christ’s teaching are not Christians at all,” whatever their lips may profess, and the latter writes to pagan Romans that no Christian in their criminal justice system is ever there for anything other than being a Christian and that, if one is, he is a Christian no longer. The latter also explains that a person could remarry who had previously had a wife prior to conversion, but as a result of death, never divorce as that would be “in the teeth of the primary precept.” I’m afraid that the primary precept has never been much of a precept for Protestants at all. Indeed, the acceptance of divorce and remarriage was the foremost selling point of Protestant doctrine and practice to a certain King of England who then allowed the movement to become dominant there despite his previous hatred of Luther.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.