Is Looking at Porn the Same as Adultery? Continued

I asked the question, "Is looking at porn the same thing as adultery, and therefore a biblical grounds for divorce? I promised you gymnastics to answer the question. Here is the verse, Matthew 19:9: "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery." Now for the gymnastics. Matthew uses a word for sexual immorality, not adultery in this verse. Why is that? The little word causes an awful lot of frustration for those trying to decide what exception there is to the prohibition on divorce. Here's why.

1. By using the word for immorality rather than the word for adultery, Matthew seems to broaden the circumstances under which one could get a divorce. In other words, if Matthew would have written, "except for adultery," we would all know what that means, and we wouldn't even dream of thinking pornography is grounds for divorce.

2. However, because Matthew wrote, "except for sexual immorality," we are left trying to figure out all the possible ways mankind can be sexually immoral. Can a couple get divorced because the husband likes to wear women's clothing? Is that sexual immorality worthy of divorce? If lust is adultery in the heart, is that grounds for divorce? By using sexual immorality, rather than the very specific adultery, it seems couples could get divorced for just about anything, being that we're all sexual beings and all still struggling with swimming in a fallen culture with less than perfected hearts. Is this really what Jesus (and Matthew) had in mind?

3. Is looking at pornography adultery? I don't think so. When Jesus said if one looks at another with lust, he has committed adultery in his heart, I think we need to realize there is a difference between adultery in the heart and adultery. If you think this sounds like double-talk, then consider this: John says anger at a brother is murder and James says covetous passion is murder. Is it really murder worthy of the death penalty or life in prison? Of course not. I think what Jesus is saying is that these sinful actions like murder and adultery begin in the heart with things like anger and lust. Allowed free reign, all lust would be adultery. And all anger would be murder. If one doubts this, read war history where soldiers were left to carry out their desires.

4. So if one believes that Matthew left an "exception clause" in the prohibition against divorce, is looking at pornography adultery that is worthy of divorce? No. But I think most would agree that it's some kind of sexual immorality. And that is what appears to be the exception in Matthew. So according to Matthew, it doesn't take adultery. Any ol' sexual sin will do if you really want out of your marriage. That is, if Matthew did, in fact, leave an exception to the prohibition against divorce.

5. However, before any depressed spouse starts shouting, "Yippee!" I think it's only fair to stretch your mind a bit. What makes pornography pornography? Have you ever thought about that? Is it nudity? Is it a rating? Is it an action being carried out? I would argue that many R rated movies have everything to get the mind racing that pornography has. Is it not porn because you can't actually see the parts connecting? (Except, of course, for your favorite Hollywood actors' two foot long tongues scouring the inside of each other's mouths.) Is it not porn because there's a little more time between sex scenes in a Hollywood flick? Is it not porn because Hollywood movies are more socially acceptable? You know the action being simulated in an R or even PG-13 movie. Why is it not pornography? In addition, are romance novels that stretch women's hormones to the breaking point and appear to be just as addictive as mags and movies are to men also pornography? Go to a used bookstore. My goodness, if those little books aren't popular! And what about soap operas? Why are they so appealing? Is it really the long goofy stares before commercials? Of course not. It's the gut-wrenching romantic intrigue of following depraved human beings on a daily basis. So before we come down too hard on those who have problems with porn, we should do a little deeper assessment.

Now that my gymnastic workout is winding down, it's time to ask the real question. Is there such a thing as a biblical grounds for divorce? Was Matthew leaving folks an out if they think their spouse turns out to be a pervert? John Piper thinks no. He doesn't believe Matthew was giving an exception. He thinks all divorce is against God's revealed will. His arguments are fair ones, but he is in the minority. Most evangelical conservative folks think there is an "exception clause" in the Matthew text we looked at. Now, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true, but it does give me a reason to tread very carefully over what they've said. However, when the majority view doesn't make as much sense as the minority view from Scripture, I'm all for the minority view. In this case, I'm tempted to agree with Piper. I think Piper's view has serious merit. In his view, one can't get divorced for sexual immorality at all. Therefore, call porn whatever you want, it's only grounds for forgiveness and continued marriage. Call adultery whatever you want, it doesn't give you grounds for divorce.

Piper's view has been called the "betrothal view" because those who hold this view think that Matthew was referring to people in his day who were betrothed (like Mary and Joseph in the beginning of Matthew). Joseph, for example was betrothed to Mary, but when he found out she was pregnant, he couldn't just "ask for the ring back." He would have had to divorce her. So betrothal in that culture was more serious and binding than our idea of engagement, which more and more is just an excuse for a couple to live together for awhile without real commitment. Only Matthew gives the supposed exception clause. The other gospel writers don't give any reason for divorce, and call all remarriage after divorce adultery. It's interesting that only Matthew gives the full account of the birth of Christ, including Joseph's dilemma.

So here's what I'm saying:

1. I want to err on the side of marriage, not divorce, because marriage is God's design. Divorce is necessitated by man's sin.

2. I can sympathize with someone caught in a sucky marriage. I think Scripture spends a lot of time helping people deal with suffering rightly. But just because someone's marriage sucks doesn't give them the automatic right to end it by any means possible. We need to all learn rugged perseverance.

3. Marriage is never commanded in the Bible. And neither is divorce. So if one gets married, he or she should consider it a finished act until death. Bearing with one another through sin and hardship only makes Christ look more beautiful and displays the true purpose of marriage as a picture of Christ and the church.

4. Most of the time, folks contemplating divorce are doing it out of convenience or offense. Both reasons are wrong with only a little thought to prove it. Someone might say, "Yeah, but Jesus allows for divorce in adultery because he knows I could never trust my wife again. He knows how hurt I feel." Is Jesus that soft on us? He told Peter to forgive infinite wrongs, even when it hurts. He told folks in Revelation that they were about to be tortured and killed for his name, but if they kept faith they'd be in Heaven soon. He told Paul to live with his thorn. I fear we've fallen for the therapeutic pansy Jesus. I think in the midst of every conflict, we are always wisest to see how God might be refining us through it rather than looking for the backdoor to the furnace.