THE LAW OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE

Herod, Philip And The Law Of The Excluded Middle

By Tom Wacaster   God has given man the ability to reason things through. There are certain laws which men inherently use when they think rationally. To deny these laws of rationality is absolutely absurd and would involve men in numerous self-contradictions. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. Simply stated, this law means that something either possesses a certain characteristic or it does not - something is either true or it is ‘non-true’ (i.e. ‘false’), and there are no other possibilities. For example, I may say that a pencil is either wood, or non-wood. There is no middle ground to such a statement. There is no quality somewhere between being wood and non-wood. What does this have to do with the verses we just studied (i.e, Matt. 14:1-12)?   Let me sidetrack for a moment. I’m not ‘chasing rabbits’; I’m setting some background for why these verses are so important to us. The number of so-called ‘explanations’ regarding marriage and divorce astounds the imagination. One brother wrote a small book several years addressing some seven positions on the matter of divorce and remarriage, and I would guess that at least that many more explanations have surfaced since then, all of which seek to overturn the plain and simple teaching of God’s word on the subject. One would almost think the truth on the matter is impossible of ascertaining and so we should abandon the issue altogether and let every man be a law unto himself. Does that sound familiar?   I recently heard of some who are seeking to justify the remarriage of the guilty party who has been put away for scriptural grounds. The argument goes something like this: “When the innocent party puts the guilty partner away, the marriage is dissolved. Period!” Since the marriage is dissolved (as they claim), the guilty party is free from the marriage bond and thus available for remarriage. Actually they are appealing to the logical argument of the law of the excluded middle. The problem is they are actually misusing the law. Let me explain.   A careful examination of the entire situation surrounding Herod and Herodias reveals some interesting facts. First, let’s not forget the historical setting. Herodias was Herod’s niece. She was married to Herod Philip II, Herod Antipas’ half-brother. In fact, the entire Herodian family was quite immoral when it comes to marriages, divorces, and remarriage. Herod became infatuated with his niece Herodias, and persuaded her to marry him. So he divorced his own wife, and then married Herodias. We presume that Herodias also divorced Philip.   Now fast forward to the time of John the Baptist. What a fiery preacher was this “voice in the wilderness.” Somehow he was granted an audience with king Herod and queen Herodias. John did not compromise, capitulate or cringe in the presence of this king. I’ll let you read for yourself what John told that king: “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother Philip’s wife” (Matt. 14:4; Mark 6:18). The Holy Spirit saw fit to have Mark add one little detail that is often missed or ignored. He says of Herod that he had “married her.” When John informed Herod of his sin, that inspired prophet said that Herodias was still Philip’s wife! Some would say otherwise, for how could she still be Philip’s wife if she was married to Herod?   It might be asked (as some do), “How can Herodias be Philip’s wife and not Philip’s wife at the same time? Does this not violate the law of the excluded middle?” Or to put it another way, “How could Herodias be Herod’s wife and Philip’s wife at the same time?” On the surface it would appear that the law of the excluded middle would force us to conclude that Herodias is either Philip’s wife, or she is not Philip’s wife. If she is not Philip’s wife, then Mark lied. If she is Philip’s wife, then she could not be married to Herod. In that case it would make Mark a liar because he recorded that Herod had “married her.”   So how do we untie this Gordian knot? It seems simple to this scribe. In order for the law of the excluded middle to be applicable, the terms in the argument must be used in the same way. Going back to my example of “wood” and “non-wood,” when the law of the excluded middle is applied defining the word “wood” the same way on either side of the equation, the law of the excluded middle is valid. But redefine the word on either side of the equation, and the law of the excluded middle will not work, nor can it be used to argue one’s case. The reason why the law of the excluded middle cannot be used to describe the situation between Herod and Herodias is because John is using the word “wife” in two different senses. What John was saying was, “Herodias is Philip’s lawful wife; she is Herod’s unlawful wife. Using the law of the excluded middle, the following statement would be true: “It is not possible for someone to be lawfully married and not lawfully married to the same person at the same time.”   The conclusion: John must have been implying that Herod’s marriage to Herodias was unlawful, and that is because Herodias’ was still lawfully Philip’s wife.   One more note before closing. John had the courage to tell Herod, “It is not lawful for thee to have they brother’s wife!” John was more concerned about the truth than he was about winning the favor of king Herod. Would that every gospel preacher would strike the same courageous posture as that great prophet of old.