 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
Marital
Separation in the Gospels
The
Importance of Family Part 1: Marriage
The Importance of Family Part 2: The
Family
Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction
and Basics
Separation and Divorce in the Law
of Moses
Marital Separation in the Gospels
Marital Separation after the Gospels
and Conclusions
Marital Separation: Objections
1-3
Marital Separation: Objections
4-6 and the Early Church
Remarriage Addendum: Exception
Clause Comparison
New Testament Protocols Regarding Men
and Women (Part 1)
New Testament Protocols Regarding Men
and Women (Part 2)
Comparative Peer Dynamics Chart
At
this point it is important to make a brief comment on the
Greek words used in the New Testament regarding the subject
of marital separation. The Greek words used for marital separation
in the New Testament are "chorizo" (Strong's No. 5563), "apoluo"
(Strong's No. 630), and "aphiemi" (Strong's No. 863).
When we did a similar study in the Old Testament of the Hebrew
words for marital separation, we found that both words, "shalach"
(Strong's No. 07971) and "garish" (Strong's No. 01644), were
really generic words applied to a variety of situations other
than marriage. This was important because it demonstrated
that by using these generic terms for separation, the idea
that God had in mind when speaking of marital separation was
a simple as the separating of the two spouses in the same
way that one might drive nations out of a land (Exodus 34:11)
or send forth a dove from the ark (Genesis 8:10).
The same is true for the New Testament Greek words for marital
separation. They are generic terms applied to a variety of
situations other than marriage. "Aphiemi" can be used to describe
sending away a spouse and it can also be used to describe
Jesus sending away the crowds (Mark 4:36). "Apoluo" can be
used to describe putting away a spouse and it can also be
used to describe an official ordering the dismissal of an
assembly (Acts 19:41.) "Chorizo" can be used to describe putting
asunder a spouse and it can also be used to describe Claudius
Caesar commanding all the Jews to depart from Rome (Acts 18:2.)
So, once again, the generic nature of these words demonstrates
that the idea concerning marriage is simple the very basic
concept of separating or sending away a spouse.
Having established the requirements of the Law of Moses for
putting away a spouse, the very first question that we must
ask as we examine the New Testament on this subject is this:
is it possible for Jesus to allow less than the Law of Moses?
Where Moses permitted separation for virtually any reason,
could Jesus restrict that to only one reason? Where Moses
permitted second marriages, could Jesus not recognize them?
Could Jesus make certain aspects of his Law stricter than
the Law of Moses?
These are, in fact, the chief questions under examination
in this segment of our study. And we intend to establish them
thoroughly by scripture rather than our own opinions.
In fact, it is no secret that Jesus in many ways took what
was a "bare minimum" in the Law and expanded it, creating
a standard for morality that was higher than the Law of Moses.
One need only take a look at Jesus' famous Sermon on the Mount
to see that his teaching takes what was written in the Law
of Moses and then goes a step further to a more righteous
standard. We will include a rather lengthy portion of this
passage while at the same time breaking it into sections so
that the pattern of Jesus' instruction here can be made plain.
Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said
by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever
shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I
say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger
of hell fire.
Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said
by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already
in his heart.
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall
put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.
Matthew 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been
said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But
I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for
it is God's throne...37 But let your communication be, Yea,
yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of
evil.
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said,
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But
I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also.
Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
In each of these sections, Jesus begins by stating what was
said or taught as part of the Law of Moses and the traditions
of the Pharisees. Then, Jesus immediately gives his own teaching
in contrast to these Old Testament traditions. In all cases,
Jesus takes the instruction a step further, going beyond what
they had been taught as part of the Law of Moses.
And, of course, included in this series of statements, Jesus
makes 2 separate references concerning adultery and marital
separation. What is quite clear is that Jesus has a pattern
and habit in his teaching of going farther than what was written
by Moses and raising the moral standard higher than what was
set by Moses.
Therefore, we conclude that Jesus most certainly did in some
ways create a stricter standard than the Law of Moses. And
moreover, we can already see from Matthew 5:31-32 above that
Jesus did indeed create stricter regulations for marital separation
than the regulations of the Law of Moses. To answer our question
from above, we now know that where Moses permitted a spouse
to be put away for virtually any reason, Jesus forbid a spouse
to be put away in all cases except for the case where the
spouse was put away for committing adultery.
But one question that remains is whether or not Jesus recognized
second marriages or not?
Matthew 19 and Mark 10 contain a more detailed discussion
from Jesus on this topic. We will now take a look at those
passages.
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put
away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said
unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the
beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore
they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say
unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing
of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them,
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you
to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was
not so.
We must pay careful notice to the Pharisees' initial question
and to the logical progression of this discussion. The Pharisees
initial claim is that it is lawful under the Law of Moses
for a man to put away his wife for any cause or reason. As
a test, they ask Jesus to either confirm or deny this claim.
Now, in verses 4-6, Jesus clearly responds in such a way as
to contradict their initial claim. Their initial claim is
that a man can divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus' counterclaim
is that what God has joined in marriage, let no man put asunder.
And not only do we believe Jesus was disagreeing with the
Pharisees' claim, but the Pharisees themselves clearly perceive
that Jesus is disagreeing with them as well. This is why they
continue in verse 7 to offer further evidence to support their
initial claim and refute Jesus' counterclaims. If they had
perceived Jesus' comments were agreeing with their own, there
would have been no need to pursue the issue further by offering
further evidence. In fact, the nature of their follow-up question
demonstrates that Jesus' comments were a rejection of their
claim.
For, the Pharisees then ask "why did Moses command to give
a writing of divorce?" Clearly they are quoting from Deuteronomy
24, as any comparison will quickly show. But, the fact that
they ask Jesus why Moses allowed a man to put away his wife
with merely a certificate, demonstrates clearly that they
perceived Jesus' stated counterclaim was in denial of this
portion of the Law of Moses. In other words, they thought
Jesus' previous comments in verses 4-6 contradicted Moses'
instruction and they asked him to explain or reconcile this
contradiction with Moses' Law.
The key is how Jesus responds to this follow-up question posed
by the Pharisees. Does he deny that Moses taught this? Does
he deny that Moses allowed for a man to divorce his wife for
any reason? No. Even in verses 4-6, Jesus doesn't disagree
with how they are interpreting Moses' teaching. In verses
4-6, Jesus doesn't appeal to the text of Deuteronomy to show
how they are interpreting it incorrectly. Instead, he appeals
to Genesis 2, in order to supercede the Law of Moses with
the prior standard of God. (This same manner of argument by
demonstrating which standard came earlier is also employed
by Paul in Galatians 3:17-26 where Paul states that the Law
of Moses cannot nullify the promise to Abraham, which came
before it.)
Irenaeus also explains this answer given by Jesus. (Irenaeus
was a second century disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John
the Apostle, who wrote a five-volume work entitled Against
Heresies.)
2. And not only so, but the Lord also showed that certain
precepts were enacted for them by Moses, on account of their
hardness [of heart], and because of their unwillingness to
be obedient, when, on their saying to Him, "Why then did Moses
command to give a writing of divorcement, and to send away
a wife?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your
hearts he permitted these things to you; but from the beginning
it was not so;"(6) thus exculpating Moses as a faithful
servant, but acknowledging one God, who from the beginning
made male and female, and reproving them as hard-hearted
and disobedient. And therefore it was that they received from
Moses this law of divorcement, adapted to their hard nature.
[Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV. CHAP.XV.]
Our assessment is in agreement with Irenaeus. Jesus' answer
did several things. First, it acknowledged Moses as a faithful
servant. Second, it acknowledged that Moses did indeed permit
a man to divorce for any reason. Third, it explained this
loose standard for marital separation as an accommodation
of the hardness of the people's hearts. Jesus doesn't take
issue with their interpretation of Moses. And this could be
no clearer than in verse 8, where Jesus plainly states that
Moses permitted a man to put away his wife in the way the
Pharisees claimed because of the hardness of the people's
hearts. Jesus' clearly acknowledges that Moses did allow men
to put away their wives for any cause by merely giving her
a certificate of divorce.
The basis of Jesus' teaching here is not a better interpretation
of Moses' instructions in Deuteronomy 24. The basis of Jesus'
teaching here was not that the Pharisees were interpreting
Deuteronomy 24 incorrectly. Jesus did not take any issue with
how they interpreted Moses in Deuteronomy 24. The basis of
Jesus' teaching was that there was a prior standard of God
revealed in nature in the union of Adam and Eve. And it was
this higher standard that Jesus was restoring beyond what
was written in the Law of Moses, (just as before the Law of
Moses, faith was the basis of righteousness for Abraham, and
Jesus restored that standard as well - Romans 4:1-3, 9, 12-13,
16 and Galatians 3:1-9.)
And by restoring the previous standard of God revealed in
Genesis 2:21-22, Jesus is likewise affirming the permanent
nature of the marital union. The two were made one by God
and God intends it to remain that way. And Jesus affirmation
of God's desire for the two to remain one gives very strong
indication that he will not recognize second marriages as
the Law of Moses did because second marriages by their very
nature counteract the oneness of the original spouses that
God had joined.
As we move ahead, the most significant point is to establish
that, in fact, Jesus did not recognize second marriages and
why not. For this we of course turn back to Jesus own comments
on the matter. Below are the parallel statements made by Jesus
on this topic, some in more detailed contexts, some in less.
We will make brief comments on some of the unique elements
of each. Then we will analyze the elements common to two or
more of the passages.
Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them
of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I
say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after
her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body
should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend
thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable
for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that
thy whole body should be cast into hell. 31 It hath been
said, Whosoever shall put away (630) his wife, let him
give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you,
That whosoever shall put away (630) his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (630) committeth
adultery.
Each one of these passages is fascinating, in part simply
for its clarity.
Concerning Matthew 5, the first thing that we will notice
is Jesus' initial comments concerning adultery during which
he says that it is better for a man to cut off part of his
own body and cast it away from himself rather than have that
part of him pull him into adultery. What is interesting here
is that earlier in our study we saw that the Old Testament
word for "divorcement" in the phrase "bill of divorcement"
was "kariythuwth" (Strong's No. 03748), which means, "divorce,
dismissal, divorcement." We also said that for us this is
a bit like defining a word using that same word. So, for more
insight into the basic meaning of this Hebrew term, we turned
to the word "kariythuwth" was derived from, which is the Hebrew
word "karath" (Strong's No. 03772).
"Karath" simply meant "to cut, cut off, cut off a body part."
As Genesis 2:24 and Jesus' own words in Matthew 19:5-6 and
Mark 10:8 state the husband and wife become one flesh. So,
in affect, when Jesus teaches that it is better to cut off
any part of the body that might lead you into adultery, he
is referring back to these Old Testament words as they relate
to putting away a spouse.
As such, these comments in verses 27-30 concerning cutting
off a part of the body that leads you into temptation act
as an explanatory prelude to his comment in verse 32 that
it is acceptable to put away an adulterous spouse. Better
to put her away than to be led by her into committing fornication.
In his early second century AD work Apology, Justin Martyr
describes just such a situation where the adulterous spouse
acts as a means by which the righteous spouse can become a
partaker of fornication.
"For she, considering it wicked to live any longer as a
wife with a husband who sought in every way means of indulging
in pleasure contrary to the law of nature, and in violation
of what is right, wished to be divorced from him...But when
her husband had gone into Alexandria, and was reported
to be conducting himself worse than ever, she--that she
might not, by continuing in matrimonial connection with
him, and by sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker
also in his wickednesses and impieties--gave him what you
call a bill of divorce,(5) and was separated from him."
- Justin Martyr, CHAP. II.--URBICUS CONDEMNS THE CHRISTIANS
TO DEATH
And Justin Martyr is not the only early Christian to write
such things. In his second book, Commandments, another second
century writer known as the Pastor of Hermas (A.D. 139-A.D.
155) writes similarly concerning a righteous spouse separating
from an adulterous spouse so as to avoid partaking of fornication.
" 'But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray,
and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication,
and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is
guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.' And
I said to him, 'What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his
wife continue in her vicious practices?' And he said, 'The
husband should put her away, and remain by himself.' -
Pastor of Hermas, Book Second-Commandments, Commandment Fourth,
On Putting One's Wife Away for Adultery, Chapter I
Thus, it is clear that starting with Matthew 5, early Christianity
held that the reason it was necessary to put away an adulterous
spouse, even though they were your own flesh, was because
it was better to cut off your own flesh than to participate
in adultery yourself by means of your own flesh.
This concludes our commentary on the unique elements of Matthew
5. However, there is still one major element in Matthew 5
that is relevant to this study. This particular aspect of
Matthew 5 is common to all of our remaining Gospel passages
on this subject. For comparison, we turn to Luke 16.
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every
man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth
to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.18 Whosoever
putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery:
and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery. 19 There was a certain rich man,
which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously
every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus,
which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
As we can clearly see from the surrounding context of Luke
16, Jesus' comment concerning remarriage in verse 18 is a
stand-alone statement. In other words, it is not related to
the content of the surrounding verses. As such, the comment
in verse 18 is extremely straightforward. Without any commentary
in the surrounding verses that would provide additional information
to alter, enhance, or add subtle nuances to the meaning of
verse 18, what we have is a very simple, unequivocal, unambiguous
declaration by Jesus that any person, man or woman, who marries
someone other than their original spouse is committing an
act of adultery. Furthermore, anyone who marries someone who
has been married before is also committing adultery with them.
Earlier, we saw this same statement made by Jesus in Matthew
5:31-32.
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever
shall put away (630) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced (630) committeth adultery.
Jesus' comments in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 are identical
with the single distinction being that in Matthew 5, Jesus
provides one exception to the prohibition of divorce whereas
in Luke Jesus does not mention an exception at all. And we
have already covered the exception. Having on separate occasions
declared that a man and wife are "one flesh," Jesus states
here in Matthew 5 that it is better to cut off any part of
your flesh that causes you to participate in adultery and
so it is permissible to put away an adulterous spouse even
though they are part of your flesh.
Although the context is more detailed, the teaching from Jesus
on this subject in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 is identical to
Matthew 5.
Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they
twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain,
but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses
then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put
her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness
of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from
the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever
shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and
shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth
her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave
his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they
twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain,
but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples
asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth
adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away
her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
In both Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Jesus first affirms that in
marriage, a husband and wife are joined by God and made "one
flesh." Then Jesus forbids men to separate that union. In
doing so, he forbids either spouse from putting the other
away. He also forbids anyone else from marrying someone who
is separated from their spouse. And finally, Jesus declares
that anyone who marries someone other than their original
spouse commits adultery by doing so. Of the two passages,
only Matthew 19 includes the exception that allows for putting
a spouse away in cases where that spouse is committing adultery.
So, in the end these 4 passages have complete consistency.
In Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16, Jesus himself
plainly forbids marital separation on the grounds that the
original husband and wife are one flesh in the eyes of God
and therefore should not be separated. And in Matthew 5, Matthew
19, Mark 10, and Luke 16, Jesus himself also plainly declares
that because in God's eyes the original spouses are joined
as one, any marriage to someone new is adultery against the
original marriage.
Earlier we stated that the question remained concerning whether
or not Jesus recognized second marriages or not? Now we arrive
at the answer to that question.
We know that the Law of Moses did recognize second marriages.
And we established earlier that Jesus does, in fact, make
a stricter standard on the subject of marital separation than
Moses. So, does Jesus recognize second marriages as Moses
did?
The four passages above clearly indicate that the answer is
"No, Jesus did not recognize second marriages." We know that
Jesus does not recognize second marriages, but instead he
calls such marriages adultery. And what is adultery? We can
define it both in terms of the original Hebrew and Greek words
as well as in our modern culture. The definition remains the
same.
The Greek word for adultery in these passages is "moicheuo"
(Strong's No. 3431), which means, "to have intercourse with
another's wife." The Hebrew word for adultery (even as it
appears in Exodus 20:14) is "na'aph" (Strong's No. 05003),
which also means to have intercourse, "with wife of another."
And even in modern society, we find the same definition. The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives
the following definition.
"Adultery - Voluntary sexual intercourse between
a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse."
- The American Heritage¨ Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
Although the male-dominated Hebrew and Greek cultures focus
the definition along gender lines, as we have seen very near
the beginning of this study, Jesus' words in Mark 10:11-12
apply his standard uniformly to both men and women equally
so that both genders are under the same standard. The American
Heritage Dictionary likewise provides a definition that is
more equitable to both genders.
And so without much controversy, we arrive at the simple definition
of adultery. Adultery is "sexual intercourse between a married
person and a partner other than the lawful spouse."
Consequently, by declaring second marriages to be adultery,
Jesus is declaring that the original spouse is still the lawful
spouse in God's eyes. This fundamental fact makes it impossible
to recognize the second marriage. For how can a person marry
one person when they are already married to someone else in
God's eyes? They cannot precisely because their original spouse
is still their spouse.
But let's not move over this essential point to quickly.
It is an undeniable, definitional fact that the only way that
Jesus could have called second marriages adultery is if the
original spouses were still joined as one in God's eyes and
thus, still married.
So, the practical question arises: what should be done by
those in second marriages? How can they end their adultery?
But the answer to this is clear. Since it is the fact that
they are still united as "one flesh" to their original spouse
in God's eyes that is causing any second marriage to be adultery,
any attempt at a cessation of adultery must observe and honor
the oneness of the original spouses. Conversely, since it
is the fact that the original spouses are still "one flesh"
that causes the second marriage to be adultery, any supposed
solution which denies or ignores the ongoing oneness of the
original spouses will not end the adultery.
Or more specifically, any supposed solution in which the second
marriage continues will not work because it does not change
the fact that the original spouses are still joined as one
in God's eyes. And since it is the very fact that the original
spouses remain one in God's eyes that causes the second marriage
to be adultery, until that fact changes, the second marriage
will continue to be adultery.
For example, the problem is not that people in second marriages
have never said to God, "I'm sorry" and thus acknowledge that
marrying someone new was adultery against their original spouse.
Adultery is not the failure to say, "I'm sorry." Saying, "I'm
sorry. It was adultery," does not cause it to stop being adultery.
The problem is that in God's eyes the husband or wife is still
joined as one to their original spouse. If that were not the
case, then the second marriage could not be considered adultery
by Jesus. And since according to Jesus, God does consider
the original spouses to still be joined as one, the second
marriage cannot cease to be adultery for as long as God considers
the original spouses still joined as one.
This we will see in the rest of the New Testament. But one
thing is for sure: simply acknowledging to God that one's
second marriage is adultery does not in any way put an end
to the oneness with the original spouse. If anything, acknowledging
that the second marriage is adultery is an acknowledgement
that they are still united as one with their original spouse
and as such, they must cease and desist from any attempted
unions with someone other than the person with whom they are
one in God's eyes (i.e. their original spouse.) In short,
persons involved in a second marriage must separate from their
second spouse and either remain single or be reconciled to
their first spouse.
In light of this it is clear that by declaring second marriage
to be adultery, Jesus is declaring that in his teaching, second
marriages are not recognized as they were in the Law of Moses.
Instead, they are adultery because God still views the original
spouses as joined as one. And the fact that the original spouses
are still joined as one in God's eyes makes the recognition
of second marriages impossible. For how can a person who is
already married to one spouse marry someone else? It cannot
be done. And so on this point, Jesus is once again raising
the bar and making the requirements stricter than the Law
of Moses. Where the Law recognizes second marriages, Jesus'
Law does not but instead affirms the ongoing oneness of the
original spouses in God's eyes.
Now that we know that Jesus does not recognize second marriages
but regards them as adultery, we can move ahead to the rest
of the New Testament discussions of this topic to see if there
were any amendments or additional nuances added by the apostles.
But before we move ahead, there is one last point that needs
to be made. We need to address the exception clause that Jesus gives in these passages. There are potentially two valid ways to interpret the text.
In the first scenario, Jesus' exception is understood only as
an exception regarding his prohibition of separation. It is
not regarded as an exception to his prohibition against remarriage. The basis of this scenario is the contextual difference between Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. The explanation can be described as follows.
Of the 4 passages in the Gospels where Jesus' gives teaching
on separation and remarriage, only 2 of them list any exception.
Both are in Matthew.
In accordance with progressive revelation, we know that Jesus'
teaching in Matthew 5 was revealed by Jesus before his teaching
in Matthew 19. In Matthew Jesus states this exception for
the first time.
Matthew 5: 27 Ye have heard that it was said by
them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But
I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body
should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend
thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable
for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that
thy whole body should be cast into hell. 31 It hath been said,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing
of divorcement:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall
put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth
her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her
that is divorced committeth adultery.
In this passage in Matthew 5, Jesus states that a man who
puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery by marrying
another man. His follow-up comment in the second half of the
verse further explains this.
Jesus' reason for prohibiting divorce
in this verse is his desire to prohibit adultery. This is
evidenced by the fact that verse 27 begins this statement
by addressing the topic of the prohibition of adultery.
In short, here in Matthew 5, Jesus prohibits divorce in order
to stop the adultery that it inevitably leads to. But in cases
where a spouse is put away for committing adultery, there
is no reason to condemn divorce in that unique instance because
the thing, which Jesus sought to prevent by prohibiting divorce,
had already occurred. And since adultery had already occurred,
there was no grounds for prohibiting the putting away of a
spouse who was already committing adultery. This resulted
in the single exception that there was no prohibition of putting
away a spouse when that spouse was already committing adultery.
Thus, in Matthew 5:32, the exception
was an exception to the prohibition against putting away a
spouse. It was not an exception to the prohibition against
adultery. Nor is there any mention or indication of an exception
to the declaration that second marriages are adultery. So,
while a spouse can separate from an adulterous spouse neither
spouse is free to marry someone else, but must remain single
or be reconciled to their original spouse.
This brings us to the mention of this same exception in Matthew
19.
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto
them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning
made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall
a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no
more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why
did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and
to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto
you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso
marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
As we indicated earlier, this first interpretation of the exception clause centers around the contextual difference between Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. What needs to be noted about Matthew 19 is that the primary
focus of Jesus' comments is to prohibit divorce. This is different
from Matthew 5 where Jesus begins with addressing the issue
of adultery. Here in Matthew 19, the discussion begins with
the issue of divorce. As such, Jesus' comments here are a
response intended to support his prohibition of divorce and
refute the Pharisees approval of it. This is quite clear as
we follow through the process of the dialog.
In verse 3, the Pharisees begin with a question about the
permissibility of divorce. In verses 4-6, Jesus denies the
permissibility of divorce by reinstating the original standard
of God that husband and wife are one flesh and should not
be separated. Then in verse 7, the Pharisees again assert
that Moses allowed for divorce. And so Jesus' comments in
verse 9 are first and foremost a repudiation of the Pharisees'
approval of divorce.
In other words, Jesus' statement that remarriages
are adultery is itself intended as a condemnation of divorce. In condemning
divorce here in chapter 19, Jesus cannot condemn or overturn his earlier exception allowing for divorce under specific circumstances as
recorded in Matthew 5.
So while condemning divorce here in verse 9, for the sake of consistency Jesus is
sure to acknowledge his previous exception to the prohibition against divorce. In short, while condemning the Pharisees
approval of divorce on the grounds that it leads to
adultery, Jesus is sure to once again stipulate that his condemnation
of divorce does not include cases where adultery is already
occurring.
That is the reason that the exception appears here in chapter
19. Jesus is not listing the exception to indicate that remarriage
is acceptable under the exception.
As such, under this interpretation, Jesus exception only pertains to divorce. He never
gives an exception to the prohibition of remarriage.
(Later, we will
see that Paul also upheld this lifelong prohibition of remarriage
and why as we move ahead to Romans 7. Likewise, we will also
see that nowhere in his writing in 1 Corinthians 7 does Paul
provide an extension of this exception or any additional exception
to the prohibition against remarriage.)
However, even though this first scenario adequately reconciles Jesus' intent and the particular details of both Matthew 5 and 19, there is a second scenario that does so in an even simpler, more consistent, and straightforward manner, especially with regard to the wording of the exception in Matthew 19.
Above we discussed the exception clause in terms of illegal
actions within legal marriages. In other words, Jesus’ provides
an exception to his prohibition of separation so as to allow
a spouse to separate from their legal spouse when that legal
spouse is engaged in illegal sexual activities. Under this
interpretation, the purpose of the exception was to prevent
a faithful spouse from joining or participating (even indirectly)
in the illegal unions that are being committed by the other
spouse. However, now
we will discuss the idea that the exception results from illegal
marriages, not from illegal actions within legal marriages.
Under this alternative interpretation, Jesus acknowledges
that persons currently involved in an illegal marriage should
divorce one another.
Our examination begins by considering the Greek words that
Jesus’ uses for “fornication” and “adultery” (designated by
the Strong’s Numbers and definitions below).
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall
put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication (4202), causeth
her to commit adultery (3429): and whosoever shall marry her
that is divorced committeth adultery (3429).
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said
unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at
the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore
they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They
say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing
of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them,
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you
to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not
so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication (4202), and shall marry
another, committeth adultery (3429): and whoso marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adultery (3429).
4202 porneia
from 4203; TDNT-6:579,918; n f
AV-fornication 26; 26
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse
with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; #Mr 10:11,12
2) metaph. the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the
sacrifices offered to idols
3429 moichao
from 3432; TDNT-4:729,605; v
AV-commit adultery 6; 6
1) to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit
adultery with
It is important to note that the word for “adultery” is clearly
a subclass within the larger category of “fornication.” Thus,
by using two different terms, Jesus is not describing two
completely different and unrelated things. The second term he uses simply refers to
a specific type of the first term. So, right away there is
no conflict between these two words that Jesus uses.
When we apply these definitions to this interpretive scenario, it is not difficult to connect the dots and perceive that Jesus is describing a marriage that is itself adultery or some other kind of fornication.
In fact, right after making this statement, Jesus immediately explains how a marriage itself could be adultery. A marriage can itself be adultery if that marriage involves one party who has been divorced. But in addition to adultery, there may be other reasons why the current
marriage is unlawful. The most obvious example would be a
marriage that is unlawful because it is incestuous. In fact,
in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, more than half of the description
of illegal or “prohibited” marriages pertains to incest.
Smith’s also lists marriages to non-Israelites as another
category of illegal or prohibited marriage. Interestingly,
Ezra and John the Baptist provide prominent examples of both of these two other kinds of fornication.
As we will see, John the Baptist required the divorce
of Herod’s illegal marriage because it was incest according
to the Law. Similarly, in the Book of Ezra, God’s people were required
according to the Law to put away the pagan wives that they
had illegally married. Consequently, it would appear from
both Ezra and John the Baptist that divorce was required in
any situation where the marriage itself was illegal in God’s
eyes.
“Marriage. …2. The conditions of legal marriage.
– In the Hebrew commonwealth marriage was prohibited
(a) between an Israelite and a non-Israelite. There were three
grades of prohibition… (b) between an Israelite and one
of his own community. The regulations relative to marriage
between Israelites and Israelites were based on considerations
of relationship. The most important passage relating to these
is contained in Lev. 18:6-18, wherein we have in the first
place a general prohibition against marriage between a man
and the “flesh of his flesh,” and in the second place special
prohibitions against marriage with a mother, stepmother, sister
or half-sister, whether ‘born at home or abroad,’ granddaughter,
aunt, whether by consanguinity on either side or by marriage,
stepgranddaughter, or wife’s sister during the lifetime of
the wife. An exception is subsequently made, Deut. 25:5-9,
in favor of marriage with a brother’s wife in the event of
his having died childless. The law which regulates this has
been named the ‘levirate,’ from the Latin levir, ‘brother-in-law.’”
– Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 382
Consequently, Jesus’ use of the larger category of “fornication”
during the exception clause would stipulate that divorce is
not condemned in any case where the current union is unlawful,
whether because it is adulterous or incestuous, etc. As a
result, Jesus’ use of two separate Greek words does nothing
to dispel that the exception clause applies to the very same
adulterous marriages described by Jesus in the passage. The
exception would include adulterous marriages as well as other
unlawful marriages.
The following facts support this interpretation.
The prohibitions making certain marriages inherently illegal
from the very moment they begin are declared by God in Leviticus 18:6-18.
Notice from verse 16, that marriage to a brother’s wife is
included among the marriages prohibited on the grounds of
incest.
Leviticus 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is
near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the
LORD. 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy
mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt
not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s
wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father,
or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or
born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s
daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for
theirs is thine own nakedness. 11 The nakedness of thy father’s
wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister,
thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12 Thou shalt not uncover
the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s
near kinswoman. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of
thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother,
thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 15
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law:
she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s
wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. 17 Thou shalt not
uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither
shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter,
to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen:
it is wickedness. 18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her
sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other
in her life time.
The only exception to these prohibitions occurred in cases
where a brother had died. This is spelled out in Deuteronomy
25.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and
one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall
not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall
go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the
duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall
be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in
the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not
put out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s
wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the
elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up
unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the
duty of my husband’s brother. 8 Then the elders of his city
shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it,
and say, I like not to take her; 9 Then shall his brother’s
wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose
his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall
answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will
not build up his brother’s house.
What is even more important to this examination is the fact
that after verse 18 finishes the definition of incest, the
next five verses of Leviticus 18 describes other illegal forms
of intercourse, including adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality.
Leviticus 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a
woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart
for her uncleanness. 20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally
with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the
fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy
God: I am the LORD. 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind,
as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt
thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither
shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:
it is confusion.
In other words, this passage from Leviticus is one of the
Old Testament passages defining fornication, the broad category
of illegal unions that Jesus refers to in the exception clause
in Matthew. Consequently, it would seem that Jesus had illegal
unions such as incest in mind when Jesus states an exception
in which putting away a spouse is not condemned.
While these laws on fornication certainly referred to sexual
activity outside of legal marriages, the New Testament also
asserts that fornication included illegal marriages. This
is proven by the account of John the Baptist. Notice from
both of the following passages that John considered Herod’s
marriage to his brother’s wife to be against the Law of Moses.
In saying this, John is clearly referring back to the fornication
laws in Leviticus 18, which declared intercourse with a living
brother’s wife to be illegal. And consequently, John the Baptist
understood that the fornication laws included illegal marriages,
such as Herod’s marriage to his brother’s wife.
Matthew 14:3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and
bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother
Philip’s wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not
lawful for thee to have her.
Mark 6:17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid
hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake,
his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. 18
For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee
to have thy brother’s wife.
Also notice, that Mark specifies that Herod had “married”
his brother’s wife. And in both Matthew and Mark, the text
plainly specifies John’s criticism. John had said that according
to the Law Herod should “not have” his brother’s wife. Obviously,
John was calling for Herod to end his unlawful marriage. Here
John’s demand to Herod seems to either preview or conform
to Jesus’ exception clause in Matthew 5 and 19, that divorce
is not condemned in such cases where the current marital union
itself is illegal. The point is highlighted by the following
fact. Since Herod was married and John had demanded putting
away the current wife, John’s teaching would have conflicted
with Jesus’ condemnation of divorce if Jesus had not stipulated
an exception in the case of illegal marriages. Consequently,
John’s demand for Herod to divorce strongly argues that Jesus’
exception clause was recognition that John’s demand for divorce
in certain cases was correct.
Moreover, it is sometimes suggested that the exception clause,
particularly as structured in Matthew 19, allows for not only
divorce in some cases but also for marrying someone else.
If this alternate interpretation of the exception clause as
a pertaining to illegal marriages is correct, then it would
explain this issue very simply and very easily. Specifically, in cases where the
current marriage is itself inherently illegal from its inception,
there are several scenarios in which after the divorce both
spouses would be free to marry someone else. And even more
specifically, scenarios exist in which marriage to a new spouse
after divorce from an illegal marriage would not constitute
adultery or consequently another illegal marriage. Let’s look
at some examples.
The first example is a scenario in which the current marriage
is actually the second marriage for both spouses. This is
the type of marriages that Jesus calls “adultery” in Matthew
5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16. It is illegal and invalid
because in God’s eyes both spouses are still married to their
original spouse. For that reason, the current spouses should
divorce one another and, in such a scenario, would be free
(if not required) to remarry their original spouse. In this
case, marriage to a different person than the current spouse
is clearly not illegal or adulterous in God’s eyes because
the new marriage is actually to the original and legitimate
spouse.
The second example is a scenario in which only one spouse
in the current marriage has been married previously. This
type of marriage would also be “adultery” under Jesus’ definition.
And in such cases, the other spouse (having never been married
legitimately before) would be free to marry anyone after the
current illegal, adulterous marriage is ended.
The third example is a scenario in which the current marriage
is unlawful for some reason such as incest (rather than because
it is an adulterous second marriage). While this is unthinkable
in modern times, it makes complete sense in the original historical
context (the Jewish commonwealth) in which Jesus’ gave this
command. This is proven by the case involving John the Baptist
and Herod. In this scenario, depending on the type of incest, both spouses would be free to
remarry anyone because neither one has ever been in a valid
marriage in God’s eyes. (Or in the example of Herod, Herod could marry anyone but his wife would be free to remarry her original husband, Herod's brother. Neither new marriage would be adultery or prohibited.)
Consequently, there are at least three separate scenarios
in which a subsequent marriage to a different party after
the divorce of an adulterous marriage would not constitute
any kind of adultery. As such, it would make perfect sense
for Jesus to allow divorce and marriage to a different party
in cases where the current marriage is itself illegal and
invalid in God’s eyes.
In conclusion, the interpretation of the exception clause
(as applying only to cases in which the current marriage is
illegal) seems (A) to make the most sense of the content
of the statement, both in its construction and its primary
intent, (B) to make the most consistent and enforceable
rule in accord with that primary intent, and (C) to
explain the internal vocabulary in light of historical context,
including John the Baptist in particular.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |