|
Several years ago I found an article that gave an explanation for the “exception clause” (Mat19:9; 5:32) which, at the very outset appeared to be worthy of consideration. The more I tested it the more it appeared to be the proper understanding. The problem is it does not agree with popular human authorities and customary teaching and practice of our day. The position is basically as follows:
In the teachings of Jesus, “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”, He was not saying, “Whosoever ‘divorces’ his wife...”. And, in the “exception clause”, “except it be for fornication”, He was not talking about one divorcing his true wife for committing adultery (or even matters of lesser offense), he was giving the exception to what the Pharisees were apparently practicing, for which He rebuked them and silenced them. They were putting away (sending away) their wives but not according to the Law that required the giving of legal paper (which would free the woman) and were marrying again. Jesus said that such practice is adultery against her (Mk 10:11) and the one who marries the one who was merely put away also commits adultery. The “exception” to “putting away” and marrying another (resulting in adultery) was simply a case where the marriage was not legal or acceptable to God, such as incest or marriages with people of another race who God had said not to marry (1 Cor. 5:1; Ezra 9 &10).
After I read and studied the position I’m presently teaching, I posted an article dealing with words pertaining to divorce to a list on which there were numerous preachers, including at least three who have a strong Greek background. I made the same application as I have done above. Here is a link to what is basically the contents of that article.
I asked that what I presented be shown to be error if anyone could so do. Several days went by but no rebuttals. Finally, after more pleas for criticism, some were finally received. But strangely enough, the content of one of the first responses (the author having heavy Greek background) actually said about as much in support of my article as he did against it. But as time passed, and I continued to present articles that showed that the “traditional” position cannot be true and that this “new” position was a reasonable, logical, just and a hermeneutically sound alternative to believing a doctrine with consequences no Christian can live with. A few have called it ridiculous etc., and have stepped up their efforts to build prejudice, cloud the issue and drive the sincere Bible students away. But then one preacher, who thought he had discovered how to scripturally defeat this doctrine, came up with an argument, which he promissed would destroy this “new” position, which I later found out that is not new at all. That argument involved the case of Joseph and Mary, and we shall deal with his arguments. So
The text from Matthew:
(Mt1:18b NKJB) “After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, …” [Other passages relating to the issue, to be discussed later: Luke1:1-7; 39-42]
The text from Mathew gives a brief narrative of the facts surrounding the pregnancy of Mary, who was engaged to Joseph. It is only in Mathew’s account that we are told of the action that Joseph was “minded" to take. After he learned that Mary was pregnant he evidently determined to put her away. The word “apoluo” is the Greek word from which “put away” is derived. It has been my contention that the action of Joseph supports my teaching that “apoluo” is not the same as “divorce”. I have pointed out that he contemplated putting her away (send her away, repudiating her), rather then divorcing her, because they were not married. If it was definite that “apoluo” means divorce, in such cases (and many are saying it does), then the translators would be unanimous in translating it “divorce”; but such is far from being the facts of the case. The text simply does not tell us Joseph intended to divorce Mary. This supports my position that “apoluo” does not equal “divorce” because since they were not married, legally or scripturally, Joseph did not need to do anything more than separate or end the relationship (which is what happens when a man put away his wife) – at least according to Biblical teachings. He was minded to take the action that was correct in such cases. Had they actually been married and had Joseph determined to end the relationship, he would have needed to file for divorce (a "get") and then give it to her before puting her away. To just "put away" would not have been the way to end a marriage as prescribed by God (Deut. 24:1-4). Note how Young's Literal Translation renders the passage: “And Joseph her husband being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, did wish privately to send her away.” The phrase, “send her away” doesn’t sound like a legal divorce, and it isn’t. No legal papers are involved in sending away a woman to whom you are not legally married. Some say that was a practice of the Jews. Well, whether it was or not it was not a biblical practice and therefore not something a godly man would feel obligated to comply with.
To complicate things, some are contending that Mary and Joseph were actually married, when the text says they were betrothed, and that an actual divorce was the action required to dissolve the marriage. But it is common logic that a marriage could not have existed as long as they were merely "betrothed". To see the article where I address whether “espoused” equals “married”, as well as Joseph being referred to as her husband before they were married, click here:
What some are asserting to be a problem for my teaching:
It is being contended that when Joseph and Mary were on their way to Bethlehem they were only "betrothed" (engaged). This is supposed to contradict the idea that she was his wife in the context of Mt1:24. Therefore, it is charged that my “position requires that their legal marriage ended and they went back to a state of being unmarried and merely ‘betrothed’ again...and then some time later after Jesus' birth they became married AGAIN...”
Also, one brother said, “You have tried to say that 'betrothed' does not describe someone with a legal marriage which would have required a legal divorce in that society.”
First, I’m not disputing what was the custom or law of the land regarding engagement; I’m only concerned, in this writing, with what God’s word teaches. If someone wants to assert that the Bible says someone was married when it says they were engaged, then I can’t help it, but I don’t have to believe it. I shall believe what it says, that they were betrothed, espoused or engaged, and we all know what that means.
He went on to say, “You have been forced to admit that shortly after the announcement of Mary's pregnancy they did indeed have a legal marriage (Mt. 1:24)...but you want to still say that previous to that, at the time of Joseph's consideration to 'put her away' (Mt. 1:19) he was NOT married but merely betrothed.”
I do not think I ever admitted that there was a legal marriage “shortly after the announcement of Mary’s pregnancy”. First of all, the scripture says very little about an “announcement”. Mary told Elizabeth, who rejoiced; and John, who she was carrying, “leaped”. What I said was that Joseph was quick to actually go ahead and marry Mary after the angel appeared to him in the dream. I quoted McGarvey who made the same comment.
In one post to a list, I wrote in opposition to the assertions of another and said: “Namely, that the angel appeared to Joseph in the early part of the pregnancy and that he sought to put her away privately’ at that time. There simply is no evidence of that. Luke's accounts covers long spans of time in a few verses. Read the context to see how he goes from talking about John the Baptist to briefly mentioning Joseph and Mary and Joseph's intent to comply with the Law regarding taxes.”
My point was that there is no evidence that the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream at the early part of the pregnancy, but it is more logical that the dream came much later, after all other efforts to completely persuade Joseph failed.
Below is the explanation I gave, which thwarted what was promised would be an argument that would prove my position wrong:
“Now, realizing that there are no contradictions in God’s word and that an engagement to be married means just that…what is the only logical and reasonable conclusion? Here it is: It was AFTER this (Luke 2:5) that Joseph got cold feet about marrying someone that was noticeably pregnant (knowing he was not the father), that he determined to put her away privately. And then AFTER THAT the angel appeared to him, at which point he determined to marry her immediately, as acknowledged by McGarvey.”
There is one other explanation that I had not previously considered until a few minutes ago, as I write this. It may be that the angel appeared to Joseph before the trip to Bethlehem and that they married immediately. This possibility has been shown to be contrary to my position that espoused does not mean married. However, in one of the commentaries on Luke that is in my library I found the following comment:
“5. his espoused [wife]. ~Although...wife, is not found in the best MSS, it is a correct gloss. Joseph had previously taken her to himself, and hence at this time she was, strictly speaking, his wife. The perfect participle (mnesteuo) signifies having been espoused, i.e., she had been but was now married.” (The New Testament Commentary”, by J.S. Lamar, author of Organon of the Scriptures). It is superfluous to say that the explanation given by Lamar, if sound, is the most simple answer to the problem posed to my position (regarding the meaning of ~apoluo~ versus actual divorce). Perhaps it settles the matter, or perhaps it does not. Two preachers who have knowledge of the Greek said Lamar is wrong. Thus, I shall continue to discuss this issue considering the possibility that Lamar is indeed wrong.
The course of events:
Let us follow the course of events and then discuss if it is reasonable to conclude that Joseph did not actually marry his fiancé until after they were on their way to, or actually at, Bethlehem. It has been asserted that it is not reasonable…and therefore it proves that my contention that ~apoluo~ does not equal divorce is false. This is the only “scriptural” argument they have, so the entire war is won or lost with this one battle.
What I intend to discuss is what the accounts available actually tell us. I’m not interested in Jewish practice or opinions of men. I’m interested in what God’s word says and am not inclined to read between the lines and offer unreasonable conjecture regarding what was in the mind of Joseph, what was done and when it was done.
We have previously provided (quoted) Matthew’s account. Here are the pertinent passages from Luke’s account:
(Luke:2:39-40) “And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.” “And Joseph also went up from Galilee…to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered” (Luke 1:1-7).
Mary and Joseph got engaged. She then went to a town in Judea to stay with kin folks, according to custom (Luke 1:39-42). An angel appeared to Mary and she was impregnated in a miraculous way of the Holy Spirit – though still a virgin. Mary told Elizabeth and she rejoiced. John, who she was carrying “leaped in her womb". After some number of months Mary returned to Nazareth. Joseph learned of the pregnancy. Joseph was “minded to put her away”. Joseph “thought about these things.” Joseph and Mary headed to Bethlehem to register, according to a decree.* An angel appeared to Joseph. They got married. The child was born. They returned to Nazareth.
The only thing that is in question, regarding the sequence of events, is when the angel appeared to Joseph, and this is the important matter to be discussed only if it can be proven that Lamar’s exegesis was incorrect.
You simply cannot tell from the scriptures when Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, or exactly when the angel appeared to Joseph. You can assert that you can, as one fellow has done, or say what you think is probable. But even if you could prove that Joseph learned Mary was pregnant at 3 ½ months it would not prove the angel appeared to Joseph in the dream and that they were married before the trip to Bethlehem. For your convenience I’m quoting Matthew’s account again:
“After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, …” “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife” (Mt1:18-24).
When did the angel appear to Joseph?
We do not know when the angel appeared to Joseph. If it was immediately after he learned of the pregnancy, and we do not know when that intelligence became available to him; it may be that he thought about the matter for quite some time. And it is reasonable to conclude that he would do so, given that he loved Mary and was a just man. It could have been months. The order of events is that he first was “minded to put her away”. That would be the first thought when one learned that his fiancé was pregnant, knowing he had not been with her. Then the scripture says he “thought about these things”. How long did he “think”. We don’t know, but what difference does it make? It was probable that there was a date set for the marriage and that time had not come, but was probably months away (according to the traditional length of the engagement). People would talk, regarding her pregnancy, but that would all be explained later if what Mary (and probably others) was telling Joseph was actually true. Why would Joseph not be inclined to believe it the story he was being told? He was a man of God and probably knew the prophecy. He probably had learned of the pregnancy of Elizabeth, and of her reaction, when she learned of Mary’s pregnancy. No doubt Joseph was bewildered by the matter, but being a just man he was not one who was inclined to jump to a conclusion. The fact that she was pregnant was not proof that she had sinned. All Joseph knew was that he didn’t have a part in it. He was engaged to a woman that had become pregnant, but by another person. Perhaps the thought occurred to him that she had been raped, and this was just a story she had made up. More likely, he knew of the prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin, and he was considering believing her story, even before the angel appeared to him in the dream. Remember, the thought to “put her away” was, according to the sequence of events, BEFORE he “thought about these things” or at least at the beginning of his thinking.
Before we go to the next point, note the comments of Barnes and JFB:
Barnes: “He thought on these things. He did not act hastily. He did not take the course which the law would have permitted him to do, if he had been hasty, violent, or unjust. It was a case deeply affecting his happiness, his character, and the reputation and character of his chosen companion.”
JFB: “But while he thought on these things--Who would not feel for him after receiving such intelligence, and before receiving any light from above? As he brooded over the matter alone, in the stillness of the night, his domestic prospects darkened and his happiness blasted for life, his mind slowly making itself up to the painful step, yet planning how to do it in the way least offensive--at the last extremity the Lord Himself interposes.”
When did Joseph and Mary get married?
Again, we do not know exactly when the divinely chosen couple got married. We do know that they were referred to as “espoused” when on the trip to Bethlehem. But, considering the comments of Lamar, the text (Lu2:5) may have only meant they HAD BEEN engaged, but are now married.
When did the angel appear to Joseph?
We are not told when the angel appeared to Joseph, other than that it was when he “thought about these things”. Therefore, the angel appeared to Joseph at some point in the unknown length of time that he was thinking about the whole matter, and trying to decide what to do – end the relationship, continue it as planned, or marry her. It is very possible that the angel appeared when they were on their way to Bethlehem (Lu 2:5) “To enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child” (ASV), which likely did not involve taxation, but was for the purpose of registering or counting the people, comparable to our census.
Conclusion:
Mary may have been legally and morally bound to Joseph (as they were engaged). Such has been a common practice in our culture as well, but when one finds that his affiance is pregnant his first thought is going to be “we are through!” Certainly, the pregnancy did not require a legal divorce for a marriage that did not exist – not according to what one can read in the Bible. Thus, the thought that first occurred to Joseph, which the scriptures say was to “put her away secretly”, or “send her away” (YLT) was simply to separate, i.e., end the relationship.
Brethren, there is no honorable defense for error. Those who defend error must resort to other means to defend their tradition, and this is exactly what many of my opponents are doing. One of the defenders of tradition has charged that I said Joseph didn’t marry Mary until after the child was born. Of course, he made it up, and when pressed for proof he did not provide any nor did he offer an apology. And now he charges that I lied about something he defended, which is detestable. He said he didn’t defend a certain practice but the record shows that he presented several passages, as he was taking issue with me, that he endeavored to show supported that which I said was sinful. The fellow who made the charge is just one of a group of fellows who amen each other for anything they say against one who they have set out to ruin, even if there was no point made, or if it was an obvious lie.
The brother who first questioned my teaching, based upon what he thought he could prove with the case of Mary and Joseph, said the following at the end of his post:
“Game over...end of story. Your ‘new’ position based on the idea that ~apoluo~ is not legal divorce is in ruins...as I promised. The only question is whether you have the integrity to admit it.”
It may be a great disappoint to the fellow, but my position is not in ruins. Actually, the case of Joseph and Mary supports the position that “put away” is something that is done without papers, rather than being the same as divorce, which requires papers to be given to the spouse. Jesus’ teaching in Mat19:9, particularly the "exception clause" (regarding which there is so much controversy, division, and numerous problems), takes on a whole new and fresh meaning once we understand and accept what He actually said. We then can see how Jesus did not contradict the Law, which allowed divorced persons to marry. (See the Galloway/Waters Debate on this issue at Religious Debates list.) This means that we do not have to practice “doctrines of devils” by “forbidding to marry” (1Tim4:1-3), and we can (as commanded) allow marriage for those who are “unmarried” and have no marriage (1Cor7:2;8,9;27,28), which is required so they can avoid fornication.
What I have taught is evidently the truth because it not only allows Moses, Jesus and Paul to be in harmony, but allows God to be seen as a just God, instead of unjust by demanding persons innocent of sin (as when their spouse divorces them unjustly) be required to live a life of celibacy. The ball is in your end of the court, and it is in your hands. What will you do with it? Which way will you carry it? It is your choice.
Footnote:
Everyone to his own city. It was the Jewish custom to enroll by tribes and families. Joseph was of the family of David and would have to be enrolled where that family had its landed inheritance. (People’s N.T.)
To enroll himself with Mary. Women had to be enrolled also and were subject to the poll tax. Mary was of the line of David, and hence would also have to go to Bethlehem. (People’s N.T.)
|
