|
No
passage of scripture has resulted in more controversy than the ones we are
about to discuss in this chapter and the two chapters that follow. Aside from
the subject of salvation, what Jesus meant when he said “except it be for
fornication” is of utmost importance. This is because of the divergent views,
some of which have resulted in Christians, or prospective Christians, turning
away from Christ, churches splitting, preachers being maligned and marked as
heretics and countless hours spent in study and debate that could have been
spent in more profitable ways. If indeed a divorced person is “living in
adultery” if he/she marries another then it is right to be dogmatic in one’s
teaching and practice regarding the issue. But think of the harm that has been
done if indeed it is a false doctrine. Considering the fact that the apostle
Paul classified “forbidding to marry” as “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1-3)
it seems obvious that God was actually trying to warn against taking a certain
position--the one that requires those divorced to remain celibate. And it is
also worthy of note that countless "faithful" have deprived
themselves of the pleasure of sex and joy and security of a family.
Previously,
we discussed Jesus' condemnation of the Jewish men's practice of sending away
their wives but not divorcing them (by giving them a certificate of divorce) so
they could "go be another man's wife" (Deut 24:1, 2). The meaning of
“except it be for fornication” makes sense only if one understands the error
Jesus was addressing.
The
so-called MDR texts are: Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11; and Luke 16:18. Many
miss some very important information contained in these texts.
Three
Important Things to Note:
First,
only the women would commit adultery by marrying another. The text does not say
a man who is guilty of “sending away” a wife is guilty of adultery if he
marries another. Since under the Law the men were allowed more than one wife it
is apparent that the sin was in the men’s dealings with the wife whom they
"put away" rather
than a sexual sin in a new marriage. That is made very clear by Jesus in Mark’s
account as discussed below.
Second,
Jesus said the action the men took in sending away a wife and marrying another
is "adultery against her"
(Mark 10:11). Jesus’ statement conflicts with the idea that the man who sends
away a wife without the cause of unfaithfulness commits adultery with the woman
he marries. This text indicates that Jesus’ concern was with the woman being
“put away.” In what situation does a man commit adultery against his
wife? Remember, tradition says adultery is a sexual sin—the sex act with
one that is the spouse of another or sex with another beside your own spouse.
Therefore, since this important point (which woman has adultery committed
against her) is often missed, is it not possible that the exception clause has
been misunderstood and misapplied?
Third,
the "exception clause" is found only in Matthew’s account. If the
exception clause is significant and important as many have assumed and taught,
why is it not taught in all the gospels? And why is it left out of the New
Testament epistles? Surely if Jesus intended for the world to understand that
all divorced persons must remain celibate, unless they actually initiated the
divorce because of adultery, he would have declared it in no uncertain terms.
But, instead of making the foregoing clear he tells the world, through an
inspired apostle’s teachings, to allow the “unmarried” (which includes those
divorced) to marry so they can “avoid fornication” (1 Cor 7:1, 2; 7, 8). Paul
answered questions that were asked by Christians relating to who may marry, yet
in all his writing we do not find even a hint that the reason for a
divorce has anything to do with whether the divorced may marry another.
The
“exception clause” means exactly what it says just as the rest of the text
regarding put away and committing
adultery means exactly what it says, when properly translated. Perhaps it is
best explained by a paraphrase:
Mt 5:32: Whosoever shall put away (send out of the
house) his wife, except in the case of fornication (an illicit or unlawful marriage)
and marrieth another causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry
her that is put away committeth adultery.
If
a marriage was not legal/scriptural then no certificate was needed. If the man
sent away his wife, or woman, after learning that fornication is being
committed because it is an unlawful relationship, his actions would not
constitute adultery “against her.”
John
told Herod, regarding his brother’s wife whom he had married, “It is not lawful
for thee to have her” (Mt 14:3; Lev 20:21; Deut 25:7). (The Law did not allow a
man to marry his brother’s wife, even if legally divorced, yet it required it
only if the brother died childless.) This is a case when sending away (no
divorce) was proper and right. This is the exception of which Jesus spoke.
Herod would not commit adultery against his illicit wife by sending her
away.
In
1 Corinthians 5, we read about a young man who “had his father’s wife.” Most
likely, he married his stepmother after his father died. This was an unlawful
relationship, one that even the Gentiles did not practice. The relationship
needed to be ended. Obviously, the “exception clause” would apply.
The
following two versions lend support to the accuracy of the paraphrase above,
but unfortunately, they render apoluo
as divorce:
The New Jerusalem Bible
Matthew 5:32: But I say
this to you, everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of an illicit
marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman
commits adultery.
New American with Apocrypha
Matthew 5:32: But I say to
you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to
commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Also,
George Lamsa was on the right track, but failed to consistently translate apoluo:
George Lamsa's
Translation of the New Testament
Matthew 5:31: It
has been said that whoever divorces his wife, must give her the divorce papers.
32 But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication,
causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is separated but
not divorced, commits adultery.
Lamsa
makes it quite clear that the meaning, according to the context, is that
marrying a woman that has been separated
from her husband but has not received the "bill of divorcement"
results in adultery.
Wuest Word Studies and the Wuest
translation give support to the idea that the “put away” are not legally
divorced:
Wuest (word studies) Mark 10:11–The words 'to put away' are
apoluo, literally, “to release.” When used in connection with divorce, it means
“to repudiate.”
Wuest
Translation: And having come to Him,
Pharisees kept on asking Him whether it is lawful for a man to repudiate a
wife, putting Him to the test. Matt. 5:32: Whoever marries her who has been dismissed commits adultery.
Conclusion
The
common thinking is that the woman put away is actually divorced,
and since she did not do the divorcing because of the husband’s fornication the
man who marries her also commits adultery. That this position has problems is
seldom denied. The explanation is simple. The woman who is put away
commits adultery in marrying another because she is not legally/scripturally
released from her husband. The man who marries this woman commits adultery
because he marries the wife of another man.
In
Jesus’ exception clause he did not mean that the spouse committed fornication,
which either broke the marriage bond or allowed the "innocent" one to
so do through divorce proceedings. His words simply had reference to the relationship–it
was not a legal or scriptural marriage. If a man found that he had married
someone who was already married, who was close kin (incest) or otherwise
contrary to the Law, he would not need to do anything but "put away,"
which amounted to separation—not divorce. This situation was the scenario about
which the exception clause applied. | 
