|
Having had numerous discussions and debates on the subject of divorce and marriage, I have come to the conclusion that many views have been formed more by tradition, peer pressure, and casual study than by what the Bible actually says. It seems that most “learning” has taken place from commentators, scholars, or well-known brethren writing in journals or preaching in meetings.
A Baptist preacher, who has learned the truth that I’m trying to teach, wrote in his book:
“One of the strongest arguments in favor of my position, as presented in the previous chapters, is that it is completely consistent with every passage relating to divorce and putting away. The problem with the traditional view is that it is completely inconsistent with other texts dealing with the subject of divorce and putting away. In other words, my position harmonizes both the Old and New Testament texts while the traditional view has them contradicting each other. The reason this is important is simple—there are no contradictions in the Bible. There are no inconsistencies. If such exist once we have come to the conclusion of a matter, then the problem lies with us and not the Bible. It means our interpretation of the passage has been faulty rather than the Scriptures in error. Therefore, the responsibility for us is to accept the fact that there is something defective in our position and then to correct it.”
“For what cause, reason, or grounds may one divorce?” is a question of no little concern and one for which no small amount of time and energy has been spent. If one is looking for justification for divorce, the foregoing question is easily answered by looking not to the passage under study, and not to Paul’s teachings, but to God’s divorce of Israel—the divorce was for adultery and only after Israel's refusal to repent (Jer. 3:8, 14). What better example could we ask for, or how could the teaching be clearer?
But another question, which is more pertinent to this study, and is another matter that Jesus did not address, is: “What cause, reason, or grounds are necessary before a divorce is actually a divorce that frees the parties?” One fellow wrote: “Christ gives us one exception that would cause God to accept and grant a divorce, which is “porneia” or “illicit sexual intercourse.” The problem with this is that it has Jesus contradicting God’s teaching through Moses, which is not acceptable. According to God’s clear teaching, divorce ends marriage (Deut. 24:1, 2). The quotation above has been repeated so many times, it has become the standard that is offered up as if to settle the issue without citing Scripture. That there is much confusion as to the meaning and application we are to make regarding the “exception clause” is apparent from the fact that many supply the word “adultery” (moicheia) in place of “fornication” (porneia) when attempting to teach regarding the question “Who may marry?” Because of the ramifications of being wrong I appeal to the reader to restudy this issue very carefully, and to do so prayerfully. It is a grave mistake to become determined to defend tradition, as if it is the standard in religion.
Josephus
Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote his opinion (evidently based on the Jewish practice) on the “reason” for divorce:
"He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do..." Antiquities of the Jews (The Life and Work of Flavius Josephus), Book IV, Ch. VIII, Sec. 23, p. 134; (tr. Wm. Whiston; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, NY).
The Exception Clause:
“save” or “except” it be for fornication
Fornication
Strong: Porneia
from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon:
illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism,
intercourse with animals, etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Leviticus 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mark. 10:11,
metaph. the worship of idols or the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
One of the definitions of porneia is INCEST, which is defined as:
“sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry” (Merriam-Webster).
Thus, it would be a mistake not to consider that the context of Jesus’ statement is about INCEST, which is an illegal marriage. Both biblical evidence and scholarly opinion support this idea.
Bible Examples of Putting Away Due to Incest
Illicit marriages (incest) were common in Old Testament days. In Ezra 10:2–11, we have an example of confession of sin with regard to the taking of foreign wives, and a covenant was made with God to “put away” the strange forbidden wives. It is interesting that God said to “separate yourselves” from them, to include the children (verse three), and that divorce proceedings were not mentioned.
Bible examples of unlawful or illicit marriages, where “put away” (apoluo) would be the right thing to do, include 1 Corinthians 5:1—the man who married his father's wife (see Clark); and Herod, who married his brother's wife while the brother still lived (Mk 6:18; 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 this if the brother died.
Clark contends that the former case was one of incest—a man's marrying his father’s divorced wife, who may have only been his stepmother.
Translations:
Translators differ widely in their attempt to translate the “exception clause.” This is probably due mainly to two things: 1) the fact that fornication (porneia) has several definitions; and 2) misunderstanding regarding the context of Jesus’ teachings. Some versions translate porneia in a way that is consistent with Jesus' teaching; i.e., not contradicting Moses by making a new law that forbad the divorced to marry. (Parts underlined for emphasis.)
Holman Christian Standard: [violation of Jewish marriage laws]
“But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, fornication, or possibly a violation of Jewish marriage laws causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
The New Jerusalem Bible [“an illicit marriage”]
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 Bible [“unless the marriage is unlawful”]
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.
Geneva Bible (footnote)
(˘Ŕ) That is, which is not lawfully divorced.
Fornication, due to an illicit marriage, was all Jesus was talking about when He mentioned the exception to a man’s putting away a woman and marrying another as being an adulterous act against the woman (Mark 10:3).
Waters’ Paraphrase:
Whosoever shall send away his wife, except it be a case in which fornication is being committed (such as in an unlawful marriage) causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is sent away (not being divorced as God defined it) committeth adultery.
Evidently, the issue Jesus was dealing with was putting away (resulting in separation) but not divorcing according to the Law. This makes sense because it would then follow that adultery would be committed by the woman who would take up with another man—she was a married woman. Nevertheless, even though it makes sense, and is supported by Scripture and scholarly opinion, most are unwilling or unable to accept it because it contradicts their tradition.
George Lamsa's Translation of the New Testament [“separated but not divorced”]
“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 opines 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" is what results in adultery.
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.
God’s law on divorce is Deuteronomy 24:1, 2. That it is applicable to New Testament Christians is apparent because it was a focal point in the discussion that Jesus had with the Jews, and there is no such definition or law found in the New Testament—nor does the church have authority over marriage and divorce.
Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
It is clear that the woman that was sent out of the house was “dismissed” as Wuest noted. The important thing to note here is that simply dismissing without obeying the entire command is not obedience and it is not divorce. It is partial obedience, which is a sin of no little consequence, as we are taught through the example of Achan (Joshua 7).
The hardships experienced by women who were/are put away but not divorced (Hebrew: shalach; Greek: apoluo) have been described as "to let loose, roaming at large, to be scared, abandoned, forsaken." Langenscheid Pocket Hebrew Dictionary (McGraw-Hill, 1969)
Conclusion:
The “exception clause” was not meant to be understood as meaning that the spouse committed fornication, which either broke the marriage bond or allowed the "innocent" one to so do. It simply had reference to the RELATIONSHIP—it was not a legal marriage. If a man found that he had married someone who was already married, or who was close kin (incest), he would not need to do anything but "put away," which amounted to separation—not divorce.
|
