|
In Matthew chapter 5 we have the record of Jesus taking occasion to condemn the errant views and practices of the Jews. The Law said one thing, but the Jews were saying and doing something different. Among the errant views and practices Jesus dealt with was the Jewish men's dealings with their wives.
31. It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (ASV)
Indeed, the Jewish men had the idea that they had every right to divorce their women IF they gave them the certificate of divorce, as commanded by Moses (Mark 10:3). The divorce law was given to protect the women. Without it a man could put her away with no indication as to her status. The "bill of divorcement" was proof that the marriage was ended and that she was free to "go be another man's wife." Although the divorce law (Deut. 24:1-4) did indeed end the marriage and free the woman, regardless of the reason for the divorce, it is not to be concluded that the men's actions were always just. It is not until chapter 19 that we read of Jesus actually engaging with the Pharisees on the issue, and making it clear that God intended for marriage to be loving and lasting (Gen. 2:24; Matt.19:4-6). This caused them to bring up Moses' teaching regarding divorce. But in this text (chapter 5) we have Jesus dealing with the issue even before the confrontation with the Pharisees.
The Pharisees were well aware of Moses' teachings regarding divorce, but they were wrong in their application and practice. Jesus set them straight regarding divorce and also dealt with another common abuse of their women, which he called "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). It is not hermeneutically sound to conclude that Jesus was making new law or that he was teaching something that would come into effect when his kingdom came, but was not true when he spoke. It cannot be denied that under the Law a divorce ended the marriage and allowed the woman to marry another. This was why the divorce law was given. The women could not divorce the men and the men could have as many wives as they wanted. (see http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-polygamy-factor.htm )
The Jewish men, to whom Jesus addressed, evidently thought they could put away their wives without consequence, even if they gave the bill of divorcement. But Jesus was teaching against that idea. Jesus is AGREEING with Moses regarding the need to give the bill of divorcement. If one is determined to put away a wife he must give the bill of divorcement (Mark 10:3), but He is NOT agreeing with their practice. He said, “BUT, I SAY UNTO YOU….” Here he condemns their practice that was NOT according to their own saying. Their "saying" was scriptural but their practice (putting away) was not. The divorce law was given for the benefit of the woman. Why would Jesus change the Law to so adversely affect the women? Obviously, He didn’t. He condemned them for their abuse of their wives. Jesus delicately dealt with the issue and avoided a trap (Mt. 19), avoided taking sides on the controversial issue and He avoided a hostile response.
But there was another issue, besides the false notions and practices of the Jewish men regarding Moses' teachings, which Jesus dealt with in this text and again when the confrontation with the Pharisees took place. It was the same problem that existed even before Moses gave the command for men to present to a woman a “bill of divorcement” if he was determined to be rid of her. Some had evidently come to the conclusion that if they just sent a wife out of the house (apoluo) but did not give her the "bill of divorcement," they could keep the dowry that was paid them by her parents. (The dowry was to be paid back if the man divorced the woman.) This was no problem for the men who could have multiple wives under the Law (they thought). All it meant to them was that they had one more wife, but the one "put away" woman was no longer in the house and supported in any way. The "put away" woman could be taken back at any point whereas the divorced woman could not be taken back after she married another man (Deut. 24:4).
But Jesus hit them hard on this issue also. He told them they “committeth adultery against her” (Mark 10:11). They had made a covenant with their wife but broke it and dealt treacherously with her in "putting away" but not giving the "bill of divorcement." To divorce a faithful woman was bad enough, but to merely send away (apoluo) was much worse. This is because it not only kept her from legally marrying another person, but also would likely result in her leading a sinful life. The idea of a man’s dealing treacherously with his wife by "putting away" but still being married to her is seen in the verse to follow as a thing that God hates:
Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Barnes comments: Again, and as we learn from studying Deut. 24:1-4; Mal. 2:15, the husband was not “permitted” to act treacherously against his wife at all, but was rather FORBIDDEN TO SO DO. The command was for the wife – to release her…to marry another.
It would not be a treacherous act for a man to give a "bill of divorcement" to a wife he did not like. This is not something God would necessarily hate because it was His Law that a man give the "bill of divorcement" instead of merely putting her out of the house, which was a far worse situation.
32. But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.
In this text, Jesus either makes a statement that makes no sense at all and which is the cause of a great deal of confusion and pain in the world, or he makes a practical application to an errant practice of the Jewish men and condemns them for it. If we accept what the text says, as translated by the ASV and many other excellent and trusted versions, we have no problem with what Jesus said. It is when divorce (which implies a "bill of divorcement," making it a legal permanent end to the marriage) is asserted to be the meaning of the Greek word apoluo that we run into numerous problems.
How do we know for sure that Jesus even dealt with the practice of men’s “putting away” but not giving the "bill of divorcement?” First, why would he NOT deal with the issue? No doubt it was practiced because the Jews were not known for their obedience to Moses and "putting away," instead of divorcing, would benefit them financially, as previously discussed. In fact, "putting away" is still a practice of Jewish men to this day. (See http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm .)
If one is capable of looking at and evaluating only one piece of evidence at a time he may be incapable of seeing the truth on complicated issues. But those who can back up and view the whole picture are much more likely to see the truth. I present to you, below, several items of evidence that have caused me to conclude that Jesus never taught that divorce, according to the Law, resulted in adultery:
1) Jesus promised not to change the Law (which allowed the divorced to marry) until after the cross (verses 17-19). This was said before he even brought up the "divorce" issue and was intended to prevent any misunderstanding about what he was about to say. However, if Jesus said a divorced woman commits adultery by marrying another he did indeed contradict Moses, which was not consistent with his promise.
2) The Jews were looking for a reason to charge Jesus with teaching contrary to Moses so they could kill him. But even at his trial they did not bring up the divorce issue, which means they did not understand Jesus to have contradicted Moses by saying a "put away" person commits adultery when he or she marries another.
3) God is a God of justice and he expects his children to behave toward others justly. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD" (Pr 17:15). "Also to punish the just is not good…" (Pr 17:26). This means that it is not hermeneutically sound to conclude that God requires an innocent wife, who has been divorced, to live a life of celibacy.
4) God gave the divorce law to protect the women, but the Law allowed the men to divorce a woman at their will (making their own determination as to some evil of which they supposed she was guilty). Yet, if Jesus said what is traditionally attributed to him, that a divorced woman must live celibate, she was not and is not protected.
5) If we conclude that Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching must harmonize, and I believe we should, then good hermeneutics requires that our conclusion be based upon the clear teachings from Paul rather then the obscure passage upon which the traditional MDR view is based. On any doctrinal issue, it is improper to draw our conclusion based solely on an obscure passage and then twist all the other passages on the same subject to harmonize with the preconceived conclusion. It was Paul who answered questions that were asked by Christians. Below are some of his answers:
a) It was because of the "present distress" (1Cor 7:26) that Paul said:
"Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned…" (verses 27-28) .
What is more reasonable and logical than the idea that one who is divorced is "loosed” and that one who is "loosed" from a wife is divorced? Paul very clearly states that the "loosed" do not sin if they marry, and he did not qualify the remark.
b) Paul said, regarding the "unmarried," "let them marry" (1Cor. 7:8.9). A divorced person is "unmarried" regardless of the reason for the divorce. Is it more in line with good hermeneutics to reject this clear teaching by saying something that is not said here (that it applies to those never married), simply because of what the majority of scholars believe Jesus said, or should we look for a more reasonable explanation of what Jesus said?
c) Paul did not teach that a divorced person commits adultery if she marries, except in the case of a divorce initiated for the cause of fornication. He never mentioned the "exception clause," which should tell us something. In light of the fact that Mark's account and Luke's account do not mention the exception clause, is it not more reasonable to conclude that Jesus merely noted that in situations of fornication (incestuous “marriages” etc.), putting away (“apoluo”) was not only not wrong but it was necessary—and not “writing of divorcement” would be needed.
d) Paul gave a reason to let every man and every woman have a spouse. It was so he/she could “avoid fornication” (1Cor 7:1, 2). If Jesus took away the right of a divorced woman to marry then he took away God's means for her to “avoid fornication.” Paul understood that "it is not good that man should be alone."
e) Paul stated that "forbidding to marry" is evil (1Tim 4:1-3).
Thus, it is not reasonable to conclude that Jesus taught the opposite—that certain people who have no marriage, being legally divorced, (even people innocent of marital sin), must be forbidden to marry. However, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that "putting away," rather than legal divorce, was what Jesus said results in adultery.
Paul's teaching is in harmony with the idea that apoluo (as used by Jesus) referred to non-legal divorce—a mere putting away, or sending out. This is what God hates because it is dealing treacherously. But Paul's teaching is NOT in harmony with the idea that a legally divorced person commits adultery by marrying again. The gist of his teaching is that a person without a marriage, who needs marriage, may marry without sin. He specifically addresses any who would object by saying "let them marry."
Below are two scenarios that I have come up with that might help you to better understand the teachings of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 5:31-32.
Scenario #1:
Mark, a Jew living under the Law, “puts away” Drusilla, his wife # 2. No reason was given for the action. He did not give her a “bill of divorcement.” Drusilla is faced with a decision that those who are given the “bill of divorcement” are not faced with. She desperately needs a man but she is still married to Mark and will commit adultery, according to the prophet Jesus who explained the Law, if she marries another. Since the death penalty for adultery is still in effect her options concern her greatly.
Possibilities:
a) She can move in with another man but not marry, and be guilty of committing adultery. In this situation she is unable to carry out her responsibilities as a wife and is therefore forced to do things that "break covenant" with her husband, which is what adultery is about. (see http://www.totalhealth.bz/adultery.htm )
b) She could not legally marry another man because she is still married to Mark. Jesus said whoever marries a woman in her situation commits adultery. Therefore, the only way she could convince a man, who had knowledge of the Law, to marry her would be for her to sell herself as one widowed or never married. To pull this off she would have to move to an area where she was unknown. At any rate, a peaceful relationship with God is next to impossible.
Scenario #2 John, a Jew living under the Law, writes a “bill of divorcement” and gives it to Mary. No reason for the divorce is given. She goes and marries another man who treats her with kindness and respect and provides for her needs. She maintains a good relationship with God. While John did not follow God's original purpose for marriage by keeping Mary for life, which Jesus rebuked the Jews for commonly practicing, he did what God commanded (Deut. 24:1-2) instead of dealing treacherously by merely "putting away" without the "bill of divorcement," as did Mark in scenario #1. | 
