|
I do not know any Christian who thinks it is okay to divorce a faithful spouse. I certainly do not. The example we have for divorce, which God evidently provided for us to follow, is found in Jeremiah 3:8. We see that He divorced Israel for unfaithfulness and refusal to repent. Some deny God divorced Israel even though it clearly says so and gives the details of the divorce and provides the definition, which includes a "bill of divorcement." These people have no qualms with pitting verse 14 against verse 8, where God says, "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you." Two possible explanations allow harmony of verses 8 and 14. One is that the words are spoken as if from the past - referring to the covenant or marriage of Israel at the conclusion of the covenant on Mt. Sinai. The other is that the translation "married to you" is incorrect. Below are five versions that render the statement to allow harmony with verse 8:
(CEV) You are unfaithful children, but you belong to me. Come home!
(ESV) Return, O faithless children, declares the LORD; for I am your master;
(GNB) "Unfaithful people, come back; you belong to me."
(JPS) Return, O backsliding children, saith the LORD;
(LITV) Return, O apostate sons, declares Jehovah; for I am Lord over you.
The text I believe Jesus referred to when He was questioned was Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (see Mark 10:3), which states that the divorced woman "may go and be another man's wife." It does not say the woman had to divorce the man for fornication nor does it specify what the man's "reason" or "cause" had to be before she could marry another. The divorce law was given to protect the innocent. Jesus did not change this law to make the innocent guilty and deserving of punishment for what his/her spouse did. That is not God's nature.
The misunderstanding stems from a misuse of the Greek word "apoluo," in rendering it as "divorce" in contrast to God's definition of divorce (Deut. 24:1-2), which requires a certificate of divorcement. This word is used several times and several English words are used to translate it. Here is a link to an article that lists the versions that never translate "apoluo" as divorce: https://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-matthew-5-32.htm. (The KJV would be on the list except that it inconsistently translates "apoluo" as divorce in Matthew 5:32.) The result of the mistranslation is that Jesus’ words are being twisted to say a divorced woman commits adultery if she marries. A big problem with this is that it has Jesus contradicting the Law without the Jews even accusing Him of so doing. He was teaching that a woman who was sent away, put away, or released, but not according to the Law that required a certificate of divorcement, would commit adultery if she married. This putting away contrary to the Law, which did not release the woman, was a sin that Jesus called “adultery against her” (Mark 10:11). (Only if the man divorced the woman according to the Law would he be required to give her the dowry her father had paid when they married. This was thus a motive for putting away but not divorcing as God prescribed.) The exception clause, allowing a man to put away his woman without using God’s procedure to divorce, is applicable only to the case where the man puts her away for fornication, i.e., the marriage to the woman he is putting away is not a legal marriage. In such case he is not guilty of "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). We have two New Testament examples of an illegal marriage, which is fornication (1 Cor. 5:1; Matt. 14:3-4).
|
