Saturday, 28 March 2009

• Divorce and Remarriage

  
  

  Many people feel justified in divorce today. The main passage they cite to justify this action is the following:

  Matthew 19:7, "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"
  Matthew 19:8, "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
  Matthew 19:9, "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."

  Let's examine each one of these three verses:

  Matthew 19:7

  The question about divorce the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Why did Moses then command" reveals the misuse of Deuteronomy 24. Moses did not command divorce, he permitted it. God had instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. He is not the author of divorce; man is its originator. However, to protect the Hebrew women from being taken advantage of by a verbal divorce, Moses commanded, if the couple chooses divorce, it is to be done with a "writing of divorcement," an official written contract, permitting remarriage.

  Matthew 19:8

  Some think they see a loophole in Jesus' statement when "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:8). Jesus is discussing God’s will for marriage “from the beginning”; therefore what He says in verse 9 has always been God’s law for marriage. God's original marriage plan, as instituted in Eden, had ideally never changed, though a relaxation of it had been allowed under Moses. But here, Jesus proceeded to restore marriage to its original intent.

  Now, the divorce Moses permitted is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This Divorce was not from the beginning, and Jesus says it is not for us today. As a matter of fact, for the first 2500 years of scriptural history, there was no such thing as divorce. It was only when the Hebrew were slaves for 400 years in Egypt they learned the way of the Heathen, such as divorce.

  It appears the practice of divorce was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Matthew 19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of the second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

  The divorce mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not a command from God, but was permitted by Moses, as Jesus confirms (Matthew 19:8). Why did Moses permit divorce? Moses perceived if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands. Moses tolerated a relaxation of the strictness of the marriage bond--not as approving of it, but to prevent still greater evils. And therefore if they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and perhaps have murdered them. “But from the beginning it was not so” is repeated, in order to impress upon His audience the temporary character of this Mosaic relaxation. Moses did not direct it, or suffer it, in any such sense as to imply God approved of it, or it was right. It was a temporary regulation, suffered for a time on account of the wickedness of men, and in order to prevent the greater evils which wickedness would otherwise have occasioned. It was a regulation as to the mode of putting away; not to justify wrong practice, but to lessen, in some measure, its evils.

  In cultures around Israel at this time, women sometimes were considered little more than property to be bartered or traded or retained according to the pleasure of men. In Israel, however, a man was not free to send away his wife and bring her back at his whim. The "bill of divorcement" gave her protection from such abuses.

  It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission and permission soon sets up for command. This putting away "for every cause" (Matthew 19:3 - derived from Deuteronomy 24:1) of one's wife was a violation of the will of God. God suffers the adoption, and for a time the continuance of practices, on account of the hardness of men's hearts, is no evidence of the righteous conduct of those practices. Nor is the giving of directions about them, and the adoption of regulations to lessen their evils while they continue, any evidence God approves of them. The practices may still be a violation of what has been the will of God from the beginning, and obedience to Him may require them to be done away.

  Moses gave them no commandment to put away their wives, but rather made a good stipulation for the wives to protect them from the stubborn hardness of their husbands. God sometimes suffers things to take place which are violations of his laws, and gives directions suited to lessen in some measure the evils of those violations, while men wickedly continue to indulge them. This, however, is not to be interpreted as if he approved of those violations, and God did not approve of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

  Observe, therefore, the wisdom of our Saviour's answer to the Pharisees; he refers them to the first institution of marriage, when God made husband and wife one flesh to the intent matrimonial love might be both incommunicable and indissoluble. Observe farther, how our Saviour, to confute the Pharisees and convince them of the unlawfulness of divorce, used by the Jews, lays down the first institution of marriage, and shews them, first the author, next the time, then the end of the institution. He taught:

  1. God is the author of the close and intimate union which is betwixt man and wife in the married condition.
  2. It is not in the power of man to untie or dissolve the union which God has made betwixt man and his wife in the married state; and it is a great sin to try to separation them.

  When Jesus said, "...For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept" (Mark 10:5), Jesus replies Moses did not command but suffered or permitted (the word "commandment" used by Mark having reference not to the matter but the manner, commanding it to be done by giving a writing) men to put away their wives because at the time when the law was given the wickedness of men made such a concession beneficial. Had the law propounded at creation been re-enacted by Moses, many would have refused to marry at all, preferring an illicit life to the hazard of matrimony under a stringent law, and others finding themselves unhappily married would have secretly murdered their wives to gain their liberty. As a choice of two evils, God therefore temporarily modified the law out of compassion for women. It was expected as the hearts of men softened they would recognize the wisdom, justice and wholesomeness of the original law, and cease to take advantage of their permission to evade it. But men had not done this, so Christ himself had brought this concession to an end.

  When a passage in scripture refers back in time to a command from God, it usually starts, "It is written," or "the scripture saith," (as Jesus and the apostles often said), which tells us this is a command from God. But when a passage refers to hearsay statements, it is something spoken by man, not God. Look at this passage Christ Jesus spoke:

  Matthew 5:31, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:"

  This passage is referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Notice Jesus did not refer to God's Law by saying "It is written," or "the scripture saith." Now look at this passage God himself spoke:

  Jeremiah 3:1, "They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? Shall not the land be greatly polluted?"

  This passage is referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Notice Jeremiah begins this passage with "They say..." (referring to men) then quotes Deuteronomy 24:1-4. If Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was a command from God, why would Jeremiah say "they" said this, instead of God (i.e. "the Lord has said," etc.)? The answer is found in Jesus' statement, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). You see, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is something man has permitted, it is not a command from God, and it was not part of God's Law from the beginning (Matthew 19:8).

  And Deuteronomy 24:4 does confirm a woman is defiled once she marries another man. It says when a woman divorces her husband and marries another (which Moses permitted), "...after this she is defiled; for it is an abomination before the LORD." Or, more accurately stated in the Septuagint, "the former husband who sent her away shall not be able to return and take her to himself for a wife, after she has been defiled." Does not this refer to her having been divorced and married in consequence to another? Divorce does not defile the woman, it is re-marriage. Though Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, suffered them to put away their wives, yet he considered all after-marriages in this case to be pollution and defilement. This is why, on this ground, our Lord argues from the beginning, divorce was not so, and whoever marries the woman who is put away is an adulterer.

  Jesus mentions only one exception in which divorce and re-marriage is allowed. This exception He gives is "from the beginning;" Jesus was not abolishing God's Law from the beginning and instituting some new law, he was laying down God's Law God intended,  from the beginning, and was established for the first 2500 years of scriptural history. Let's look at this exception, which was from the beginning, now.

  Matthew 19:9

  A similar passage to Matthew 19:9 is recorded here:

  "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32).

  Jesus said only in the case of "fornication" is divorce allowed. Most people assume Jesus meant "adultery," but this is not so. To understand this statement, we need to see exactly what the Old Covenant legislation was regarding illicit intercourse.

  1. If a man was convicted of adultery, both he and the married woman who lay with him were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).
  2. If a married woman was convicted of adultery, both she and the man who lay with her were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).
  3. If the wife was suspected, but not convicted, of adultery, the husband had to take her to the priest with a "jealousy" offering (Numbers 5:11-31).
  4. If a betrothed virgin was convicted of adultery, both she and the man who lay with her were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
  5. If a man forces a betrothed woman to have sex with him, the man was executed, but the woman was blameless (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).
  6. If a man has sex with an unbetrothed virgin, they were both commanded to marry each other, and they could not divorce for the rest of their lives (Deuteronomy 22:28), unless the father refuses to give her to him, in which case the man was to pay the father money for humbling her (Exodus 22:16-17).

  Note: there is no provision for divorce in any of the above situations.

  7. The only remaining possibility is of a betrothed girl who is the innocent victim of fornication. She was not to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). But her fiancé might not want to go through with the marriage, even though what had happened was not her fault. He was allowed to divorce her and break off the espousal contract.

  Now, let's look at this verse again:

  "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:" (Matthew 5:32; 19:8).

  This exception clause is recorded by Matthew only. Why then an exception clause in Matthew but not in Mark or Luke (see Mark 10:1-12 & Luke 16:18)? Did the Greeks, whom Luke addressed, and the Romans, whom Mark addressed, not need to know of the exception clause? Were only the Jews, whom Matthew addressed, permitted this liberty? The answer lies in the peculiar way in which the Jews contracted marriage.

  When our Lord is recorded in Matthew 5:32; 19:9 as saying, "porneia" which is the Greek word for 'fornication', He is referring to fornication within the Jewish betrothal period. This passage is too often misinterpreted to mean "adultery" within the consummated marriage state. To try and make "fornication" (Greek "porneia") and "adultery" (Greek "moicheia") have the same meaning is untenable, especially when both words are used in the same verses (Matthew 5:32; 15:19; 19:19; Mark 7:21, 1 Cor.6:9, Gal.5:19, Heb.13:4). These two different words with two different meanings clearly describe two different acts.

  Let's look at three different bible dictionaries, and notice the difference between fornication (sex without marriage state) and adultery (sex within marriage state):

  • Fornication: This word is used in Scripture not only for the sin of impurity between unmarried persons, but for idolatry, and for all kinds of infidelity to God. (American Tract Society Dictionary).
  • Adultery: Is a criminal connection between persons who are engaged, one or both, to keep themselves wholly to others; and thus it exceeds the guilt of fornication, which is the same intercourse between unmarried persons. Illicit intercourse between a married man and a woman who was not married, nor betrothed, constituted not adultery, but fornication. Fornication may be, in some sense, covered by a subsequent marriage of the parties; but adultery cannot be so healed. (American Tract Society Dictionary).
  • Adultery: The parties to this crime, according to Jewish law, were a married woman and a man who was not her husband. (Smith's bible dictionary).
  • Adultery: Conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. (Easton's 1897 bible dictionary).

  In the environment in which Jesus worked and in which the Gospels were written, a very careful distinction was drawn between what was fornication and what was adultery. In short, if any man (married or unmarried) has sex with an unmarried woman, it is fornication; and if any man (married or unmarried) has sex with a married woman, it was adultery.

  Furthermore, to interpret Jesus, in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9, as giving grounds for divorce in the case of "adultery" contradicts Christ's teaching in Mark 10:1-12 & Luke 16:18, where divorce is never an option. It would also contradict the teaching of Paul who claims to be giving Christ's own command for "no divorce", and does not mention any exceptions, especially for "adultery" (1 Corinthians 7:10-11; 39)!

  One should not expect Mark and Luke would be so careless as to forget or neglect such important information (i.e. whether or not Jesus taught "adultery" is grounds for divorce) in their gospels knowing the audience of their day didn't have the convenience of reading Matthew's gospel along with theirs as we do today. They clearly understood Christ to be teaching divorce is not God's will, and remarriage after an unfounded divorce results in adultery:

  Matthew 19:6, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

  Mark 10:11-12, "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery"

  Luke 16:18, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her who is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

  The reason Mark and Luke do not mention the exceptive clause is they were addressing a predominately gentile audience while Matthew was addressing a Jewish one. Certainly, the only time a "wife" could possibly commit "fornication" (as Matthew 5:32 and 19:8 state) would be during the betrothal period! Why? Because before the betrothal period, she would not be a "wife", but she would be a single woman. And after the betrothal period, she would be married, and therefore, she would be committing adultery if she cheated on her husband, and it would not be called fornication.

  In addition, if Christ was teaching adultery is now grounds for divorce (in Matthew 5:32), it would have contradicted his statement he made just a few minutes earlier in Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus clearly taught no part of the Old Testament laws would pass, until heaven and earth pass and until all prophesy be fulfilled.

  Now, picture this. Jesus tells the Jews, "No part of the Old Testament laws will pass away" (verse 18). Then, just a short time later (verse 32), he says, "On second thought, the Old Testament laws have passed away! From this moment on, I command you to ignore God's Law. God says no divorce is allowed for adultery, but I say unto you divorce is allowed for adultery!" Do you see a contradiction here? You see, the Jews would not have needed to hire false witnesses against Jesus at his trial; they would have simply executed him on the spot for teaching contrary to God's written law!

  And one last point. If Jesus was saying a couple cannot divorce for any reason, except adultery, this would mean the following. Picture a married woman who followed God with all her heart, and did nothing to provoke a divorce, but was divorced and abandoned by her husband. God said re-marriage was not from the beginning. However, since Jesus has a loophole now, all she has to do is sleep with another man while she is married, and now she can get a legal divorce, and legally marry another man! And if she doesn't like him, she could commit adultery, get another divorce, and marry another man! In other words, Jesus would be promoting sin!
  

  In summation:

  The only divorce the Lord permits in His laws is the divorce of a betrothed woman who had been raped and is no longer a virgin as stated in the betrothal agreement.

  Further postings would expound upon the details of divorce and remarriages.

  Blessings,

  
  

  
  

  • 11:46 AM
  • 26 Views
  • 0 eProps
  • 0 Comments