Marriage Divorce and Remarriage

 

Part 3.

 

Rex Banks

 

Matt 5:31, 32.

 

 

Mat 5:31  "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';  Mat 5:32  but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

 

 

a. Jesus says “And it was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’” (NASB). The main Jewish views are to be found in the Talmud Mishnah Gittin 9:10 where we read:  

 

"The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel say he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she.”

 

Although Rabbi Akiba was a little later than Jesus, the view associated with his name was around in the Lord’s Day. The lax views of Hillel and Akiba prevailed in Jewish law. According to the Talmud the husband was to divorce his wife "If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street” (Git 89a).

 

b. The word translated “sends away” (from apoluo) is not a technical word for divorce, but mention of the “certificate of divorce” tells us that this is what Jesus is discussing here. (See notes on Deut 24:1-4 above).  Arndt and Gingrich has “let go, send away, dismiss” and therefore to “divorce, send away.”

 

c. The verb translated “let him give” (Matt 5:31) is in the imperative. It is a command. However, as we have seen, despite the rendering of the KJV (“let him write her”) and other versions, there is no directive to the man in Deuteronomy 24:1. This is not a verbatim quote from Deut 24. The Law simply deals with a situation in which the man “writes her a certificate of divorce,” and the Jews are mistaken in their belief that this action took place with divine approval (see Lesson 1).  

 

d. With the words “but I (ego, [emphatic]) say to you” Jesus begins to correct this misunderstanding of the Mosaic Law. He sets forth the general rule (to which there is one exception [see below]) that “everyone who divorces (from apoluo see ‘b’ above) his wife … makes her commit adultery,” (from moichao) “causeth her to commit adultery” (KJV) “maketh her an adulteress” (RSV). A Lukyn Williams points out that “the right reading, moiceuqh~nai, connotes being sinned against rather than sinning (Received Text, moica~sqai)” (Pulpit Commentary). The obvious question is “How does a man who divorces his wife make her commit adultery?”

 

e. This general rule (that “everyone who divorces his wife … makes her commit adultery”) deals with the case of the faithful wife who is put away, but how are we to understand the phrase “makes her commit adultery (causes her to become an adulteress [NIV])"? How is the faithful, put away wife caused to “commit adultery”?

 

i. One view is that these words mean “stigmatizes her as an adulteress (even though it is not so)" (B. Ward Powers, Divorce and the Bible).  According to this view, the put away woman is viewed as an adulteress and acquires the reputation of being one, just because she has been put away by her husband. KJV Commentary has “Lenski (pp. 230–235) translates ‘brings about that she is stigmatized as adulterous’ and regards the sin of the divorcer as bringing about an unjust suspicion upon the divorcee.”

 

ii. In my view the following from William Hendriksen, offers the best solution:

 

“The Greek, by using the passive voice of the verb, states not what the woman becomes or what she does but what she undergoes, suffers, is exposed to. She suffers wrong. He [the husband initiating the divorce] does wrong. To be sure, she herself also may become guilty, but that is not the point which Jesus is emphasizing. Far better, if would seem to me, is therefore the translation, ‘Whoever divorces his wife except on the basis of infidelity exposes her to adultery,’ or something similar. (The man) must bear the chief responsibility, if as a result she, in her deserted state should immediately yield to the temptation of becoming married to someone else” (Commentary on Matthew).

 

iii. In my view Hendriksen’s explanation is likely correct.   Keep in mind that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 provides the background to Jesus’ discussion of the “certificate of divorce” (v 31) and in that passage the hypothetical situation involves the remarriage of the divorced woman (Deut 24:2). Moses tells us that the woman “has been defiled” by her remarriage (see notes) and now Jesus is even more explicit, calling her remarriage “adultery” in Matt 5:32.

 

Thus the general rule (to which there is but one exception [see below]) is that the man who puts away his wife “makes her commit adultery” (“causes her to become an adulteress” [NIV])” should she yield to the temptation of becoming married to someone else.

 

f. A great deal of debate surrounds the meaning and the tense of “moichaō” (commit adultery) in Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9.  Some have adopted the bizarre position that moichaō speaks of a one time act of “covenant breaking” rather than of illicit sexual activity in violation of the marriage bond, and they argue that repentance does not involve the cessation of sexual activity with a second partner, but simply the resolve not to break such a covenant in the future. Those who take this position must deny that in Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9, the use of the present indicative denotes ongoing adultery.

 

g. In Appendix 1 we will discuss various insuperable problems with this position, but for now we will simply note the complete absence of scholarly support for the claim that “adultery” is something other than illicit sexual activity. Unless we are prepared to jettison all authoritative sources we must accept that adultery means “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (Thayer). What’s more, as we will see in Appendix 1, there are sound reasons for affirming that the present tense in Matt 5:23 and 19:9 speaks of continuous, ongoing action. In short the unscripturally put away woman of Matt 5:32 who enters into another marriage is caught up in ongoing illicit sexual activity in violation of the marriage bond. 

 

h. There is one exception to the rule that the man who “divorces his wife” “makes her commit adultery” (v 32). That exception is the case of the man who puts away his wife “for the cause (logos) of unchastity.” The word logo has a variety of meanings and under the heading “2) its use as respect to the MIND alone” Thayer has:

 

“2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating

2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration

2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score

2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment

2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation

2e1) reason would

2f) reason, cause, ground.”

 

i. The man who puts away his wife “for the cause (reason, cause ground) of unchastity” is explicitly excluded from that class of men who, by putting away a wife, “makes her commit adultery” Why? Because she is already an adulteress when he divorces her.  “Unchastity” is from porneia which means “illicit sexual intercourse in general” (Thayer) “prostitution, unchastity, fornication” and “every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse” (Arndt and Gingrich).   Adultery is one form of unchastity, and since the unchastity of the married woman is adultery, the man who puts away an unchaste wife does not make her an adulteress. 

 

j. Finally “whoever marries a divorced woman (lit a having been put away woman [perfect passive participle]) commits adultery” (v 32). The use of the perfect tense here speaks of the existing state of the woman as a result of her having been put away. She is in the condition of having been put away. The man who marries the “having been put away woman” commits adultery (present tense). (See g above and also Appendix 1). The individual who marries the having been put away woman keeps on committing adultery with her by continuing to engage in illicit sexual activity with her.

 

k. Is the “having been put way woman” one who has been put away for some cause other than adultery? Or is the “having been put way woman” every divorced woman, including the woman who has put away for adultery and the one who has been put away for some cause other than adultery? Both positions have been taken by excellent scholars. Because there is no definite article before “woman” some, like Dean Alford argue that Jesus has in view the woman who has been divorced for some cause other than adultery.  Unfortunately this conclusion does not necessarily follow from the absence of the article. However it may be correct and if so the original marriage bond remains intact. Clearly this is sufficient reason for Jesus to describe the second union as adulterous. 

 

l. It is suggested by some that the “divorced woman” of v 32b is not simply the divorced woman who is not guilty of having committed adultery, but also the divorced woman who has been put away for adultery. This position raises the question: “If adultery is defined as ‘unlawful intercourse with another’s wife,’ does this mean that, like the woman put away for burnt toast, the woman who is put away for adultery is still joined to her original husband?” If this is the case, the original husband is still bound to his adulterous spouse also. In this case, all Matt 5:31, 32 is saying is that the original husband does not make his wife commit adultery. (She was an adulteress when he divorced her). Clearly this position raises a problem. The problem is that since Matt 19:9 authorizes the remarriage of the husband who divorces a wife for adultery (see next Lesson) this individual cannot be married to his first wife still.

 

m. This unavoidable conclusion that the woman put away for adultery is no longer married to her first husband has caused some to engage in faulty reasoning with unfortunate consequences. For example, some contend that the words “not for fornication” must be treated as modifying, not merely the clause in which it occurs (v 32a) but also v 32b. Thus while v 32b says “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” the meaning is that “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery unless that woman has been put away for adultery.”  In other words, the only men who are guilty of committing adultery with put away wives are those men who marry wives put away for some cause other than adultery. The argument is that this must be the case because the put away adulteress is no longer married to her first husband (who is free to remarry [Matt 19:9]) and because given the definition of adultery, (g above) marriage to a woman no longer bound in marriage cannot involve adultery.

 

n. This position is untenable. Keep in mind that scripture authorizes the union of one man and one woman for life (see Lesson 1). The only having-been-married person who may enter into a second union with Divine approval is that person (a) whose spouse has died and (b) that person who puts away and a spouse for adultery (Matt 19:9). A woman divorced for her adultery is no longer bound to her original husband, but she never ceases to be bound to God’s marriage law, and in her case this law contains no authority for a second union.

 

o. There is another problem with this position (“m” above):

 

“‘Except for fornication’ is an adverbial clause, since it modifies the predicate of the sentence. Since it is not repeated in the last half of the sentence, I think no one can prove that it is implied as a modifier of any word in that last clause. But suppose we admit, for sake of argument, that it should be repeated in the last half of the sentence in 5: 32 and 19: 9. What word in the last clause would the compound phrase modify? It cannot very well modify the word 'marries,' which is the verb and the predicate of the clause, since that would make fornication a reason for another marriage. And we have already shown that is not a very good reason for another marriage. It cannot very well modify 'a dismissed woman' of the last clause. Although this word (apolelumenen, translated a dismissed woman) is a participle, it is used here as a substantive (noun) and is the object of the verb 'marries.' If the compound phrase, 'apart from a matter of fornication,' modifies this substantive it becomes an adjectival modifier instead of adverbial. Since it is used but once in the sentence it seems that it cannot be taken as both adverbial and adjectival....." (Roy Lanier Sn Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage).

 

p. Returning to point l above, is it possible that the “divorced woman” of v 32b is not simply the divorced woman who is not guilty of having committed adultery, but also the divorced woman who has been put away for adultery? In other words, is it possible to describe the remarriage of a woman put away for unchastity (and no longer married to her first husband) as adulterous given that adultery involves unlawful sexual intercourse with another’s spouse? In my view Maurice W. Lusk is correct that the answer to this question lies in understanding the “denotative idea intrinsic within the word adultery” (Marriage Divorce and Remarriage in the Teachings of Jesus and Paul).  

 

q. Lusk points out that a distinction must be made between the “connotative meaning” of a word and the “denotative meaning” of that word. The former is usually its “popular or most general sense” and the latter “is usually the more exacting and/or explicit sense, that which emphasizes the intrinsic idea within it which is oftentimes resting at the heart of a term but not ordinarily associated with it in common usage.” Whereas the connotation of adultery is “unlawful intercourse with another’s spouse” the denotative idea is that of adulteration, defilement, impurity. Thus it is appropriate to describe the remarriage of a put away adulteress as “adultery” despite the fact that she is no longer married to the original partner, because the second marriage is an adulteration of marriage.     

 

Conclusion: Like the provisions of the Mosaic Law, the teaching of Matt 5:31, 32 is in harmony with the Lord’s pattern for marriage set forth at creation (Gen 2:18-24). In these verses Jesus confirms that the remarriage of a divorced woman involves her and her new partner in an ongoing adulterous relationship. As we will see, Matthew 19:9 which clarifies the position of the so called “innocent party,” is also in complete harmony with this teaching and that of the entire Bible.