|
|
|
In Mark 10:10-11 Jesus, in a private conversation with his disciples, forbade divorce and
remarriage absolutely. This teaching is repeated by Paul (1 Corinthians 7:10-1 1). But in the two
references to the topic in Matthew (5:31-32; 19:3-12) the phrase "except for fornication" is
included. Does this therefore modify Christ's teaching and Paul's interpretation of it? Many
sincerely believe this to be so, and that Christ is here giving permission for his followers to
divorce and remarry if one partner had been unfaithful. We believe this is misunderstanding his
teaching.
Old Testament background - Adultery punishable by death
To appreciate the references to divorce in Matthew it is necessary to allude briefly to some OT
commands and allusions. In one of the most emphatic and clear edicts of the Law of Moses the death sentence was
pronounced on both participants in the act of adultery:
'And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that
committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall
surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10, repeated in Deuteronomy 22:22).
By the time of Jesus the Jews rarely exacted this penalty, although they still admitted the validity
of the command (John 8:5). It is important to remember that this penalty of death for adultery
was a part of the Law that Jesus said he had not come to destroy, but to fulfil, and from which
not one jot or tittle should pass, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). One cannot therefore
simply take Christ's word "fornication" and give it the meaning of "adultery", and so claim that
the exceptive clause applies to married couples where infidelity has occurred.
Divorce under the Law of Moses
'The whole slant of the OT is towards the permanence of marriage. The Genesis edict
"they shall
be one flesh" (2v24), with its implicit ban on divorce underlies all its teaching. Although it is
clear that divorce and remarriage was sometimes practised by Israel, there are no commands as
such that permitted divorce. There is no statement in the Law of Moses to the effect that "If a
woman does thus, then her husband may divorce her and she can then remarry". Instead, there
are just a few provisions that "suffer" (Matthew 19v8) the practice of divorce, and then seek to
regulate it, but especially to restrict it. Thus the man who had humbled an unbetrothed girl had
to marry her, but could not subsequently put her away (Deuteronomy 22v28-29); nor could the
man who had wrongly accused her of infidelity (v 19). Certainly the holy calling of the priests
(which should surely be typical of our position in Christ) prevented any marriage with a
divorcee (Leviticus 21v7).
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
The most well-known of such provisions is in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In the AV translation this
appears to be a specific command that allows for divorce for " some uncleanness", but it is in fact
another of the passages that acknowledges the existence of divorce and then seeks to regulate it.
In the original the passage is a series of contingencies -
'ifs' - that culminate in the main point of
the command - i.e. that after a divorce and remarriage the original couple should not come back
together again. In fact the original Hebrew passage is one long sentence. Here is the RSV of the
passage, with the various contingencies emphasised, leading up to the prohibition at the end:
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes
because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement
and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his
house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter husband
dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out
of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former
husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been
defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord"
It will readily be seen that here is a command restricting remarriage rather than one approving of
divorce. As Dr. J.H. Hertz, the late Chief Rabbi, says of this passage:
"What we have here is no law instituting or commanding divorce. This institution is taken
for granted as in Lev. 21:7 and Num. 30:9. We are merely given one regulation in regard
to it; viz., that a man who has divorced his wife may not remarry her, if her second husband
divorced her or died".
It is evident that God through Moses neither instituted or commanded divorce. It was a practice
that had become established by custom, not divine command. As Jesus was to later say, Moses
"suffered" them to put away their wives (Matthew 19:8). However, whilst not a command to
divorce, this passage does confirm that divorce was practised in Israel, and the Law accepted the
situation ... or the "hardness of their hearts"; but at the same time regulated it. Thus the
passage shows that divorce should not be at the whim of the husband: it had to be for a specific
reason, and correct procedures had to be followed. What was this specific reason? It is difficult
to be precise. The phrase "some uncleanness" (AV) or "some indecency" (RSV) in the original
literally means "a matter of nakedness". The only other place in Scripture with the same original
is Deuteronomy 23:14 that refers to covering excrement so that God did not see "anything
indecent" (RSV) in the camp of Israel. Thus the exact nature of the indecency was not spelled
out, and to this day much discussion has centred on the meaning of the term. One thing however
is ruled out. It could not mean adultery. For this offence, as we have seen, the penalty was
not divorce but death.
The Pharisees seek Christ's interpretation of the Law
It was this seeming ambiguity that gave rise to the Pharisees' confrontation with Christ recorded
in Matthew 19. For years a controversy had raged in the rabbinical schools about the precise
meaning of the "some indecency" referred to by Moses. In Christ's day there were two main
views. The School of Hillel insisted on a very loose meaning. They taught that divorce was
possible for almost any cause - some quite trivial reasons being permitted. On the other hand the
School of Shammai believed that the only lawful reason for divorce was the unchastity of the
wife.
The background to this attempt by the Pharisees to trap Jesus is relevant to the account. Jesus
had left Capernaum (Mark 9:33), crossed the Jordan (Matthew 19:1, Mark 10:1) and thus
entered the territory of Herod Antipas. This was the territory where divorce and remarriage had
political overtones. Herod had married Herodias, who had previously been married to his brother
Philip. John the Baptist had already suffered the extreme penalty for declaring that this second
union was unlawful (Mark 6:17-28). Thus Jesus was on dangerous territory. The Herodians had
already joined up with the Pharisees in an attempt to destroy him (Mark 3:6), and no doubt they
seized this opportunity to see if they could duplicate John's downfall in Jesus' case whilst he was
in Herod's jurisdiction.
One thing is certain; the Pharisees were not genuinely after information. Their sole objective was
to trap and thereby harm Jesus (see the same use of the word in John 8:6). His strict views on
divorce were almost certainly already known, as John's had been, and they were trying to get him
to give an answer that would either invoke the intervention of Herod, or go against the Law of
Moses: both of which could be used to cause his downfall. They may also have sought to reduce
his following amongst the people, most of whom accepted the more lax views on divorce current
at the time.
This was the religious and political background to the incident recorded in Matthew 19:3-9
-
3. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and song unto him, Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
-
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female,
-
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
-
6 therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder.
-
7 They say unto him, why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement,
and to put her away?
-
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.
-
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.
An
Attempt toTrap Jesus
As we have seen, Jesus was being questioned by the Pharisees in an attempt to trap him, not to
gain information. Which School would he support, the liberal and popular Hillel or the restrictive
Shammai? Hence the phrasing of their question. "Is it lawful ...
for every cause" (v3). His
immediate reply by-passed these options and put marriage on the Edenic level (v4-6), and this
should have been good enough for his opponents - as it should also be for Christ's disciples - i.e.
no divorce.
It was only because his opponents persisted in their efforts to trap him that the
conversation was continued. He then corrected their use of the word "command" (v7) to describe
the law on divorce. Rather, it was a concession, not a command, and that only for the hardness of
their hearts, and he again refers back to God's original intention in Eden (v8). Under pressure of
their insistence Jesus restated his prohibition of divorce (v9), with subsequent remarriage being
adultery. But he did in parenthesis add the phrase "except for fornication", thus indicating that in
this dispute over the Law he favoured the Shammai view. We must be careful not to focus our
attention so much on the aside remark that we ignore the whole drift of his reply - i.e.
"No
divorce".
It is of little value to go into a detailed study of the meaning of the word translated "fornication".
The one thing it could not mean in this context was "adultery". Jesus knew that the Law - which
he expressly claimed to uphold commanded the death penalty for adultery, so he was not here
ruling about marriages where one partner had been unfaithful. To permit divorce in that
circumstance would be to contradict the very Law which he said he had not come to destroy.
'The "indecency" had therefore to be something other than adultery. But whatever the indecency
might have been, the query under discussion related to a provision of the Law of Moses, and was
not Christ's command to his disciples - he gave that later, "in the house".
It is significant that on hearing this the disciples expressed great surprise at Christ's prohibition of
divorce, even when there had been fornication.
"If the case of a man be so with his wife, it is
not good to marry" (Matthew 19. 1 0). This comment shows that they must clearly have
understood him to mean that the ban on divorce was absolute, and that any "exceptive clause" did
not apply to them. Thus on their questioning him "in the house" on this very matter (Matt 10v10-12, the accounts clearly being parallel) he confirmed this impression and, for them, forbade
divorce and remarriage completely. Any subsequent union would be adultery, he said.
Does the "exceptive clause"
Apply Today?
But some Christadelphians have said that Christ's inclusion of "except for fornication" gives
permission for his followers to divorce and remarry if their original partner commits adultery. We
believe this misunderstands this passage. Christ did not even mention adultery in this connection.
His answer on this occasion was the result of persistent questioning on the part of evil men in an
attempt to trap him. Is it really to be believed that an answer given in such circumstances
should be made a rule of behaviour for all his disciples?
It must always be remembered that the Pharisees were seeking Christ's judgment on an aspect of
the Law of Moses. Suppose they had come to Jesus with another point of the Law over which
they were disputing among themselves; say, for example, something connected with the Temple
sacrifices. Suppose Jesus had replied in such a way as to correct any abuses that had crept in, and
had put the matter back on its original Divine footing. None would suggest that such a ruling
would be binding on us today. We would rightly say that it was a provision of the Law which was
no longer relevant. Why then do some say that Christs ruling on the Pharisees' abuse of the Law's
divorce provisions should be applicable to all Christ's followers?
"In the house"
In his ministry Jesus sometimes took the opportunity to elaborate his teaching privately to his
disciples: either at his own initiative or in response to their requests. These personal conversations
"in the house" are recorded on several occasions by Mark (e.g. 7:17-23; 9:28-29; 9:33-37) and
obviously reflect the Masters specific teaching to his disciples. The occasion we are considering is
another such example (v10-12). Having heard the Masters response to the Pharisees they sought
information about their own position.
'And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 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" (Mark 10:10-12).
So in reply to their question Jesus shifts the focus from divorce - which he forbids absolutely - to
remarriage. For his followers remarriage after a divorce
is adultery. Adultery, both by
definition and scriptural usage, is having extra - marital sexual relations when one or both parties
are married. This means Christ is saying that, whatever legal process may have been
conducted to procure a divorce, in God's eyes the original partners are still married to each
other; otherwise he would not call them adulterers if they married again.
Another aspect of Christs private reply to his followers is the mention of the woman obtaining a
divorce. Under Jewish law and practice this was not possible, but was common in Roman society.
Knowing that later his disciples would be called upon to preach Christ throughout the whole
world Jesus was giving them instructions that would cover every situation that might arise.
The Sermon on the Mount
This discourse addressed to Christ's disciples, although not given in the heat of controversy like
the Matthew 19 incident also contains allusions to the wrong interpretation of the Law of Moses
by the Jewish leaders. After the series of beatitudes, Jesus in v17 commences a new section of his
homily. He prefaces this by the express statement that he has not come to abolish the Law, but to
fulfil it; that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law prior to that fulfilment; and that any who
taught the breaking of any of its commands would be the least in the kingdom of heaven (v17-19).
Two things come out from this preface. First, having said this about the Law, Jesus would not
have immediately gone on to alter the Law. But he would have been altering the Law if he had
said that divorce was an alternative to death in the case of adulterers. Secondly by this preface
Jesus was warning his disciples against those who were breaking the Law and making it of none
effect through their tradition (cp. Mark 7:13).
Jesus proceeds to review some provisions of the Law, either bringing out the depth of its
implications or giving a series of instances in which the rulers had negated the Law by their
"tradition". His allusion to divorce is an example of the latter:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matthew 5:31-32).
"It hath been said" - by whom? Although this is clearly a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 it is
not a direct quotation from it. But surely one would expect accuracy from Jesus of all people if
he was reciting the very words of the Law. Nor, as we have seen, is it the actual teaching of the
passage; for if so it would be legislation enabling divorce and saying how it should take place,
which is the very thing Deuteronomy does not do. Jesus must therefore have been quoting the
Pharisees' traditional interpretation and contrasting it with the true provision of the Law. It was
the Pharisees, by their tradition, that said "whosoever shall put away his wife......" thus extending
the permission to almost anybody. Once it is appreciated that Jesus is warning his disciples of the
error of the Pharisaic tradition it can be seen that this reference is analogous to his confrontation
with the Pharisees in Matthew 19. As in that instance he is correcting the rulers lax
interpretations and so restoring to the Deuteronomy passage its original meaning.
But for us the Law of Moses is no longer in force, so we do not need to be warned about wrong
interpretations of it. But the spirit of the law and the rest of the Old Testament - no divorce and
remarriage - is enjoined by Christ upon all his followers, and embraced by the specific commands
that are clearly laid down in other passages (Mark 10:6-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:11,39).
Divorce and Remarriage in the
Early Church
In the same way that we sometimes examine the basic beliefs of the early church to demonstrate
that their system of doctrines was largely the same as ours today, so one can examine some of
their practices and see how they responded to the question of divorce and remarriage. The late
first century and early second century ecclesias lived in a similar climate to ours as regards
divorce. In the Roman world divorce was easily and frequently obtained by both men and
women, sometimes for the most trivial reasons. It is far from surprising therefore that the early
Christian writers often refer to their accepted views on the problem. Whilst this, of course, is not
authoritative evidence as compared with Scripture, it is valuable in showing how those very near
to the days of the Apostles viewed the references we have been considering.
Their writings (see below) mainly address the question of remarriage, and it is significant that they
often quote from Matthew 5 and 19, and thus obviously knew of the "except for fornication"
clause. But this is the important thing to notice: although the early ecclesias were beginning to
fall away from purity of the original Truth, they never used "except for fornication" as an
argument in favour of remarriage after divorce. They clearly did not consider it relevant to their
current position. Remarriage after a divorce, even if that divorce had been for adultery, was
prohibited in the early church; they considered that the original marriage bond still stood, and any
subsequent union would therefore be adultery. They also considered that remarriage would deny
any opportunity for repentance by the offending party, because it prevented reconciliation and
reinstatement of the marriage - an aspect that we feel is not given sufficient weight today.
The
obedient child of God should never get into the position where by remarriage a repentant
erring partner cannot be received back.
Examples:
Hermas (date uncertain but prior to AD150): 'But K, after sending away his [adulterous] Wife, he
marries another, he also commits adultery himself'. And upon the wive's repentance: 'If her
husband will not take her back he sins and brings upon himself a great sin. Rather one must take
back the one that has sinned, and the one who repents'. -This is the reason why you were
commanded to remain single ... because in such cases repentance is possible' (Mandate. 4.1.7-8,
10).
Justin Martyr (converted 130, died 165): In his First Apology
Justin quotes, one after the other,
Matthew 5v28; 5v32, and Matthew 19v11 and then immediately adds: 'And so those who make
second marriages according to human law are sinners in the sight of our Teacher' (1 Apol. 15).
Note: (a) Justin makes a distinction between what is possible 'according to human law' and by
implication what is possible under the law of the 'Teacher'. Whilst human law may recognise a
second marriage as valid, the Teacher considers it a sin. (b) Even though quoting Mattew 5 and
19, Justin makes no exception to remarriage being a sins
Commenting on the views of the early Fathers one writer says. "Their virtually unanimous
testimony, stated or implied, is that Christ in the Gospels - and specifically in Matthew - forbade
remarriage after divorce in all circumstances, including when divorce was for adultery' (A Cornes:
Divorce and Remarriage. p. 231)
|
