Home|Contents Marriage Divorce and Remarriage

Marriage Divorce and Remarriage

 

Part 4

 

Rex Banks




 

 

Matthew 19:3-9.

 

A. Matt 19:3; Mk 10:3, 4.

 

 

Matt 19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

 

a. We recall that

 

"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” (Talmud Mishnah Gittin 9:10). 

 

b. 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).

 

c. Jesus had just entered into the territory of Herod Antipas (v 1). John the Baptist had condemned Herod’s marriage to Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, and this had resulted in his death (14:2-12; Mk 6:14-29; Lk 3:19, 20). Perhaps the Pharisees asked this question in the hope that Jesus would side with John and suffer the same fate.

 

d. The word translated “sends away” (from apoluo) is not a technical word for divorce, but mention of the “certificate of divorce” (v 7) tells us that this is what Jesus is discussing here. (See notes on Deut 24:1-4).  Arndt and Gingrich has “let go, send away, dismiss” and therefore “to divorce, send away.”

 

e. It is important to note that the Pharisees question relates to the lawfulness of divorcing a wife for any cause at all. In connection with “divorce” the Pharisees contemplate the possibility of an action which is either “lawful” or unlawful. A “divorce” is “lawful,” if it conforms to divine legislation and it is unlawful if it does not do so which is why Jesus responds with the question “What did Moses command you?” (Mk 10:3). Just as the same term marriage is used of unions which are lawful and “not lawful” (Mk 6:17, 18) so too the same term “divorce” is used of actions which are lawful or unlawful. 

 

f. In Mark 10 this same encounter with the Pharisees is recorded. (In Luke 16:18 the connection is not clear). Mark has:

 

“Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife” (10:2).

 

Mark’s account does not include the words “for any cause at all,” (Matt 19:3) and this is significant. The words “for any cause at all” “plainly called for a specification from Jesus of exceptions which he would allow to the rule against divorce” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

g. Because Matthew’s account contains the more detailed question, his account also records the more detailed response of Jesus.

 

“It is fortunate that the Pharisees asked the question in the form they did, for that put on Jesus the necessity of enumerating such exceptions as he would allow. He mentioned one, and but one in reply. That puts the matter of exceptions under the rule in logic: Expressio unius-exclusio alterius. All other pretences for divorce were deliberately swept aside by Christ - a fact that should be remembered when other causes are sought to be foisted in alongside this one allowed by Christ” (ibid).

 

Mark’s account simply requires a statement of the general rule on marriage divorce and remarriage, but Matthew’s account requires that Jesus give details of any exceptions and hence the exceptive clause of Matt 19:9. The exception “was called out by the very terms of the question of the Pharisees: ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?’” (ibid).

 

h. Mark 10:3 Mark records that Jesus answered with the words “What did Moses command you” (Mk 10:3). Command (entellomai) is “to order, command to be done, enjoin” (Thayer) and clearly Jesus is calling for positive divine instruction. It is also clear that He wants them to find this positive divine instruction in Genesis 2. See notes on Matt 19:4-6 below.

 

i. Mark 10:4 Instead of returning to the creation account for positive divine instruction, the Pharisees appeal to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and say "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."  As we have seen (Lesson 1) Deut 24:1-4 does not “authorize or sanction divorce” (Walter C. Kaiser). In fact “divorce is not established as a right” (Keil and Delitzsch) and “No Hebrew law institutes divorce any more than it does polygamy and concubinage” (Jack P. Lewis). Thus this appeal to Deut 24 by the Pharisees is misguided.

 

j. In his A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, John Lightfoot speaks of “the causes, ridiculous (shall I call them?) or wicked, for which (the Jews) put away their wives” and gives the following examples:

 

"When Rabh went to Darsis ('whither,' as the Gloss saith, 'he often went'), he made a public proclamation, What woman will have me for a day? Rabh Nachman, when he went to Sacnezib, made a public proclamation, What woman will have me for a day?" The Gloss is, "Is there any woman who will be my wife while I tarry in this place?"

 

Thus by distorting Deut 24:1-4, the Jews had made a mockery of God’s marriage provision. Jesus’ question “What did Moses command you” (Mk 10:3) was designed to take them back to the creation account for positive divine instruction, not to a distorted application of Deut 24!  Now He takes them back to Genesis 2 and to creation law.

 

B. Matt 19:4-8  

 

Matt 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

 

Matt 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?

 

Matt 19:6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate."

 

a. As we saw in Lesson 1, the “one-flesh” origin of man and woman under girds the marriage bond. It is because of the nature of the creation event that the man leaves and cleaves, and it is God who joins the man and woman in marriage.

 

b. The verb chorizō (“let no man separate”) is present tense, and following the negative particle me, it suggests that Jesus is commanding the cessation of an already existing practice. This term was used interchangeably in marriage contracts (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich) and in the present context it clearly means the same as apoluo.

Jesus words are “What therefore God has joined together let no man separate” (c.f. KJV, ERV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV). The NEB has "Man must not separate what God has joined together." This verse has become the subject of great debate.

 

c. Among others, brother Olan Hicks has been critical of what he calls the “traditional approach” to this verse. He says:

 

“Back at verse 6 Jesus said, ‘What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They (“the traditionalists” [Rex]) have changed that idea to ‘What God has joined together man cannot put asunder.’ This is what causes them to contradict the verses following. It is why they say a divorced person is ‘still bound to their first mate in God's sight.’ They have changed ‘do not’ to ‘cannot’” (Divorce: Is It Wrong to marry Again?).

 

Hicks is critical of those who argue that man cannot break the marriage bond forged by God, and who, on this basis affirm that the unscripturally “separated” couple are still “married in God’s sight.” Brother Hicks argues that such human separation is sinful but possible, and that when it occurs it does indeed sever the Lord’s one flesh union. This is vital to brother Hicks’ position on marriage divorce and remarriage (see Appendix 1).

 

d. However brother Hicks is getting too much out of Matt 19:6. To illustrate the point, consider the Lord’s command to Israel in Deut 7:3. God says to His people “You shall not intermarry (chathan) with (the Canaanites).” The Lord does not say to the Israelites “You cannot intermarry with the Canaanites” but rather “Do not intermarry with the Canaanites.” Given the wording of this command, are we justified in concluding that when Israel disobeyed God in this matter, God Himself joined the Israelites and Canaanites in the “one flesh” covenant grounded upon Genesis 2? Clearly not.

 

When the Israelites of Ezra’s day married Canaanite women in violation of Divine Law, Ezra prayed “shall we again break Your commandments and intermarry (chathan) with the peoples who commit these abominations?” (Ezra 9:14). Neither Ezra nor Moses told the Israelites “you cannot intermarry” but when such unions occurred Ezra understood that God had not joined the Israelite men and Canaanite women in violation of His own Law, and he demanded that these marriages be terminated (Ezra chpts 9, 10). The point is this: the command in Deut 7:3 does not imply that it is possible for man to compel God to forge a one flesh union in violation of  His own Law, and the command in  Matt 19:6 does not imply that it is possible for man to compel God to put asunder a one flesh union in violation of His own Law.

 

e. Scripture contemplates divorce which is “lawful” and unlawful, (Matt 19:3) marriage which is lawful and “not lawful” (Mk 6:17, 18) and separation which is lawful and unlawful. With respect to the “one flesh” union of Gen 2, it is God and God alone who joins and separates and any suggestion that the Lord binds or looses contrary to His own declared Law is misguided. John said of Diotrephes that he “puts (certain ones) out of the church” (3 Jn 10) but clearly we cannot conclude that the Lord removed these brethren from His body. Similarly the one flesh union cannot be destroyed by any human action.

 

f. One difficulty with brother Hicks’ position is that it forces him to engage in linguistic gymnastics in 1 Cor 7. Brother Hicks insists that in 1 Cor 7:12-15 “divorce” is under discussion (see next section) but given his position he must argue that 1 Cor 7:10, 11 deals with “separation” because here Paul says:

 

“But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave (from chorizō )  her husband (but if she does leave, [from chorizō ] she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” 

 

When there is unlawful separating of what God has joined together, the separated have but two options – to remain unmarried (to a second spouse) or be “reconciled” to the first spouse. No third option exists for the unlawfully separated.

 

g. Matt 19:7 “They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?’"  Again the Pharisees appeal to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, a passage which does not institute or condone divorce (see above). In Mark 10:4 the Pharisees appeal to Deuteronomy 24 as evidence that Moses “permitted” (NASB, NIV) or “suffered” (KJV) divorce. Here the more forceful term “”command” (entellomai, see above) is used.

 

h. Matt 19:8 “He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”  In response to the question concerning the “command” of Moses, Jesus affirms that Moses “permitted” the Jews to divorce their wives. This permission was given because of the “hardness” of their heart. It is the deceitfulness of sin that hardens the heart (Heb 3:13) and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was not given for the benefit of men with sin-hardened hearts (see Lesson 1).   

 

i. Adam Clarke suggests that “Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands.” In similar vein Wesley suggests that in these verses, we have “merely a permission of that practice for prevention of greater mischiefs,” perhaps even the murder of the unwanted wife. John Gill opines that “if this (permission) had not been granted, (the men) would have used their wives that displeased them, in a most cruel, and barbarous manner, if not have murdered them: so that this grant was made, not to indulge their lusts, but to prevent greater evils” (Exposition of the Entire Bible).

 

j. While God “permitted” the Jews to divorce their wives in the sense that He regulated an existing practice, such permission does not imply condonation of the actions of men with sin hardened hearts. Permission does not imply condonation. For example:

 

When the Israelites requested that Samuel appoint a king over them (1 Sam 8:5) the Lord permitted them to have their own way. He instructed Samuel to "Listen to the voice of the people” in this matter (1 Sam 8:7) but He makes it clear that in making this request the people had “rejected (Him) from being king over them.” Samuel describes their action as great wickedness (1 Sam 12:17) and as “this evil” (1 Sam 12:20).

 

When Paul says that God “permitted (suffered KJV) all the nations to go their own ways” (Acts 14:16) he meant that the Lord let them go “the way of ignorance, superstition, and idolatry; which they devised, and chose, and delighted in” but it was “not that he gave them any licence to walk in these ways, without being chargeable with sin, or with impunity” (Gill). (A different word is used for “permitted” in this verse, but the point is that no condonation is implied).

 

The point is that Divine permission does not imply Divine condonation.

 

k. Commenting upon the words “but from the beginning it has not been this way” Vincent has:

 

“The A. V. is commonly understood to mean, it was not so in the beginning. But that is not Christ's meaning. The verb is in the perfect tense (denoting the continuance of past action or its results down to the present). He means: Notwithstanding Moses' permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force” (Word Studies).

 

A. T. Robertson also points out that the present perfect active of ginomai (gegonen) is used here “to emphasize the permanence of the divine ideal” adding the following comment from A. B. Bruce (The Expositors Greek Testament):

 

“How small the Pharisaic disputants must have felt in presence of such holy teaching, which soars above the partisan view of controversialists into the serene region of ideal, universal, eternal truth” (Word Pictures).

 

 

C. Matt 19:9

 

Matt 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries woman commits adultery" (NASB).

 

a. “And (de) I say to you…”  The word de is a “primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.: - also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English]” (Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries). Thayer has “1) but, moreover, and, etc … a primary particle (adversative or continuative).” Here de is not adversative but continuative. Jesus is explaining that His teaching in Matt 19:9 reflects God’s original plan (“but from the beginning it has not been this way” [v 8]).

b. The verb translated “divorces” is from apoluō and while it is not a technical word for divorce, it is clear from context that it has this meaning here and another 13 times in the synoptic gospels. “Immorality” is “unchastity” as in 5:32 (“illicit sexual intercourse in general” [Thayer]) and “adultery” is from moichao as in 5:32 (see Lesson 3 and Appendix 1).

c. In Mark’s account Jesus says that the man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery “against her” (i.e. his put away wife). This “new element” was “totally unrecognised in the rabbinic courts” (William L. Lane, Mark NICNT). According to rabbinic law, a man could not commit adultery against his wife, but only against another man by seducing his wife. Mark also records that Jesus speaks of the woman who “divorces her husband and marries another man.” She too is guilty of “committing adultery” (Mk 10:12). Roman law made provision for a wife to divorce her husband and Mark is writing for a Roman audience.  Matthew however   writes for a Jewish audience, and Jewish law had no such provision, although the wife could ask the court to force her husband to divorce her. Josephus records:   

 

“But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife; if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away. However, Salome chose to follow not the law of her country, but the law of her authority, and so renounced her wedlock” (Antiquities 15:7:10).

 

The shorter and longer readings.

 

a. There is some variation in our English Bibles at this point, with some versions containing the shorter reading and others the longer reading in the main text. The NASB (above) is an example of the shorter reading, while the KJV is an example of the longer reading, the latter containing the extra phrase “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Other popular examples of the shorter reading include the NIV, RSV and the ESV. Other popular examples of the longer reading include the NKJV and the 1901 American Standard Version.

 

b. This difference is due to variant readings in the manuscripts, and scholars continue to vigorously debate such readings. There are many factors involved. For example the Vulgate, Jerome’s 4th century translation of the Bible into Latin contains the longer reading, and this was the Bible of the Western church prior to the 16th century. The 14th century Wyclif Bible was a translation of the Vulgate and contains the phrase   “and he that weddith the forsakun wijf, doith letcherie.” The Douay-Rheims version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are based is also a translation of the Latin Vulgate and contains the words “and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.”

 

c. Too, the various editions of the Textus Receptus contain the longer reading, and versions such as KJV, NKJV which are based upon the TR reflect this fact. (The NKJV does contain many footnotes related to the Critical Text). Some “recognised scholars” are adamant that the phrase has very high authority in its favour. On the other hand other “recognised scholars” take the opposite view. The phrase is omitted by Wescott and Hort and is not included in the Critical Text favoured by the United Bible Society.  Bruce M. Metzger says:

 

“After moichatai (committeth adultery) several witnesses … add and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (It is) more probable that the text was expanded by copyists who accommodated the saying to the prevailing text of 5:32” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament).

 

d. In fact the inclusion or exclusion of these words does not affect the Bible’s teaching on MDR because they are contained in Matt 5:32.

 

The text and the exceptive clause.

 

a. Some modern scholars argue that the exceptive clause (“except for immorality”) is to be excluded from both Matt 5:32 and 19:9.  For example in his The Divine Imperative, Emil Brunner says:

 

“It is my definite conviction that the phrase ‘saving for the cause of fornication’ was not uttered by Jesus himself, but that it is an interpolation by the Early Church, which had already misunderstood the sayings of Jesus in a legalistic way, and therefore needed such a corrective.” (Quoted by Maurice Lusk in his Marriage Divorce and Remarriage in the Teachings of Jesus and Paul).

 

b. Lusk goes on to point out that “There are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s text from which this clause is missing” (emphasis mine). In support of this observation Lusk has the following from Those ‘Divorce and Remarriage’ Passages by H.G. Coiner:

 

“It does not seem possible to adduce any textual arguments against the genuineness of the clauses. The commentators (of liberal scholars –mwl) also generally acknowledge that there are no textual reasons for thinking that the clauses are not genuine” (emphasis mine).

 

c. In similar vein A.T Robertson has:

 

“Here, as in Matt 5:31, a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that ‘the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up.’ That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew’s report because it disagrees with one’s views on the subject of divorce” (Word Pictures).

 

The bottom line is that “The ‘except’ clause appears in several forms, doubtless owing to assimilation to 5:32, but there can be no doubt that an except clause is original” (Carson The Expositors Bible Commentary vol 8).   

 

(It is not unusual to find scholars denying the genuineness of the text on grounds other than textual evidence. For example, Gordon Fee who is opposed to the idea of gender specific roles in the church  concludes his ten page discussion of 1 Cor 14:34, 35 by affirming that "in keeping with the textual questions, the exegesis of the text itself leads to the conclusion that it is not authentic" (New International Commentary on 1 Corinthians.). However while there is some evidence of transposition, there is absolutely no manuscript evidence for the omission of the passage, and it is only in the last few decades with the rise of feminist theology that serious doubts about its authenticity have arisen. In the absence of any textual reasons for regarding a portion of scripture as an interpolation, such unwillingness to accept the text as it stands is indefensible).

 

d. Attempts to nullify the force of the exceptive clause are not new. For example:

 

 

 

“’For whosoever puts away his wife,’ says He, ‘and marries another, commits adultery;’ not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race” (chpt 33).

 

 

 

"Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives…We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers”  (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9).

 

Similar sentiments have been expressed by others throughout history. However it is evident from a correct handling of the exceptive clause in Matt 19:9 that the Lord did authorize divorce and remarriage for one cause in Matt 19:9.

 

Handling Exceptive Propositions.

 

a. The following 4 statements (illustrated by the reference to "preachers" and "ugliness") are the grist for the mill when it comes to constructing syllogisms.

  

(1) Universal affirmative statement -e.g. all preachers are ugly.

(2) Universal negative statement -e.g. no preachers are ugly.

(3) Particular affirmative -e.g. some preachers are ugly

(4) Particular negative - e.g. some preachers are not ugly.

 

 

b. “Exceptive propositions are really two propositions in one form. For example “All preachers, except Hamilton preachers are ugly” means (1) “All non-Hamilton preachers are ugly” (universal affirmative) and (2) “No Hamilton preachers are ugly” (Universal negative). 

 

c. Matthew 19:9 must be treated like all other Exceptive Propositions. Brother Roy Deaver points out:

 

 "Matt 19:9 is an "exceptive sentence." The phrase "except for fornication" makes Matt 19:9 an exceptive sentence. An exceptive sentence is very special and requires very special handling; (1) it cannot be translated into a single standard form categorical proposition, but (2) it must be translated into two standard form categorical propositions...

 

(Matt 19:9)s "logical meaning is (1) All persons who do not put away their companions because of that companion's fornication, and who remarry another companion are persons who commit adultery; and (2) No person who puts away his companion because of that companion's fornication, and who marries another companion is a person who commits adultery..."

 

d. In his Keeping the Lock in Wedlock, Thomas B. Warren makes the same point using different terminology:

 

“Usually exceptive sentences are rewritten as a pair of statements. For example, "All except A's are B's is rewritten as, "All non A's are B's and no A's are B's....

 

Matt 19:9 and Logic. (1) Jesus' original statement put into strict logical language: ‘All (men who put away their wives on some ground other than fornication [of their wives] and marry others) are (men who commit adultery in so doing).’

 

(2) The contrapositive of Jesus statement: ‘All (men who do not commit adultery when they put away their wives and marry others) are (men who do not put away their wives on some ground other than fornication (of their wives) and marry others.’"  


(By “contrapositive statement” Warren means one in which the hypothesis and conclusion are negated and the resulting negations are interchanged e.g.  Conditional: "If 9 is an odd number, then 9 is divisible by 2." Contrapositive: "If 9 is not divisible by 2, then 9 is not an odd number”).


e. Treating Matthew 19:9 as we would treat any other exceptive proposition leads us to the conclusion that every man who divorces a wife and marries another woman “commits adultery” (present tense) with but one exception. That exception is the case of the man who divorces his wife for her sexual immorality. He does not commit adultery should he remarry. As brother Deaver expresses it: “All (men who do not commit adultery when they put away their wives and marry others) are (men who do not put away their wives on some ground other than fornication (of their wives) and marry others."  On the other hand apart from this group all others who divorce do commit adultery upon remarriage. 

 

f. Really, it is difficult to misunderstand Matt 19:9. Unfortunately many and various attempts have been made to evade the teaching of Jesus at this point. One such attempt involves the suggestion that “adultery” is to be defined as “covenant breaking” and that the verb describes, not ongoing sexual immorality, but a one-time act of covenant breaking. There is no justification for such an approach and we have examined this argument in Appendix 1. Quite simply the Lord is affirming that, with but one exception, the man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of ongoing illicit sexual activity in violation of the marriage covenant.