Knight+ +Divorce+Paper

8/12/2019 Knight+ +Divorce+Paper

1/12

What Jesus Really Said:

Putting Away the Mistranslations About Divorce

By Dan KnightOverland Park, KS

May 12, 2009

Part One - Review of the asic !hristian Positions

The question o divor!e and re"arriage !an #e rightly !alled an e!u"eni!al !on!ern$ %t has #een studied andde#ated ro" dierent &hristian 'ositions #y a huge variety o s!holars, tea!hers, 'rea!hers, and lay leaders (ith anastonishingly divergent set o results$ So"e have !on!luded that the 'ertinent te)ts *o (hi!h there are very e(+ areso en"eshed in the !ulture o the irst !entury that they are irrelevant to any "odern dis!ussion o the issue$ Othershave rea!hed the !on!lusion that divor!e or any reason is tanta"ount to entering into a 'er'etual"!ondition oadultery *(hether the divor!ed 'erson re"arries or not+, and that the divor!ed !ou'le have sa!rii!ed their eternalsalvation #y their de!ision to end their "arriage$ Most &hristian leaders all so"e(here #et(een those t(o e)tre"esin their understanding$

valua#le 'resentation o the dieren!es o o'inion on this issue !an #e ound in the #ook,Divorce andRemarriage: Four Christian Views, 'u#lished #y %nter-.arsity 'ress$ % share here a su""ary o those our #asi!,&hristian vie(s on divor!e and re"arriage, using the (ords o the authors the"selves$#

The irst author, /$ &arl aney, 'resents the !ase or o Divor!e and o 3e"arriage$4 5is !on!lusion !ontainsthese eight 'oints6

On the basis of our survey of the major scriptural passages on marriage, divorce and remarriage, we can conclude thefollowing:

1. the original creative intention and desired will of God is that marriage be permanent until death;

2. neither God himself nor God through oses commanded divorce;

!. the e"planation the #ew $estament gives for allowing divorce in the Old $estament is the hardness of the people%shearts & hearts unsubmitted 'sic( to the restraints of a high and holy God;

). *aul asserts that the fundamental teachings of +esus must be followed precisely, that the wife should not leave herhusband and that the husband should not divorce his wife;

. remarriage is permissible without sin for a widow or widower, if the marriage is to another believer;

-. remarriage following divorce, by either the husband or wife, constitutes an act of adultery;

. marriage to a divorced person constitutes an act of adultery;

/. when a divorce does occur, the only two scriptural options for the divorced person are reconciliation or the singlelife.$

aney o#viously !onsiders divor!e itsel a sin, or any !ause, and logi!ally enough eels that re"arriage aterdivor!e only !o"'ounds the sin that has taken *or is taking+ 'la!e$%

The se!ond vie(, Divor!e, But o 3e"arriage,4 (as (ritten #y 7illia" 5eth, and his !on!lusion #ased on hisstudy o the s!ri'tures is the ollo(ing6

0 am sometimes ased, 3here does God%s grace enter the picture of your no4remarriage position5 6o you e"pectdivorc7es to remain single the rest of their lives58 $o which 0 reply, 6oes God give grace to 9hristians to sin58 0cannot thin of any instance in cripture where God gives grace to do that which is contrary to his will. 0n fact, *aule"presses horror at the thought: hall we go on sinning so that grace may increase5 y no means< 3e died to sin;how can we live in it any longer58 =>om. -:142 #0?@. $hus if the criptures teach that marriage is only dissolved whenone of the covenant inship partners dies, then remarriage prior to the death of one of the partners involves the gravesin of adultry 'sic(. o the Auestion 3here does God%s grace enter into your no4remarriage view58 is really framed on

the assumption of a view of the marriage relationship other than the one 0 find portrayed throughout the criptures.God%s grace is indeed magnified in my no4remarriage understanding of this subject because God%s grace is abundantly

1Carroll Osburn puts to rest any possible use of the present indicative in Matthew 19:9 to suggest that one enters into a status of perpetual adultery.

Restoration Quarterly, ol !", # ", 19$1.

2%ayne &ouse, the editor of Divorce and Remarriage, did an outstanding favor to the Christian Church in putting together these basic stances on the

controversial issue. ' heartily reco((end the boo) to anyone who is concerned with the biblical basis and the viability of each position. *t the conclusion ofeach section, the author also presents a hypothetical situation with reco((endations for resolving the scenario. +i)ewise, following each authors argu(entare responses fro( the other three writers.

3p. "$

4-his position also represents the traditional o(an Catholic position on the indissolubility of (arriage.


2/12

bestowed on those disciples who desire to be faithful to their Bord%s teachings, no matter how difficult they seem to be.0n our weaness, God infuses us with the strength of his grace. $he church, too, as an instrument of redemption, must

be ready when necessary to financially support or help in any way possible the separated or divorced as they see tohonor 9hrist by obeying him.5

5e then !o"es to the !on!lusion that there are valid reasons or divor!e, #ut inds no s'e!ii!, #i#li!al #asis orallo(ing so"eone to re"arry, not even i the 'artner !o""itted adultery$&

Tho"as 3$ 8dgar 'resented Divor!e and 3e"arriage or dultery or Desertion$4 5e starts his !ha'ter #ystating, The o'inion that the Bi#le allo(s divor!e or adultery or desertion (ith the su#sequent right to re"arry is

so"eti"es reerred to as the standard Protestant vie($47 8dgars !on!lusion is 'resented in a straightor(ard"anner, also$

$he ible specifically states that God intended for marriage to be maintained. +ust as specifically, +esus states thatthere is only one valid reason for which a person may properly divorce the other and subseAuently marry someone else

& adultery on the part of the spouse. $his is clear and specific. $here is no valid basis on which to reject this teaching.Cirst 9orinthians :1, since it does not specifically mention remarriage, is not as clear. Dowever, the most probablemeaning is that if the spouse initiates the separation, the deserted spouse may divorce and remarry.8

This vie( re'resents the "ost o'en-"inded4 stan!e so ar a"ong the three 'resented$ 8dgar (ould still arguethat divor!e or anything less than adultery or desertion does not allo( either 'arty to re"arry and still #e right (ith:od$ * "odiied version o this vie( in!ludes addi!tion 'ro#le"s and a#use as a!!e'ta#le !auses alongsideadultery and a#andon"ent$+

The inal !ha'ter oDivorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Viewsis #y arry 3i!hards, a 'rolii! &hristian

(riter on a variety o su#;e!ts, #ut 'erha's less s!holarly in his a''roa!h than the other three$ *5is !ha'ter!ontained t(o endnotes< 7illia"s 5eths !ha'ter in!luded 10=>+ 3i!hards !ha'ter (as titled, Divor!e and3e"arriage ?nder a .ariety o &ir!u"stan!es$4 5is !on!lusion !onsisted o si) 'ro'ositions *a#ridged #elo(+ or!onsidering the issue6

*rinciples Guiding 6ivorce and >emarriage

God%s goal in marriage is a lifelong union, within which two people love one another and enrich one another%s lives. . . .

ecause human beings are marred by sin, it will not always be possible for a marriage to achieve this ideal. . .

Dard4heartedness may be displayed in a variety of ways, including mental and physical abuse, se"ual abuse, repeatedadulteries, and emotional and spiritual abandonment of the relationship, even when two persons live in the same home.0n such ways, the marriage covenant may be abandoned by one or both parties, whether or not a legal divorce taesplace.

0t is the sole responsibility of the husband andEor wife to determine whether or not the marriage is really over and it is

time to divorce. . . .

*ersons who divorce for any reason do have the right to remarry. . . .

*ersons who have divorced and are remarried have the right to be fully involved in the life of the local church, withoutprejudice. . . . 9

3i!hards 'osition (ould undou#tedly "ake a lot o &hristian leaders un!o"orta#le$ %t "ust #e noted, ho(ever,that "any !hur!hes oi!ially and do!trinally !onne!t (ith one the irst three 'ositions, #ut 'rag"ati!ally theyollo(, deli#erately or #y deault, the 'attern outlined #y 3i!hards$ The (eakness in su!h an a''roa!h, o !ourse, isthat (e are in essen!e saying, 8ven though (e are a(are o (hat the Bi#le tea!hes, (e !ant see" to re!on!ile thattea!hing (ith a realisti! a''roa!h to the hu"an !ir!u"stan!e$ Thereore, (e (ill @(ink at S!ri'ture, and "oveon$4 &an this #e an a!!e'ta#le a''roa!hA

The "otivation or the 'resent study !o"es ro" "y !onvi!tion that (e have got to deal (ith the te)t$ % ourdealing (ith the te)t is illogi!al or unreasona#le then (e need to look at the te)t again$ Or i our a''roa!h to the

te)t is unaithul or hereti!al, then (e need to a''roa!h the te)t another ti"e$ Thus, (e turn to Part T(o (ith theho'e that (hat (e 'resent (ill have the ring o truth to those (ith an o'en heart and "ind$

5p. 11/.

6'nterestingly, %illia( &eth has since changed his position. 0ee Remarriage and Divorce in Todays Church: 3 Views, 2rand apids M': 3ondervan, !4456,

p. /9.

77. 1/1. -his standard 7rotestant view is the view that ' have (ost often encountered in churches of Christ, and su(s up, roughly, the position taught by *.

Ca(pbell in the Millennial Harbinger8or details of Ca(pbells view, see by 0tephen %olfgang.

87p. 19119!.

97p. !"!!".

2


3/12

Part 'wo - 'he Apoluo()*lanation

+y*othesis: .olu"es have #een (ritten dis!ussing the question o "arriage and divor!e *and re"arriage+$nyone (ho de!lares that the s!ri'tures are easily understood on this su#;e!t is una"iliar (ith the literature$ s (ehave seen, (ell-intentioned &hristian (riters have e)'ressed a variety o o'inions, usually !on!luding that there isone valid inter'retation$ % (ould like to oer here a dierent hy'othesis addressing the "eaning o one (ord,apoluo, as used in Matthe( 196-9$ *The 'ri"ary "eaning o the :reek (ord apoluoisset free, release, pardon>G6 it is translated as dis(iss, send

away, release or other synony(s. -he other ten ti(es in Matthew / H 19, Mar) 14 and +u)e 156 translators generally use the word divorce, with the notablee?ception of Matthew 19:> where the 2ree) word for divorce actually appears and translations li)e the B' use send her away for a+oluo.


4/12

.erse 'resents a very i"'ortant ele"ent or understanding /esus state"ent$ The Pharisees"&!o"e (ith a tri!kquestion or this ne( tea!her$ Matthe(s 'i!ture o the Pharisees is al(ays negative$ 5e "entions the" #y na"ea#out thirty ti"es$ They are introdu!ed as snakes #y /ohn the Ba'tist *!ha'ter +, they are e)!oriated #y /esus*!ha'ter 2+, they are 'art o the 'lot to destroy hi" *!ha'ter 12+, and they are 'art o the 'lan to dis!redit theresurre!tion *!ha'ter 2E+$

The e"'hasis in Matthe( 196 !onir"s that the Pharisees oten !a"e to test hi" (ith questions, and that theirai" (as to dis!redit /esus as a tea!her$ *8ven the (ord Matthe( uses to des!ri#e their nearious s!he"e *peirazo+ isthe sa"e (ord used to des!ri#e Satans a!tivity in Matthe( C$+ This is seen in !ha'ters 1= and 22, as (ell as here$s in the question a#out 'aying ta)es to &aesar, they ho'e to ask a question (ith no !orre!t4 ans(er$ %n a!t, thereis eviden!e that the question a#out 'aying ta)es is very si"ilar in its !onte)tual situation to the question a#out 'uttinga(ay ones (ie, #e!ause o the i"'li!ations !on!erning the 3o"an overlords$ % /esus had said they !ould not 'ayta)es, he (ould have #een in trou#le (ith the 3o"ans< i he had said they should 'ay ta)es, he (ould have #een introu#le (ith the !onservative /e(ish leaders, es'e!ially the Fealot a!tion$ Si"ilarly, i he re;e!ted the validity osi"'ly 'utting a(ay ones (ie, (ithout a divor!e, he (as !hallenging !urrent 3o"an 'ra!ti!e$ On the other hand,air"ing a "ans right to send a(ay his (ie (ith no !ertii!ate o divor!e (ould ind /esus o''osing the a( oMoses$

My se!ond 'oint is this6 The question that the Pharisees asked /esus in verse three 'ertained to sending a (iea(ay (ithout a divor!e !ertii!ate$ %t (as not, as "any assu"e, a question ro" the heated de#ate #et(een thes!hools o Sha""ai and 5illel$ S!hna!ken#erg su''orts this 'oint6 The Pharisees question, (hi!h 'resu''oses akno(ledge o /esus 'osition on the "ater, is #roadened #y the addition over against Mark o @or any !ause$ This isusually understood as a question as to (hether one "ight adhere to the li#eral inter'retation o 3a##i 5illel *an

@oensive "atter !ould si"'ly #e dis'leasure (ith ones (ie+ or "ust ollo( the stri!ter dire!tion o Sha""ai*only "oral transgressions are to #e settled through divor!e+$ But (hy should this #e a tra' or /esusA4" %ndeed, i/esus took the side o the Pharisees *(ho allegedly ollo(ed 5illel+ or o the Sha""aiites *(ith (ho" the Sadu!!eessee"ed to avor+, it (ould only 'ut hi" in one /e(ish !a"' or the other$ Besides, as (ell see #elo(, the real thrusto his state"ent is a#out re"arriage ater se'aration G not divor!e G (hi!h (as not a question or 5illel or Sha""ai$

The so!ial *and 'oliti!al+ !onte)t o the Pharisees question in verse has generated "u!h resear!h and "ores'e!ulation$ %nstone-Bre(er does a thorough ;o# in dis!ussing the !onte)t ro" a variety o vie('oints$18 Mosti"'ortant to our dis!ussion are the 'oints (here %nstone-Bre(er hints at the !on!lusion (e have rea!hed, #ut orso"e reason he does not deal at any 'la!e (ith a 'ossi#le alternative translation or apoluo$ &onsider the ollo(ing!o""ents ro" %nstone-Bre(er$ *% 'resent ive o his state"ents here as a re'resentative e)a"'le o (hat "u!hevangeli!al s!holarshi' has (ritten on this su#;e!t$ %n #ra!kets are "y res'onses to his state"ents$+

1. -he divorce certificate was therefore both a disincentive to divorce as well as a benefit to a divorced wo(an. %ithout the law ofthe certificate of divorce a (an could si(ply dis(iss his wife fro( the house and then change his (ind on a future occasion.-he certificate (ade this dis(issal a (ore significant event and gave the wo(an legal rights.19

ICo((ent: 8or this reason the writing and giving of the divorce certificate was a crucial issue for the first century Dews. -heo(ans, rulers at the ti(e over Dudea, did not reuire a certificate of divorce. -he word, a+oluo, ca(e to (ean divorce20for the(,because all a (an had to do to be divorced was send his wife away.J

16* sect that see(s to have started after the Dewish e?ile. 'n addition to O- boo)s the 7harisees recogniKed in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. -hey

sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of e?ternal rites and by outward for(s of piety, and such as cere(onial washings, fastings, prayers,and al(s giving< and, co(paratively negligent of genuine piety, they prided the(selves on their fancied good wor)s. -hey held strenuously to a belief in thee?istence of good and evil angels, and to the e?pectation of a Messiah< and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preli(inary e?perience either of

reward or of penalty in &ades, would be recalled to life by hi(, and be reuited each according to his individual deeds. 'n opposition to the usurped do(inionof the &erods and the rule of the o(ans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their countryLs cause, and possessed great influence with the co((onpeople. *ccording to Dosephus they nu(bered (ore than 5444. -hey were bitter ene(ies of Desus and his cause< and were in turn severely rebu)ed by hi(for their avarice, a(bition, hollow reliance on outward wor)s, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity. .ible /or$s0

177. 1$.

18'nstoneErewer, Favid. Divorce and Remarriage in the .ible. 2rand apids, M': Aerd(ans, !44!.

191bid- p.

20'n an e(ail ' received fro( Fr. Carroll Osburn, he observed: -he 2ree) ter( can (ean either put away or divorce. -he answer will not co(e fro(

2ree) le?icography, but fro( the ancient culture using the ter(. 'n o(an culture, one did not have to have official approval to (arry or to divorce. 'f hewal)ed out a+oluo6 or sent her out a+oluo6, all that was involved was separation, but that culture viewed it as divorce and re(arriage could ta)e place.-hey =ust did not have the sa(e cultural approach to either that we do. 'n Matt 19, 1 Cor >, etc., a+oluo(eans to leave, and for the(, that was divorce.

C


5/12

2. -he (any changes in divorce law during the 'ntertesta(ental period added up to greater rights for wo(en but also greaterinstability of (arriage. Fivorce beca(e (ore co((on, and both (en and wo(en started to be able to de(and a divorce. -herefor(s of 0i(eon ben 0hetah tried to discourage divorce a(ong Dews, but they also resulted in greater financial security fordivorced wo(en, and so divorce was no longer perceived as cala(itous or cruel. *ll these changes for( the bac)ground forthe debate in Dudais( concerning the grounds for divorce.21

ICo((ent: *gain, we see that the central (otive of the tric) uestion brought to Desus was the financial aspect of divorce N therepay(ent of the dowry and the )etubah N and perhaps this is why +u)e places the discussion in the conte?t of Desus teachingsabout unrighteous riches. 'f a (an did not present his wife with a certificate of divorce, he did not have to pay her the (oney that

was her due. *lso, she had no legal recourse for de(anding the (oney sansher certificate.J

!. -herefore, Iaccording to the Dewish leadersJ a wo(an who had re(arried and whose divorce was discovered to have beeninvalid could not continue to be (arried to either husband, and any children she had by the( since the ti(e of the adultery

were considered as illegiti(ate.22

ICo((ent: *lthough the author is applying this issue of an invalid divorce to other situations, it stands to reason that a divorceo(an style of =ust sending ones wife away, would be conde(ned as an invalid divorce, also. -his then is gist of Desus co((entand sides with neither 0ha((ai or &illel. -hey were concerned with grounds for a valid divorce or, put another way, grounds thatvalidated a divorce and re(arriage. Desus distinguishes apoluo as a separation that cannot be =ustified as a divorce by either ca(p.J

). Or does it suggest that the 'sraelites were stubbornly de(anding that Moses allow the( to divorce, or that they were stubbornlyrefusing to give divorce certificates to their for(er wives; -he only one of these for which there is any evidence is the last.23

Moses stopped the 'sraelite (en fro( abandoning their wives without giving the( a certificate of divorce, and thereby heallowed the( to re(arry.24

ICo((ent: 'nstoneErewer builds a strong case that the conflict Moses dealt with in the Feuterono(y !" te?t was concerning thedivorce certificate< this fully supports the idea that Desus was dealing with the sa(e conflict, since that is the te?t to which he and the7harisees refer. Aven in the ti(e of Moses, wo(en were being treated un=ustly by their covenant (ates, and such in=ustice 2oddoes not tolerate. 'n this sa(e light, Malachi ! (ust be read because the conte?t of that "thcentury prophet concerned the (en of'srael dis(issing the wives of their youth, without benefit of a divorce certificate.J

. 'n contrast, accounts of the &illelite0ha((aite debate o(it a (atter that is e(phasiKed in the 2ospels. 't is not (entioned inany version of that debate that 0ha((aites allowed remarriage even after a &illelite any (atter divorce. -hey decided that ifa legal court had granted a divorce, they would not counter(and the courts decision even though it was counter to what theycould have decided. Desus, however, refused to recogniKe the validity of this type of divorce. 25

ICo((ent: More accurately, Desus refused to recogniKe this behavior of sending ones wife away as a valid divorce. -he easiestand (ost obvious way to understand Desus teaching is to re(ove hi( fro( the divorce debate and let hi( spea) clearly: 'f you arenot legally divorced, you cannot re(arry. Aven nonbelievers recogniKe that factJ

One thing that %nstone-Bre(er "akes !lear in his study o /esus setting (hen the Pharisees 'osed their question(as the dieren!e #et(een the ra##ini!al s!hools o 5illel and Sha""ai$ The or"er avored divor!e on the #asis oany !ause< the latter li"ited it to a e( !ir!u"stan!es a''roved o in the a( o Moses$ %t #e!o"es o#vious, then,that the tri!k question !ould not have #een a#out the legality o divor!e$ Both s!hools o thought agreed that divor!e(as la(ul$ %t (as 'utting or sending a(ay ones (ie (ithout a #ill o divor!e"ent *a 'osition that neither 3a##i5illel nor Sha""ai (ould su''ort+ that (as the 'oint o !ontention$#& The Pharisees (anted to kno(6 &ould a "an

21*+ cit, p. $".

22

1bid, p. 1!9.23

1bid, p. 1"".

241bid, p. !/$.

251bid, p. 15>.

26-his conclusion is also validated by the absence in Mar)s account of this conversation of the phrase, for any cause. Mar) 14:! *nd so(e 7harisees

ca(e up to &i(, testing &i(, and began to uestion &i( whether it was lawful for a (an to a+oluoa wife. B*0E *s B- scholar Favid Poung writes in&(treme Disci+leshi+: 2ollowing ,esus !rom the #os+el o! Mar$1556 -he B' paraphrases the uestion the 7harisees raise, for the 7harisees actually do noas) about divorce, but about putting away which is how the Qing Da(es and *(erican 0tandard ersions rightly translate the 2ree) ter( a+oluein6. 't ispossible that the 7harisees are not as)ing about whether one could divorce his wife which the +aw clearly per(itted< cf., Feut. !":1"< AKra 146, but aboutwhether one could abandon his wife without divorcing her. 'n other words, the uestion (ay involve a (an who doesnt want to divorce his wife legally, but(erely wants to abandon her re(e(ber that divorce was e?pensive in antiuity, too6.

H


6/12

send a(ay his (ie (ithout the !ertii!ate, and #e ree to re"arryA s Keener 'uts it, If the divorce is valid, so isthe remarriage< /esus !alls re"arriage ater an invalid divor!e adulterous only #e!ause the divor!e (as invalid, dueto insui!ient grounds$ 8arly /e(ish la( also ;udged the validity o the re"arriage entirely on the validity o thedivor!e$4#

o( (e !an understand the tri!kiness inherent in the question o the Pharisees in verse three, and the line othought is !onsistent (ith the rest o the !onversation$ They ask /esus a#out the legality o 'utting a(ay ones (ie$They e)'e!t hi" to ans(er as he does$ 7hen he 'oints out the theology o !reation, they 'oun!e$ oti!e that u' toverse seven, divor!e is not a!tually "entioned$28 But the Pharisees !a'italiFe on Moses a( a#out divor!e #ysaying that therein is a !o""and to 'ut a(ay ones (ie$

My third 'oint is that /esus inally res'onds to the PhariseeIs true question *lurking #ehind their voi!ed question+in verse nine$ Signii!antly, /esus does not use the (ord divor!e4 in verse nine, so he is a!tually ans(ering thePharisees original question ro" verse three$

Jirst, ho(ever, let "e !o""ent on a !onundru" en!ountered in /esus ans(er$ % (e are !orre!t that the tra'they (ere laying (as that /esus "ight !onde"n 3o"an divor!e *apoluoor send a(ay (ithout a !ertii!ate4+ andthus end u' in the sa"e inaus'i!ious !ir!u"stan!e o /ohn the Ba'tist, then /esus, (ith this state"ent ell right intotheir tra'>> 7hat (as he thinkingA Jortunately, Marks gos'el !lariies this issue$

3hen they were in the house again, the disciples ased +esus about this. De answered, Fnyone who sends away hiswife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. Fnd if she sends away her husband and marriesanother man, she commits adultery.8 =ar 1:1 & 12 $#0?@

Those dia#oli!al Pharisees (ere not 'rivy to this !onversation$7e !an no( turn to the 9thverse o Matthe( 19 in (hi!h /esus "akes the a"ous state"ent (ith the nearly

ina"ous e)!e'tion4 !lause$HFnd 0 say unto you, 3hosoever shall send away his wife, e"cept for fornication, and shall marry another, commitsadultery: and he that marries her when she is sent away commits adultery.

One inter'retive 'ro#le" that this verse has generated !on!erns the (ord orni!ation$4 Many versions no(read "arital unaithulness,4 se)ual i""orality,4 or adultery$4 The last one is hard to ;ustiy sin!e /esus uses the(ord or adultery4 a e( (ords later$ *One author has suggested that /esus ;ust didnt (ant to re'eat hi"sel>+Se)ual i""orality4 is a (eakness o the %. translation, #ut it (as !hosen to suggest that the (ord "eaningorni!ation4 !an #e a''lied to a variety o se)ual sins$ The (eakness is in the a!t that other te)t (hi!h "ight readorni!ation4 read se)ual i""orality4 and "y e)'erien!e has #een that "odern !ou'les (ho are slee'ing together(ithout #eneit o "arriage dis"iss su!h 'assages #e!ause they are not doing anything i""oral$

The :reek or orni!ation4,porneia, deinitely !an #e translated a variety o (ays< oten it is deined as a!ategory that in!ludes "ost illi!it se)ual #ehavior$ 5o(ever, a general rule o translation is to go (ith the "ore

!o""on "eaning *(hi!h is (hat %" 'ro'osing regarding apoluoas (ell+ (hen the !onte)t 'er"its$ %n the"eri!an Standard .ersion, the thirty ti"es porneiaa''ears it is al(ays translated orni!ation$4 The 'ro#le" this(ord see"s to !ause in /esus state"ent is that he is talking a#out a "arried 'erson, se'arating ro" his "ate,#e!ause o a se)ual sin and usually (hen a "arried 'erson is involved the ter" used is adultery$ 7hy did /esus"ake an e)!e'tion G an e)!e'tion that 'er"its sending a(ay (ithout a divor!e G or orni!ationA Deuterono"y 22holds the ans(er$ The !onte)t is a series o "is!ellaneous la(s$ Belo( are verses 1-21 in the e( "eri!anStandard Bi#le$

'1!( I0f any man taes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, '1)( and charges her with shamefuldeeds and publicly defames her, and says, J0 too this woman, but when 0 came near her, 0 did not find her a virgin,J '1(then the girlJs father and her mother shall tae and bring out the evidence of the girlJs virginity to the elders of the city atthe gate. '1-( IFnd the girlJs father shall say to the elders, J0 gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turnedagainst her; '1( and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, I0 did not find your daughter a virgin.Iut this is the evidence of my daughterJs virginity.J Fnd they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. '1/(

Io the elders of that city shall tae the man and chastise him, '1H( and they shall fine him a hundred sheels of silverand give it to the girlJs father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of 0srael. Fnd she shall remain his wife; he cannotdivorce her all his days.

'2( Iut if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, '21( then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway ofher fatherJs house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in 0srael,by playing the harlot in her fatherJs house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.8

27Craig Qeener,"nd Marries "nother, p. "".

28't is certainly worth noting that (ost versions translate the word a+oluoin verse seven as send away. %hy; Eecause the word a+ostasian, which (eans

divorce is used in that verse. -he B' is e?tre(ely redundant in this regard in Matthew /:!.

=


7/12

7hat is ha''ening in the in!ident des!ri#ed is that a hus#and is a!!using his (ie o orni!ation$ 5e !lai"s thatshe is guilty o 're"arital se)ual a!tivity$ %nterestingly, i he is 'roven (rong #y her 'arents, he oreits his right todivor!e *that is, send a(ay G 5e#re(shalach+ his (ie orever$ % he is right, she is to #e stoned$

By the irst !entury, ho(ever, the /e(s had !eased to 'ra!ti!e stoning as a general rule or su!h an oense$ *%n'art, this "ay have #een #e!ause under 3o"an do"ination they did not have the right to i"'ose !a'ital 'unish"ent$8ven #i#li!al e)a"'les o stoning during this 'eriod re'resent a "o# rea!tion, and not a legal 'ro!ess o'en to the"$+n intriguing question is (hether /esus (as a(are o a situation in (hi!h a "an had a right to have his (ie, or his#etrothed, turned over to the la( or stoning and did not e)er!ise that rightA O !ourse, one !o"es to "ind that "usthave had great signii!an!e or the ord$ That in!ident !ul"inates in one verse$

Fnd +oseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly.atthew 1:1H

% "ust hasten to add that this is Matthe(s irst use o the (ord apoluo$ lthough "any, #ut not all translationsrender the (ord divor!e4 in this verse, it doesnt "ake a (hole lot o sense to do so$ They are not "arried$ /ose'hhad the right to send her a(ay4 (ithout a divor!e !ertii!ate$ %n the sa"e (ay, ho(ever, had they already gotten"arried, a!!ording to (hat /esus (as saying in Matthe( 1969, /ose'h had the right to send her a(ay (ithout a (rito divor!e$ 7hyA Jorni!ation$ The 'rooA She (as 'regnant$

%t is interesting that in the evolution o the "istranslation o the (ord apoluoto "ean divor!e,4 Matthe( 1619(as a#out a generation #ehind the !hange in other #i#li!al te)ts$ That is, (hen the (ord divor!e4 #egan to a''earin Matthe( 196, =, and 9, *and the 'arallel te)ts+, /ose'hs a!tion (as still re'resented as 'utting a(ay4 orsending a(ay$4 5o(ever, over the years the "yth that, in the irst !entury, #etrothal (as tanta"ount to "arriageand that the #reaking o a #etrothal required a divor!e, !re't into the te)t$ The 'ro!ess (as a su#tle one and !an #est#e understood #y looking at another #i#li!al situation as des!ri#ed #y %nstone-Bre(er$

%n :enesis 2161C (e read, 8arly the ne)t "orning #raha" took so"e ood and a skin o (ater and gave the" to5agar$ 5e set the" on her shoulders and then sent her o (ith the #oy$ She (ent on her (ay and (andered in theDesert o Beershe#a$4 *The 'hrase sent her o4 is the 5e#re(shalachand is rendered in the , apestello,asynony" o apoluo$+ %nstone-Bre(er !alls this the irst #i#li!al divor!e and e)'lains, %n the te)t, #raha" si"'lydis"isses 5agar, #ut later /e(ish tradition says that he also gave her a !ertii!ate o divor!e$ *Lalkut Shi"oni :en$Se!$ 9H+4#. %n other (ords, ra##ini!al tea!hing at least a thousand years ater &hrist, (as a''arently un!o"orta#le(ith their an!estor #raha" sending o a (o"an (ithout a !ertii!ate *earlier /e(s had a si"ilar dis!o"ort(henever they en!ountered a 'atriar!h "arrying a non-#eliever, and they oten re(rote that history as (ell, as in thestory ooseph and !senath.+$

Jast-or(arding to the "odern ti"es, (e see a si"ilar 'heno"enon taking 'la!e in the story o Mary and /ose'h$Proessor Peter aas !lariies (hat "ust have ha''ened$

3hile biblical law maes no provision for divorce in the case of a broen betrothal, rabbinic law famously does. $heishna, for e"ample, so unselfconsciously assumes that a betrothal constitutes a marriage, so far as divorce isconcerned, that contemporary scholars who get the point at all 'Kaas references Leener, rown, and 6avies and

Fllison here( generally read the rabbinic legal situation bac into the biblical one, and conclude that biblical law reAuires

a get30to dissolve a betrothal as well.

aas urther !o""ents on the (riting o Mi!hael Satlo( in this regard6>ecently ichael atlow, in his 21 volume Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, notes that atthew reflects a rabbinic,rather than a biblical view of +ewish law in this matter. pecifying e"amples from the Debrew ible and from theMlephantine papyri, atlow concludes that, while financial damages may be assessed when a betrothed woman isacAuired by someone else, the law does not obligate a divorce:

Nduring the entire econd $emple period, =most5@ +ews neither customarily betrothed% =in the biblical sense@ nor didthey even have a firm understanding of what such a betrothal would mean.

$he law does not mandate a divorce to terminate a betrothal, nor is a divorce possible, if we e"tend atlow%s

conclusion to its logical conclusion, when there is no marriage.

%n other (ords, translating the (ord apoluo as divor!e4 in Matthe( 1619 is ana!hronisti!$ This !ase oorni!ation4 #rings us #a!k to the te)t o Matthe( 19 and the so-!alled e)!e'tion !lause4 o /esus state"ent$/ose'h, even i he had "arried Mary, (ould have #een (ithin the la( o Deuterono"y 22 in sending a(ay his(o"an4 (ithout a divor!e !ertii!ate$ ike(ise, any "an, a#iding #y the 'er"ission Moses granted inDeuterono"y 22 *e)!e't or the stoning+, "ay send a(ay his (ie and is ree to re"arry #e!ause his irst "arriage

297. ;;

300i(ply put, a getis a Dewish divorce certificate.

E


8/12

has essentially #een annulled$ This (as the #i#li!al la( in the ti"e o Matthe(, and the ra##ini!al tea!hings o t(oor "ore !enturies later should not inluen!e our understanding o (hat /esus said$

#el %saksson rea!hed this sa"e !on!lusion a#out orni!ation$ inguisti!ally s'eaking, the "ost 'ro#a#le useo NQRU (hen used in a state"ent o a legal nature a#out a "arried (o"ans !ri"e, is undou#tedly 're"aritalun!hastity$4317ith this realiFation, the rest o Matthe( 1969 is ar "ore understanda#le and easily a''lied$ % a "andoes not divor!e his (ie *instead ;ust sends her a(ay+, and re"arries another (o"an, he !o""its adultery$ lso,the "ans irst *and only legiti"ate+ (ie is still "arried to hi"$ Thereore, "arrying her !onstitutes adultery as(ell$ %saksson goes on to e)'lain (hy the (ord divor!e4 is used in this !ase *he is reerring to apoluo, o !ourse+$

$he word divorce is used even when a man divorces his wife because of her premarital unchastity. Fctually he does

not divorce his wife but is himself relieved by a court order of the need to fulfil his obligations under the marriagecontract, since it has been established that the other party has deceived him. . . .0n reality, however, what was annulled

was the marriage contract , which had not been fulfilled by the other party.$#

%saksson #uilds his !ase on his understanding o Deuterono"y 22620 G 21$ 7hat is interesting, also, is that%saksson re;e!ts the hy'othesis o B$ K Dideri!hsen (ho 'ro'oses that the ver# a'oluein in this verse "eans onlythe orsaking o the (ie *(ithout divor!e+ or the sake o ollo(ing /esus and #eing his dis!i'le$ The originalintent4 o the saying, a!!ording to Dideri!hsen, (as to ore(arn against a#using the status o dis!i'leshi'6 he (ho*or the sake o #eing /esus dis!i'le+ leaves his (ie *(ithout divor!ing her+ "ay not "arry another (o"an$4$$tleast Dideri!hsen understood the !orre!t "eaning o apoluoin this te)t, even i his e)'lanation "ay "iss the "ark a#it$

/ose'h JitF"yer also !o""ents on Dideri!hsens 'ro'osition !on!erning the u!an or" o the saying, and heagrees (ith %saksson that Dideri!hens hy'othesis should #e re;e!ted, #ut noti!e ho( JitF"yer 'hrases his o#;e!tion$

$hus B 1-:1/ would mean nothing more than De who would 'for the sae of being +esus% disciple( leave his wife'without divorcing her( and marries another commits adultery.8 0t is then maintained that this sense of the logion was

lost in time and that it was subseAuently interpreted as a saying against divorce itself.$%

JitF"yer then gives eviden!e o a do!u"ent ro" the u"ran s!rolls that 'resents the (ord a'oluein as "eaningdivor!e$4 5o(ever, in the e)a"'le he !ites it is the sa"e as in Matthe( 19 and else(here in the e( Testa"ent Git !ould o#viously go either (ay, "eaning send a(ay4 or divor!e4 de'ending on ones 'redile!tion$ Thereore thetesti"ony o so"e s!holarshi' is that apoluo'ro#a#ly "eant sent a(ay435#ut they 'reer to render it divor!e4#e!ause o the testi"ony o the later ra##ini!al (ritings$ ?nortunately, this translation has #een the #ane o!hur!hes in the "odern era, and s!holarshi' has 'rodu!ed thousands o 'ages trying to e)'lain (hy /esus (ould saythat a divor!ed 'erson !annot re"arry$ s %nstone-Bre(er !o""ents, The "eaning o the ans(er that /esus gavehas #een the su#;e!t o "u!h de#ate, "ainly #e!ause it is inherently dii!ult$ V %t a''ears to #e illogi!al #e!ause it!harges a 'erson (ho re"arries (ith the very s'e!ii! !ri"e o adultery,4 (hi!h a re"arried 'erson is not guilty o

in any kno(n legal syste"$436 This is another interesting 'oint rea!hed #y the author, an a''arent !onundru", (hi!his ans(ered quite easily #y agreeing that /esus (as not addressing divorceand re"arriage, #utseparationandre"arriage$ %nstone-Bre(er is !orre!t in asserting that one (ho has #een divor!ed in a "anner a!!e'ta#le to his!ulturalWreligious heritage is not a!!used thereater o adultery or re"arrying$ "ong /e(s in /esus day, the 'erson(ith the invalid divor!e, or in this !ase, (ith no real divor!e at all, (as not in a 'osition to re"arry$!onclusion/

Jirst, % e"'hasiFe that reading apoluoas sending a(ay4 si"'liies so "any issues regarding this te)t$ 5istory"akes it !lear that the !hur!hs inter'retation o Matthe( 19 *and 'arallel te)ts+ as a 'assage a#out divor!e andre"arriage has #een disastrous> The reading that % 'ro'ose here even re"oves the alleged !ontradi!tion #et(een/esus and Paul ound in 1 &orinthians E$ *%n other (ords, (hat Paul has to say a#out divor!e stands alone #e!ause/esus (as not dealing (ith it$+

Se!ond, % e"'hasiFe, lest anyone a!!use "e o "aking the te)t "ore !o"'li!ated (ith a !onvoluted argu"ent,

that the !onvolution a''ears (hen one tries to e)'lain the reasons or translating apoluoas divor!e4 instead o

31Marriage and Ministry in the )ew Tem+leCopenhagen: +und, 195/, p. 1"4

321bid, pp. 1"4 1"1.

33'sa)sson, p. 9".

348itK(yer, -he Matthean Fivorce -e?ts and 0o(e Bew 7alestinian Avidence, p. !1!.

352ordon %enha( (a)es the point that this isalso true even in the early church fathers. I-Jhe early church is free fro( this proble(, for, in that view, when

Desus uses the word apolyein, it always (eans Rseparate fro(. Remarriage "!ter Divorce in Todays Church, p. //, note !1. Mar) 0trauss, Aditor. %enha(ssection is entitled, Bo e(arriage *fter Fivorce6

361bid, p. 1"$.

X


9/12

sending a(ay$4 *This e)'lains (hy the "a;ority o versions in translating Matthe( 1619 !hoose not to use the (orddivor!e$4 %t takes too "u!h e)'lanation to ;ustiy saying that /ose'h divor!ed so"eone to (ho" he (as not"arried$+ Divor!e (ould have to #e treated like other issues4 that dont have this 'arti!ular, Thus says the ord4atta!hed to the"$ *Jor e)a"'le, "any think it is (rong or a #eliever to "arry an un#eliever$ But does that #elie!ause anyone to re;e!t the legiti"a!y o so"eones "arriageA % have not heard anyone tea!h that$ The !hur!hsa''roa!h to su!h a situation is de'endent usually on the !ir!u"stan!es involved$+

Third, !hur!h 'oli!y to(ard a divor!ed 'erson is airer and "ore !onsistently a''lied (ith a 'ro'er understandingo Matthe( 1969 and apoluo$ :ods "a;or !on!ern throughout s!ri'ture *the Deuterono"i! la(s and Mala!hi 2 and, or e)a"'le+ has #een the air treat"ent o the #roken hearted and do(ntrodden$ May that #e our irst !on!ern,also$

Jourth, !hur!hes (ould also #e !all on to re!ogniFe that ailed "arriages do not "ean ailed &hristians$ % havealluded "ore than on!e to the a!t that :od hates divor!e4 is also an inadequate translation o the te)t$ 8ven i it(ere not, the state"ent out o its !onte)t and 'ronoun!ed on the li's o sel-righteous &hristians !o"es a!ross to the'erson in the 'e( as, :od hates "e, #e!ause % got a divor!e$4 o longer (ill divor!ed 'eo'le have to suer thehu"iliation o #eing treated as se!ond-!lass !itiFens *or (orse+ in the kingdo"$

Jith, i (e are ree ro" the "istranslation o /esus (ords !on!erning sending a(ay4 ones (ie, (e !ould#egin to "inister, in all good !ons!ien!e, to the 'eo'le (ho go through one o lies "ost devastating !ir!u"stan!es$7hen "y riend, SuFy Bro(n, (ho (rote the #ookRadical Recovery, (ent through her divor!e, she said to "e, %tslike #e!o"ing a (ido(, e)!e't no one sends you any lo(ers$4

Jinally, and "ost i"'ortantly, i (e tea!h that apoluo"eans send a(ay4 and not divor!e4 (e (ill a!tually #etea!hing 'eo'le (hat /esus said and taught$

% !lose (ith this thought6 7hen % shared this understanding o Matthe( 1961 G 9, (ith the e)'lanation % have'resented here (ith Dr$ %nstone-Bre(er, he re'lied, % the a!ts (ere on your side, yours (ould #e a very neatsolution$4 The #asi! a!ts he reers to are that translation o apoluoas si"'ly 'ut a(ay4 rather than divor!e4 andthat the irst !entury Pharisees (ere (anting to dis"iss their (ives (ithout a divor!e !ertii!ate$ 5o(ever, hegra!iously ad"its this a''roa!h !onstitutes a very neat solution$

9


10/12

Bi#liogra'hyda"s, /ay 8d(ard$ "arriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the #i$le$ Philli's#urg, /6 Pres#yterian and

3eor"ed Pu#$ &o$< :rand 3a'ids, M%6 Ministry 3esour!es i#rary, 19X0$Bassett, /erry J$ Rethin%ing "arriage, Divorce & Remarriage$ 8ugene, O36 7estern Printers6 / Y MB,

1991$Bas!h, or"a$ Framing !merican Divorce$ Berkeley, &6 ?niversity o &aliornia Press, 2001$Binord, 5ugh, Y 5elaina Binord$ 'ingle( 'ingle !gain(: ! )and$oo% for *iving+ Belleair, J6 /oshua %$

Ministries, 19X=$Bontrager, :$ 8d(in$ Divorce and the Faithful Church$ S!ottdale, P6 5erald Press, 19EX$Bristo(, /ohn Te"'le$ hat -he #i$le Really 'ays !$out *ove, "arriage, !nd Family$ St$ ouis, MO6

&hali!e Press, 199C$Bro(n, SuFy$ Radical Recovery.#ilene, T6 ea(ood Pu#lishers, 200E$Bustano#y, ndr$ #ut I Didnt ant ! Divorce: /utting 0our *ife #ac% -ogether$ :rand 3a'ids6

ondervan, 19EX$&a"'#ell, Ken M$, editor$ "arriage and Family in the #i$lical orld. Do(ners :rove, %6 %.P, 200$&ollins, 3ay"ond J$ Divorce in the 1ew -estament$ &ollegeville, M6 iturgi!al Press, 1992$&onnally, ndre( M$ -he Connally22)ic%s De$ate 3n Divorce !nd Remarriage: ! Four21ight 3ral De$ate

)eld In 'pringtown, -e4as, 1ovem$er 562Decem$er 7, 7899$ /ones#oro, 36 ational &hristian Press19E9$

&ornes, ndre($ Divorce !nd Remarriage: #i$lical /rinciples !nd /astoral /ractice$ :rand 3a'ids, M%67$B$ 8erd"ans, 199$

Deasley, le) 3$ :$ "arriage !nd Divorce In -he #i$le !nd -he Church$ Kansas &ity, MO6 Bea!on 5illPress o Kansas &ity, 2000$

Do#son, 8d$ hat -he #i$le Really 'ays !$out "arriage, Divorce, !nd Remarriage$ Old Ta''an, /63evell, 19X=$

Duty, :uy$ Divorce & Remarriage$ Minnea'olis6 Bethany Jello(shi', 19=E$8ird, /a"es M$ "arriage !nd Divorce: hat -he #i$le 'ays$ ashville6 #ingdon Press, 19XH$8llison, Stanley$ Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. :rand 3a'ids, M%6 ondervan, 19X0$8vans, 7illia"$ -he Right !nd rong In Divorce !nd Remarriage$ :rand 3a'ids, M%6 ondervan

'u#lishing house, 19C=$8(ald, :eorge 3$ esus !nd Divorce: ! #i$lical uide For "inistry -o Divorced /ersons$ 7aterloo, Ont$

Documents

Knight+ +Divorce+Paper