109: Study On Divorce -2

We are no longer in a sinless environment. Many scriptures deal with death and handicaps. Neither death nor eating meat were a part of God's original intent for man. Though God did not intend for us to die or have handicaps does not mean that they are a sin. Though a baby is born handicapped does not mean that his handicap resulted from sin. Though a child dies during it's birth, it does not mean that it sinned. Such cases are only evidences that show that we are no longer in the Garden of Eden.

However, since we are not in Eden, someone can maliciously inflict tragedies as death or permanent injury upon us. Likewise, divorce, though not originally intended for man, can sometimes have an innocent party. If the scripture teaches that some divorces are forced upon an innocent party or are used as a disciplinary measure, then we should not hold the non-offending party as guilty. The innocent party would then not be sinning, though divorce was not originally God's pattern for a sinless world. (Those who argue that all divorce and remarriage is a sin because it was not originally intended by God for man, would do well in giving up their prime rib steaks since God's original intent for man was to be a herbivore.)

Many offenses, such as adultery, invoke the death penalty. However, you would be hard pressed to find a state in this nation that will execute capital punishment upon adulterers (Adultery is a two person crime. You cannot render a punishment on only one person of the two. See John 8:1-11). When the civil government will not carry out capital punishment, divorce has historically been a remedy for the innocent party of adultery. The fact that divorce may be an act of discipline, a means of ruling one's household with biblical judgment, is a fact overlooked by many conservative preachers.

i. CLEAVE: IN THE HEBREW

Cleaving is an essential element in the covenant language of the Old Testament. Israel is commanded to cleave to the Lord with intensity, to have a love that will not let go. Certainly the idea of cleaving is a wholehearted commitment to another in an inseparable union. It is inherent in this definition of cleaving in relationships that the intent is for the duration of a lifetime. However, it is unbiblical to believe the idea that since the fall of Adam, the bond has no possibility of dissolution.

In Hebrew, the word for "cleave" is dabag. Dabag means “to adhere, be glued firmly, keep, be joined, follow close, abide fast; to impinge, cling; to repair breaches." This sampling clearly shows that the term implies a tight connection of the cleaving parts. Nothing here implies, however, that permanence is an essential or inherent ingredient in the "glue" of marriage. It is fair to say that there is no convincing support to the idea that the word "cleave" (dåbag) mandates permanence. If dabag mandated permanence, then the study on marriage and divorce could end in this verse. If dabag mandated permanence, then to break the bond would unequivocally be sin. Studying the usage of the word in the Old Testament does not help show permanence, yet the advocates of permanence seek to make their case by appealing to use. They do so to their chagrin. Notice the following examples where cleave, dabag, is used:

	It is used of dirt clods which stick together after the rain. Job 38:38 38 "When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?"
	It is used by Joshua of a alliance. Joshua 23:12 "Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you". Anyone familiar with the history of Israel will recall that on many occasions Israelites clave to the heathen nations. In light of this, the question arises, "Did God see this cleaving as requiring permanence?" The answer is no. Time and again, the prophets called the people of Israel to break off such cleaving and to return to the God of Israel.
	The word is also used of the leprosy that would cling forever to dishonest and greedy Gehazi (2 Kings 5:7).
	Jeremiah 13:11 "For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear." Yet you find God divorcing Israel.

ii. CLEAVE IN THE GREEK

Kallo is the Greek root of proskallao. Vine reports that it means "to join fast together, to glue, cement."

Kallo is never used explicitly of joining in marriage. It is used of the "one-flesh" relation of a man to a prostitute in I Corinthians 6:16, " What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Since our passage involves a quote of the Genesis 2:24 "one-flesh" wording, it is worthy of our consideration. In these verses, Paul is admonishing his readers to put away immoral practices, specifically, the visiting of temple prostitutes as a vent for sexual desire. The fact that our kallao relationship to the Lord is permanent should not mislead us into thinking that our relationship to the prostitute is also permanent. By the same token, the lack of permanence of the relation to the prostitute should not be taken to imply a lack of permanence in the relationship to Christ. Therefore, duration is not determined by the word kallao alone. Kallao, "one-flesh" relationships can be non-permanent if the context does not include permanence established upon God's part of the relationship.

Among covenants, only God can control or overcome all the variables. Therefore, the only unconditional covenants are those in which God is responsible for fulfilling all of the terms. Thankfully, our salvation is based upon an unconditional covenant. No matter where we go, and regardless of the condition of our body or mental faculties, God will carryout the terms of the new covenant that we entered in with Him. Covenants between humans are not of the same quality. You can't control all the factors. It will be pretty hard for a man to provide for his wife when she has run off and disappeared, because he can't override all the negative variables in such a scenario. Albeit, it does not necessarily prohibit him from resuming fulfillment of the covenant, should she return. We understand God is the judge over us for breach of covenants, but his watchful eye doesn't make those covenants unconditional.

iii. Examples of Pre-Mosiac Treatment in Covenant Breaking:

Abraham and Sarah (Genesis Chapter 20)

In this passage, Abraham fails to maintain his side of the covenant. In fact, his failure is horrible. He fails to maintain physical presence and he certainly fails to protect her and her reputation. Sarah's response shows that divorce, though perhaps a possibility, is not mandated. She had a choice and chose to reaffirm her covenant with the spouse who had utterly failed in keeping his portion of the covenant. Her attitude is laudable and exemplifies her New Testament counterparts in how they should adhere to their husbands (1 Peter 3:6 "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement").

Abraham and Hagar (Genesis 21:8-14)

The story of Abraham and the release of Hagar is noteworthy. According to the story, the mockery of the child of promise, Isaac, by the child of the slave woman, Ishamel, led Sarah to insist on the putting away of Hagar. Abraham was reluctant to put her away. When God gives Abraham permission to release the pair, He is clear to say that it is all right to do so in this situation, and that He will provide for their welfare. This provision is then set forth in the rest of the story.

God's words most likely promote the conclusion that Abraham was concerned about fulfilling his obligation to provide for Hagar and Ishamel. God affirmed that the obligation of Abraham to care for Hagar was relaxed insofar as God himself would be a husband and father to them. This story implies that divorce, because it entails a failure to fulfill an implied vow to provide, is therefore wrong and only permissible where God Himself releases the husband from the vow. Man should not put asunder what God has joined, but he should also not insist for something to stay together when God has said it can be separated. Groundless putting away is a radical failure to live up to marital duties, a breach of covenant, and is not in keeping with godly living.

Tamar and Judah (Genesis Chapter 38)

When Onan failed to live up to his part of the marriage covenant, namely providing a chance for Tamar to bear a child, God took his life.

iv. DIVORCE UNDER THE LAW/TORAH

a. Freedom from an Abusive Husband (Exodus 21:7-11)

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

The chief concern in the day of Jesus was to find a passage giving the husband a right to divorce the wife. In this text, however, the right of the wife to force a divorce from her husband and the protection of her interests are the main concerns. If the husband did not keep his side of the covenant, she could leave him without alimony but would no longer be a slave (Yes, some wives were really slaves to their husbands). This passage also addresses what protection the woman had if her rich husband took another wife; therefore, even in polygamy, God is concerned with protecting women.

b. Freedom of the Divorced Woman (Numbers 30:9-16)

Some preachers contend that the Christian woman divorced by her non-believing husband in First Corinthians 7:15 was not free to marry, though divorced by her husband. They reach their conclusion by simplistically grasping Luke 16:18, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery," and applying it without deeper reflection upon its context or setting. Their ending argument is that the woman is now free from her husband, but must live out her life as a single woman.

Other texts specifically written to Christian couples, are often misapplied to all situations, including this one. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." Though the verses are good advice for anyone, they are written specifically to church members. When two church members divorce, either one or both, depending on the situation, will immediately be subject to church discipline - including expulsion in the belief that they may not be saved at all. However, the situation between two church members is not the same as between an unequally yoked couple, but spiritual laziness, biblical ignorance, and cowardice towards church discipline will blur them together.

The authority of a widow and a divorced woman are contrasted against that of a married woman in Numbers 30:9-16:

"But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house."

Both the widow and the divorced woman are treated equally and are allowed to do the following:

1. Vows: Both are allowed to make vows upon their own authority.

2. Covenants: Both are allowed to make covenants upon their own authority.

3. Remarry: Both are allowed to remarry via marriage covenant.

While under the authority of a father or husband, the woman's vow could be nullified by his authority. In the case of widows and divorced women, they are not considered under a man's authority any longer and thus, their vows stand by their own volition. From this passage, we can derive that the idea of a man's authority over a woman does not continue after divorce. For re-clarification, these women are divorced not because they were self-willed and rebellious against God and husband, but rather women victimized by a treacherous or abusive husband.

c. Freedom from unjust divorce (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) 100 months

After marrying a woman, if a man hated her and brought accusations against her saying, "She was not a virgin when he married her," the woman had an avenue to protect her honor. If she was found innocent of his accusation, he had to fork over 100 months wages to his father-in-law and he couldn't divorce her. If she was guilty, she was to be stoned to death. God puts a high price for a woman who loses her virginity through immorality and upon a man that brings dishonor to a righteous woman's reputation.

d. Freedom from desertion (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) 50 months

If a man and a single woman are caught fornicating, he must marry her, pay 50 months wages, and he could not put her away because he had humbled her.

e. Freedom from an unfaithful wife (Exodus 20:14)

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." Leviticus 20:10 "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."

The law provided a means of putting away an unfaithful wife... traditionally stoning. Later, divorce was an accepted alternative when under foreign rule.

f. Freedom from a despised wife (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Without a doubt, the most erroneously celebrated text on the subject of the husband's right to divorce his wife is Deut 24:1-4. By the time of Jesus, it was nearly the only passage being discussed in this connection, which makes it another simplistic approach. Actually, the passage is of little value if used to that end, for its aim was to protect the woman from an abusive and hard-hearted husband. It provides no moral "right" to divorce, but only a legal provision within divorce to protect the interests of the wife. The basic laws that God gave concerning this situation are as follows:

1. Some undesirable condition arises in the wife.

2. The condition comes to the notice of the first husband.

3. The first husband divorces her because of the condition.

4. The wife marries a second husband.

5. The second husband either dies or divorces the wife.

6. She cannot go back to the first husband and get married.

a. She was defiled by the second marriage.

b. A woman can be defiled by giving birth to a child. The defilement is symbolic and concerns cerimonial purposes. The action is not sin.

7. She can marry another man (but not the first husband).

During the personal ministry of Jesus, there were two major schools of thought concerning divorce. Both were based upon a misunderstanding of why the rules were given to Moses. The school of Shammai taught that sexual adultery was the only scriptural reason for a justified divorce. The other school of thought, Hillel's school, taught that anything that the husband found undesirable in the woman was a valid ground for a legitimate divorce.

v. DIVORCE IN THE PROPHETS

a. Righteous Divorce

By the time of Jesus, the death penalty was seldom if ever used for the offense of adultery. This is clear not only from a consideration of the Shammia-Hillel debate, wherein both schools presumed that adultery would be grounds for divorce, not death, but from a consideration of the fact that Israel was a dependent nation and had to function under the laws of the overlords. Rome, at least according to the Julian laws, did not recognize adultery as a capital crime, except under the rarest circumstances (Another example of why justice by committee or democratic morality fails in comparison with God’s law).

To expound upon the recognition that divorce was a viable alternative to death, several passages in scripture can be cited.

1. Divorce as a step to Restoration from Adultery (Hosea 1 & 2)

God placed his stamp of approval upon this marriage by leading Hosea to marry her. One commentary says this about the marriage, "Gomer, at the time of her marriage was not a woman of loose morals. Archer concludes his discussion by saying: 'If Hosea delivered his message in later years, he may well have looked back upon his own domestic tragedy and seen it in the guiding hand of God. Hence the Lord's encouragement to marry her in the first place, though her future infidelity was foreknown to God, would have been tantamount to a command.'" The point that needs to be driven is that a marriage that ends in divorce does not necessarily mean that the marriage itself was not the will of God, nor does it necessarily mean the man married in response to a hormonal overload.

A large percentage of independent Baptist preachers treat others, especially other preachers, like Job was treated. As in the book of Job, men could have pointed to Hosea and said, "This has happened because of your sin or because you violated a principle of good marriage or you failed morally in the marriage." Elihu, the observer to Job, noted that some tragedy happens for our purification and for the ultimate glory of God. Regrettably, upright and conscientious men have been shunned from the ministry though they had not sinned. This is not to say that every man is blameless in divorce and still qualified to pastor, only that spiritual laziness finds it easier to ostracize or gossip instead of expending the effort to rightly judge the situation. We should judge rightly and accept the consequences.

Several things are outlined that Hosea will do to Gomer as a form of discipline. Among them is divorce (Hosea 1:1-11). In keeping with the spirit of believers, Hosea exercised the means to reconcile the marriage when the opportunity availed itself. Gomer never returned to Hosea, but Hosea was later able to buy her as a slave girl. Not many believers have been afforded the same avenue of reconciliation that Hosea was allowed, but all should hope to have the same attitude regarding reconciliation.

2. Divorce as the ultimate Solution for Spiritual Adultery (Ezra Chapter 9 and Chapter 10)

Ezra's advice to put away the strange (non-Jewish) wives is an example that men of God did view divorce as a means to dissolve an illegitimate marriage between Jews and the ungodly nations surrounding them. The men divorced their wives, gave up their children, if they had any, and having done so, also made an animal sacrifice because of their previous disobedience. Some authors have proposed that this method is required in repentance for a believer who, in rebellion to the church's prohibition, marries an unbeliever. In other words, they suggest if a person rebels against the teaching of the church and marries a non-believer, then to be able to be received back into fellowship, they would have to put away the non-believer as proof of their repentance. Hard core? Well, I wouldn't let the former member just waltz back into church after flaunting their disobedience to Scripture.

Jeremiah 3:8 "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also." God, the divorcer, and Israel the divorcee. It is evident that God recognizes divorce, under proper conditions, as a form of disciplinary action.

b. Unrighteous Divorce

1. As a method of Treachery or selfishness (Malachi 2:16)

“For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

Many preachers say, "God hates divorce." However, the Scripture didn't say it in such a blanket format. Malachi 2:16 qualifies the type of divorce by providing a specific scenario in which God hates divorce: for one covereth violence with his garment. It did not place God hating divorce in every situation. If divorce per se is treachery, then God is treacherous and Hosea is treacherous since they divorced their "wives." It is not that God hates divorce because it is treacherous but that he hates treacherous divorce. A treacherous divorce is a divorce grounded upon nothing more than the desire to be monogamously or otherwise devoted to another person in stead of their spouse.

In his book, Myth, Laney suggests that the oracular statement that such men "covereth violence with their garments" may be a colorful way of underscoring the treachery of these divorces. He points out that in Ruth 3:9 and in Ezek 16:8, the prospective husband spreads his garment over the woman to symbolically show his intention to protect her. Violence is chamac in the Hebrew tongue. Chamac means a wrong, a cruelty, an injustice, violence. Great hypocrisy can be found in the man that covers violence with his garment. He performs a grievous wrong to unjustly cast aside a woman that he had publicly pledged to protect. A man who casts aside his espoused wife to monogamously wed himself to another woman is indeed cruel. Many men marry with the attitude that if it doesn't work out, they will find someone else - a total shirking of their responsibility in their marriage covenant. It is against this mindset that God rails His hatred.

The divorce that God hates is a treacherous, self willed, unfounded divorce. To allow a man to cover violence with his garment would be allowing a form of legal rape to exist. To compound the matter, the woman put away would be deemed as having been put away because of some wickedness. Thus, the innocent woman could be falsely branded an adulterer. It is in this vain of thought we find men committing adultery to marry another, and the divorced woman being thought of as an adulterer, though her former husband was the cause of her plight. The bottom line: God hates unjust divorces.

Romans 7: 1-3 “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

Note that the author of Romans indicates that the understanding of the above passage resides with those who understand the Torah, Jewish law. With such indication, it stands to reason that all the diminutive points of the law would not be spelled out here by the writer. The author does not go into all the details about portions of the law that describe how a woman may be put from her husband in divorce. We have already seen that it does speak on this subject, and readers knowing the Law would be cognizant of them. It suffices to say that as long as the husband lives, the Law has rules concerning his marriage. The Law also dictates circumstances where the woman is able to loose herself from her husband. Yet here in Romans 7:1, the emphasis is how she should not be made loose from her husband. The focal point in this passage is not what other ways a woman can become freed, besides the death of the husband, but rather that she cannot simply rebel to go marry another without being branded an adulterer under the Law. Since she left her husband without authority under the Law to marry another, the law convicts her of adultery. However, if her husband was dead and she married another, the adultery issue is moot.

III. The Teachings of Jesus and Paul

A. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS ON DIVORCE

Matthew 5:31-32 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.

By the time of Christ, the Deuteronomic provision (Deut 24:1-4) for the wife of a hard-hearted husband protecting her from his treacherous intentions had been turned upside down to favor the husband. Pharisaical schools argued back and forth over what had to be wrong with the wife before the husband could exercise his "right" to put her away. The liberal school of Hillel thought that a man had the right to end his marriage if his wife did something he found distasteful. The conservative school of Shammai thought the man's right to divorce was limited to the case of a wife who had committed adultery. Both schools were concerned for the rights of the man and had little concern for the woman, thus reversing the concern of Scripture.

During the days of Christ's majority, the son of Herod the Great, Antipas, had an affair with his half-brother Philip's wife, Herodias. Herod and Herodias divorced their covenant partners in order to devote themselves to each other. They cared little for the rights of either men or women who were in the way of their lust. Members of the religious establishment were too satisfied with their economic and political position to raise much objection to this transgression of the Law. Only the backwoods prophet, John the Baptist, dared to rebuke the erring house of Herod with Holy Scripture.

In Christ's answer to the Pharisees, we must remember the nearby context: "Think not that I come to destroy the law." The principles Christ lay down did not negate the laws regarding divorce and remarriage. However, some commentators have Christ refuting all divorce thereby making Christ a destroyer of the law.

The near context: "You have heard..." opens a window to the twisted, misunderstanding of the law by the Pharisees. There are six distinct sayings of "ye have heard" (5:21,27,33,38,43). They relate to the last six points of the Ten commandments, man's duty to man. Murder, 21-26; adultery, 27-30; theft, 31-32; false witness, 33-37; coveting and defrauding, 38-42; and parents, 43-48. While realigning the misapplication of the scripture by the Pharisees, the hidden refrain within Jesus' six-part response is, "You think you are innocent, but you are guilty."

i. The Exception Clause

Only the book of Matthew, written to Jews under the Law, records the exception clause. Upon this clause, there have arisen several interpretations.

1. Inclusivist interpretation: The idea here is that all divorce is rejected by Jesus, even divorce that is grounded upon unchastity.

2. Preteritive view: This school of thought associated with Augustine in ancient times and with Bruce Vawter in our own, is sometimes called the "no comment" view. It holds that Jesus skirted the Shammai-Hillel debated by refusing to comment upon what the offense in Deuteronomy 24:1 could be.

3. Separation view: This view allows the separation of the couple, but not the divorce.

4. Offense-Clarification view: This argues that the purpose of the exception clause is to clarify when adultery has taken place. Divorces based upon porneia are not adulterous, for the adultery was already present in the porneia. The divorced woman will not then be "made to be an adulteress" by subsequent remarriage, because the fornication has already rendered her an adulteress. However, when divorces are based without porneia, this view begs the question, “When or does adultery take place?”

5. Permissible view: Jesus hereby signifies an exception to the general rule of no divorce. This interpretation is by far the one preferred by scholars, but there the agreement ends, for they differ widely over the meaning of the crucial offense-term: porneia. The views on what porneia means range from:

a. Preconsummational breach of chastity. The marriage can only be broken before the man's consummation with a bride that has been found to be sexually impure. This is known at the "Betrothal View." Isaksson holds this view.

b. Incestuous or illegal marriages. Only marriages that are shown to be incestuous are able to be broken. Some include interfaith marriages. This is known as the "Consanguinity View." Laney, Steele, and Charles Ryrie hold this view.

c. Physical Adultery. Adultery after marriage is the only grounds for a divorce. This range is broadened by some proponents to include such things as incest, bestiality, and other perversions. This view is known as the Patristic (early father's) view. Heth, Wenham, and Matthew Henry hold this view.

d. Adultery or some other sexual offense. Sexual immorality in general is grounds for divorce. This view broadens the scope of adultery into unfaithfulness. It is known as the Erasmian View. Murray and Guy Duty hold this view.

e. The Preteritive view says that porneia means whatever the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 meant. Vawter holds this view.

There are some camps which define fornication as being sex before marriage, and adultery as sex with someone other than your spouse. That definition, though true, is simplistic in a tunnel vision sort of way. They are clueless that fornication or its Greek root pornea have any other dimensions. As such, they state divorce can only occur during the engagement period, if the prospective bride commits sexual immorality prior to the consummation of the marriage. The view makes for some mighty bold, albeit erroneous, preaching in Baptist pulpits.

Acts 15:20 “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Porneia is translated fornication in Matthew 19:9 and Acts 15:20. We can note several things about porneia. Porneia is not the normal word for "adultery." The normal Greek word is moicheia, which is much narrower in scope. The two terms should not be equated. Porneia and moicheia are found within the same verses in Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21; ICor 6:9; Gal 5:19; Heb 13:4 thereby showing that the two are not synonyms. Porneia can include moicheia, as in Acts 15:20 listed above, but porneia does not necessitate that moicheia be present. Within the text, it can also be seen that porneia is not limited to sexual infidelity. Although porneia carries the connotation of sexual overtones, to not allow porneia to encompass some broader points of fleshly actions would be to negate the provisions of divorce in the law, a law Jesus said he came to fulfill, not destroy. The standard definition of porneia to be "immorality in general" and not only adultery holds true to the Hebrew parallel term zanah and the use of porneia in the Septuagint. Therefore, even after marriage, you can commit fornication without committing adultery.

ii. "Causes her to commit adultery"

In 1949, R.C. Lenski argued the following points:

1. The woman of 5:32 is innocent of wrong. It is her husband who has destroyed the marriage via divorce, thus rendering her unable to fulfill her marital commitments. Contrary to the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, it is improper grammatically to find the second husband as the causal agent of adultery.

2. The "adultery" relating to the wife occurs at the time of the divorce, not in some subsequent marriage; 5:32a and 5:32b are independent clauses not dependent clauses.

3. The meaning of the word moikeuthanai, translated as commit, is an infinitive passive not active, and no one has shown that it should be translated actively. Therefore the phrase, "causes her to commit" is not an expression of action but of implication. She does not perform adultery, but she is branded [at the time of the divorce] as an adulteress because she was put away.

Other writers, such as Murray, want to show that the word in this passage is being used in the active case. If it were active, then the woman would be the actor in the adultery. They argue from the Septuagint in Leviticus 20:10 and from the text in John chapter eight. However, none of the scholars can prove in a grammatical study that the passage in Matthew 5:32 should be viewed as active. The usage in John chapter eight demands an active tense because of the charges brought against the woman. The active tense depended upon the text; whereas the text of Matthew 5:32 does not provide any support to change the usage from passive to a middle or active sense.

The whole question in Matthew 5:32 asks, "is she an adulteress or a stigmatized woman?" The answer is a stigmatized woman. This answer is in harmony with Paul's dealing with a woman put away from an unbeliever. At the time of Paul's response, he did not view her marriage as having continued. It is to be remembered that the Old Testament was concerned about the stigmatizing of a pure woman. Twice the Law spoke to such issues (Num 5:31 by allusion, if she was innocent he will bear guilt; Deut 22:17-19, if she was innocent he had to pay 100 shekels of silver--100 months wages). If a disciple is to divorce his wife only on the grounds of porneia, but then divorces her without these grounds, what does the divorce imply about the woman? The watching world will see the divorce and assume that the woman is guilty of some great sin such as adultery. This in effect puts the sin of the husband upon the head of the woman! He broke the vow of provision by divorcing her (treacherously) and framed her with gross sin. Thus the woman is treated like a piece of property that has received the stamp of defective, when, in fact, it is the man that is morally defective. In effect, the husband rendered her as an adulterated woman.

B. THE SOCRATIC RESPONSE OF JESUS

Mark 10:2-9 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Matthew 19:3-9 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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. 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.”

When the religious leaders approached Jesus, they wished to entrap him within the framework of divorce and remarriage. Not only did Jesus have to contend with the school of Hillel and Shimmia, he also had Herod and Herodios to battle. Jesus' response took the form of a Socratic response. Since Christ took this response form, it is wise to not only see what he said but what he did not say.

Jesus posed the question, "What did Moses command you?" Starting from their answer, Jesus clarified several points derived from their response:

1. They had been concerned with "when the man may walk away from his wife." Jesus pointed out that the design of marriage is not to see it end.

2. The covenant cannot be dissolved without challenging the One who oversees the covenant, God.

3. Jesus does not say, "Since what God joins together is permanent, you can't get a divorce." To do so would have been exactly what the Pharisees wanted to trap him with. It would have shown him to be contrary to the Old Testament and place Him at odds with the Roman magistrates.

Jesus affirmed that He came not to destroy the law. Jesus affirmed as strongly as possible, without abrogating any teaching of the Law, the obligation of marriage partners is to stay married. He does not say that it is impossible to sever a marriage bond, nor that you can never have a divorce. He doesn't even use the normal and technical term for divorce here, but instead uses the word chorizo, which is well translated "sunder." In all the other uses of this word in the N.T., it is never used as a synonym for divorce.

Unless God allows severance of the bond, either through death, thereby placing the partner outside of the law, or through God's provisions under the law, a severance of the covenant would be wrong. In a treacherous sundering, it is man, not God, that allowed divorce. It was the treacherous attitude that Christ attacked while not destroying the law. The law, like Christ, stood as a testimony against the hardness of men's hearts. The Torah limited men in the scope that divorce could take place. This limitation was needed because men sought to sunder relationships under their own volition. Divorce, per se, was not sinful. Treacherous divorce, based upon the hardness of a man's heart, was sinful. The function of the law, when used correctly, protected wives from wrongful divorce. Christ's teaching also limited men by pointing out that the purpose of marriage is to seek to be joined together not to put asunder. He taught that marriage was not created with the hope that it may end.

C. THE DISCIPLES QUESTIONING

Mark 10:10-12 “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.”

Continuing with the premise that marriage covenants are not created with the hope of breaking them, Christ again deals with treacherous divorce. Jesus affirms that a man that divorces his wife in view of becoming monogamously tied to another woman is guilty of committing adultery against his first wife. The adultery did not lie within the physical union, since polygamy was permitted though not proscribed by the law, but by the man forsaking his pledge to provide for his first wife. Christ then includes the reversal clause, "if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Of course Christ was not going against the law, which has already been shown to allow a woman to divorce her husband under certain conditions. One thing that may mislead people is reading the verse as if the man puts away his wife, then at some later time, as if an afterthought, decides to marry another woman. Though such a divorce is bad, it doesn't sink to the level of treachery as one who divorces with an unencumbered marriage to someone else in the making.

i. Eunuch Saying

Matthew 19:10-12 “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

The response of the disciples to Christ' teaching is a sober one, but their response does not carry a deep astonishment as some commentators would like to portray. If Jesus was teaching against all divorce, then the disciples should have been astonished. We are only justified in saying that the disciples were sobered by Jesus' teaching that divorce is not a right to be exercised by the man but an exceptional disciplinary action to be taken only if the spouse has already broken the covenant, and that any attempt to divorce a wife simply out of a desire to devote oneself to another woman is the sin of adultery. Such teaching was not held by any rabbi during Jesus' ministry. Even Shammai, who permitted a man to divorce his wife if she had committed an act tantamount to adultery does not go on to call a divorce without such a ground the "sin of adultery." In effect, the Pharisees knew nothing such as Matthew records Jesus teaching: that adultery need not involve sex, that it may be constituted simply by a man breaking his vow of continuing provision for his spouse (even if the breaking is done with legal sanction).

There are several different views to this passage which are worthy to be listed:

A. The Renunciation of Marriage View. Jesus is promoting celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

B. The Celibacy of the Divorced View: These verses refer to the husband whose wife has been put away, requiring him to consecrate himself to a celibate life (at the least, until his former wife dies).

1. This view believes the men that "cannot receive this saying" are the Pharisees and "those to whom is has been given" are the disciples of the kingdom. (For years I used to hold this view, out of my own ignorance and laziness to study, merely because I thought it was the gung-ho thing to do. Hard core, gung-ho, straighter than straight is not always the Scriptural way. Just because it makes good preaching, doesn't mean it will stand up to a really detailed Bible study. As noted earlier, such self-imposed sacrifices have a show of wisdom in will worship, but only a show.)

C. Intended for the Married View. These verses are Jesus informing his disciples that his teaching of marriage is directed to married folks. The disciples were suggesting that celibacy should be the norm, but Jesus points out that celibates are the exceptions, not the rule.

ii. Synopsis of the Gospel Accounts Matthew 19 / Mark 10

a. Matthew alone contains the exception clause and t

	Cause and Effect Safe Sex? Making Marriage Work Comprehensive Divorce Study Marriage: Contents