I have been reading from Dr. William Luck's book, "Systematic Biblical Ethics 2013", and I found his analysis of Matthew 5:31-32 on pages 232-238 fascinating.
For reference:
Dr. Luck states the following, "She is his property, but not a chattel and therefore he has no moral right unilaterally to put her away. Jesus’ interpretation of the regulation was believed by the Pharisees to be in disagreement with Moses in Deut. 24:1, but, in fact it is not. In the second part of verse 32 Jesus teaches that a man must not disrupt another person’s marriage in order to lay claim to the divorced woman. She is the property of another man. He has no business stealing her by means of divorce especially misusing the Mosaic permission."
He then goes on to make the point that "and marries another" has confused Bible students for years. It is not in conflict with polygyny, as we know, but it is, instead, reinforcing Exodus 21:10:
In other words, if a man cannot or does not want to afford two wives, he cannot divorce the first in order to take on another.
The fascinating thing to me about Dr. Luck's teaching here is what he states about the phrase, "makes her commit adultery". This is the Greek word μοιχευθηναι. So I don't misrepresent something, I will cut and paste directly from Dr. Luck's writings on this:
"That word is the aorist, passive or middle infinitive of the word for “commits adultery.” This means that the action is definite, either done against her by someone else (passive voice) or by her against herself (middle‐intensive voice: “her herself to commit adultery” or reflexive‐middle voice: “causes her to commit adultery against herself”).
Wherein then comes the traditional interpretation which is active (“to commit adultery”)? Some have mistakenly identified the verb as a deponent, a verb which, in its history, has deposed its active form and borrowed the passive/middle form while retaining its active voice. However, grammarians inform us that this never happens in the aorist tense, and even if it did, the whole concept of deponent verbs is under reconsideration insofar as the deposing of the active form should not in itself also depose the passive/middle voices. We should at least have three choices. But, I say, it’s an aorist, so that’s a battle we don’t have to fight.
So then we have to decide if the verb is passive or middle voice. Both are possible, but the middle doesn’t make any sense. To say that the woman commits adultery against herself or that she herself commits it is counter to the obvious direction of the saying, which is to hold the man accountable for what happens to her. Simply put, the middle voice would seem to exonerate the man and place the blame on the woman, and that’s not what Jesus is doing. Additionally, one must remember that no remarriage, of either party is even mentioned in the first saying. It is also not proper to borrow a remarriage from the second saying. In all coupled saying of Jesus, they are made up of independent sayings. So whatever adultery is committed in 5:32a, it happens just with the elements provided.
The only remaining option, the passive is difficult to word. The great Greek teacher, RCH Lenski (The Interpretation of St Matthew’s Gospel) opted for “causes her to be stigmatized as an adulteress,” while admitting that a better translation might be found. He thought that the reason Jesus used this somewhat odd way of speaking was to emphasize that the woman, though guiltless was being made to look like she was the guilty party. Perhaps. But two other translations present themselves: “causes her to be adulterized” or “causes her to experience adultery.” The first is my option, the second that of my friend Dr. Keith Sherlin. Mine is a bit more literal than his, but either will do. But why didn’t Jesus just say it as He did elsewhere: “he commits adultery against her.” (Matt. 19/Mark 10; Luke 16)?
My surmise is that the odd form is intentional to make us stop and think about what is being said to happen. That, after all, is the function of figures of speech, of which this is sort of one. This is the first time that “adultery” had been used of a man divorcing his wife. It is 180 degrees from what the Pharisees thought it meant. They supposed that the divorce in Deut. 24:1 was the man’s right. They disagreed over what that gave him that right, but that it was his right they firmly believed. Jesus is saying that the divorce grounds in Deut. 24:1 was inadequate... insufficient...that the man taking advantage of it was immoral...guilty of a breach of the Seventh Commandment by failing to provide what he had promised in the original contract...and of the Eighth, insofar as in doing so he reduced his wife to a piece of chattel property that he could discard at will. Malachi had called such action treachery (Mal. 2:14, 16). Jesus merely used another offense term for it. And in doing so we have the final connotational element of the definition of adultery: breach of covenant, where the promise breached was an essential one to the covenant of marriage. The woman’s promise was to be exclusive, while the man’s was to provide. Either promise could be breached. Either was adultery.
Unilateral divorce, that is, divorce without the other person having committed a covenant‐breaching act, constitutes the act of adultery, and anyone participating in such a divorce could be charged with that offense. This is underscored by the second saying of Jesus, where, again, the man is guilty of adultery by marrying a woman divorced. Though here again we come upon questionable translation. This time the key term is for divorce itself: απολελυμενην, is a perfect passive or middle participle. Being perfect, it is an action which is completed in the past. As a participle it is a “verbal noun.” The difficulty is in whether or not it is passive or middle voice. Most translations adopt the passive. She has been divorced by someone else. Here borrowing meaning from the prior saying is as unacceptable as was to borrow meaning from the second saying for the first. They are independent...each saying must stand on its own.
One thing is similar, between the saying, however: the fact that the divorce is presumed to be unjust and covenant‐breaking. But, if that is the case, why hold the second husband accountable for adultery? If her marriage is over, then she has the right to remarry...right? Yes. But that is not the point of the charge of adultery. Here again the divorce is the sin, but the divorcing should be seen to be initiated by the woman (without grounds) at the instigation of the second husband.
Many have avoided this interpretation based upon the infrequency of women divorcing their husbands in Jesus’ day. However, that general truth overlooks the particular fact of the most notable divorce in the days of Jesus: Herodias’s divorce of Herod Philip, was instigated by Herod Antipas, so that she might marry him. Herod Antipas had himself recently divorced his long time wife, Phasaelis, the daughter of Aretas IV, the King of Petra, so that he could marry Herodias. (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews. Book 18, chapter 5, part 1) History has not recorded the specific grounds alleged by Herod of Phasaelis, but the Herods were not known for citing trivial grounds to justify their evil actions. Aretas is said to have considered the divorce an insult to his daughter, and the sources say that Phasaelis “fled” Israel. All of this is consistent with a charge of adultery. Without a doubt, Phasaelis was innocent of any wrongdoing though Herod alleged that she was guilty of something justifying her removal. In view of that, we can see how Herod was guilty of what he alleged she had done: been unfaithful to his vows.
This is the thrust of Lenski’s interpretative translation of the first saying. Also without a doubt, this same Herod was also guilty of stealing his half‐brother’s wife by instigating her divorce, which she initiated. Said Josephus:
“This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome:...” (Josephus Antiquities 18.5.1)
“Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas.”(Josephus Antiquities 18.5.4)
I do not have the Greek of the Antiquities, but “divorced herself” would be a middle translation of 5:32b. Thus Herod fits very precisely the man who was guilty of the separate offenses noted by Jesus in Matt. 5:32. His actions also exactly fit both sides of the offenses against the 8th Commandment: abuse of one’s own property to the hurt of another person, and theft via conspiracy to defraud Herod Philip.
The Pharisees had not condemned Herod as Jesus did in the Sermon and as John the Baptist had done according to the Gospels. John had lost his head by standing up to Herod and rebuking him for his incestuous marriage to Herodias (marriage to the brother’s wife when the brother was still alive was considered incest according to Leviticus 18). But the text of the gospels mentions that John condemned him for his other sins as well. That surely would have included his unjust divorce of his own wife and his complicity in the divorce of Philip by Herodias...exactly the sins mentioned by Jesus in the Sermon.
Jesus confronted the Pharisees over the matter in Luke 16. Thereafter speaking of the Pharisees as being unjust stewards of God’s Law by giving God’s creditors a “cut rate,” He pitches into them by saying that they were just such unjust stewards, and He identified an example: John the Baptist (mentioned in the context). Jesus repeats His teaching from the Sermon that it was adultery for a man to divorce his wife (in order to marry someone else), and adultery for a man to marry a woman whom he had gotten to unjustly divorce her husband...both Herod’s sins.
The Pharisees regrouped on the subject and came at Jesus in the event recorded in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. They asked Jesus if it was lawful to divorce a woman on any ground. Note carefully that they said, lawfully. That limits the discussion to non‐disciplinary divorce, i.e., Deut. 24:1. When Jesus cites the creation teaching that a man who marries commits himself to that new family and God stands behind that commitment to hold him accountable for it, the Pharisees pounced on Him as denying the meaning of erwat dabar in Deuteronomy 24:1. Jesus simply replies that that law was designed to deal with hard‐hearted husbands, and that from the beginning all the way through history up to that moment, God was not trying to give man moral permission unilaterally to end his marriage. Only if the woman committed adultery did the man have grounds...but of course everyone knew that Deut. 24:1 wasn’t dealing with the woman having broken her vows. The schools of both Hillel and Shammai knew that erwat daber couldn’t mean adultery/fornication, because Leviticus 20:10 penalized such sin with execution—in the Law. Thus Jesus tells them that whatever erwat dabar means it isn’t moral ground for divorce, but rendered the man guilty of adultery. God hadn’t given that regulation to empower men, but to protect women, just as He had Exodus 21:11.
Jesus’ disciples were shocked that men didn’t have a right to end their marriages on any basis other than adultery. They say that it’s better not to get married if marriage is that binding. Jesus rebukes them by saying in effect that the rules of marriage aren’t for people who can’t marry or don’t want to. Those need not listen to his rules.
Incidentally, Mark 10 includes the reversal clause which makes it clear that Jesus is speaking of the woman unjustly divorcing her husband, rather than simply being divorced.
To summarize, Jesus condemns unjust divorce as adulterous...just as God had spoken through the prophet Malachi (chapter 2). The teaching does not discuss disciplinary divorce, but deals only with treacherous putting away. It primarily speaks to male treachery, but mentions female treachery as well. Just divorce is where the partner has broken their vows and has refused repent. Thus Joseph (Matthew 1) sought to put Mary away, since she seemed to have undeniably been guilty of fornication (she was pregnant) but denied wrongdoing. God had to clarify the issues to Joseph in order to block an unjust divorce in that case."
Thoughts?
For reference:
Matthew 5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her A certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 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. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Deuteronomy 24: 1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.
Dr. Luck states the following, "She is his property, but not a chattel and therefore he has no moral right unilaterally to put her away. Jesus’ interpretation of the regulation was believed by the Pharisees to be in disagreement with Moses in Deut. 24:1, but, in fact it is not. In the second part of verse 32 Jesus teaches that a man must not disrupt another person’s marriage in order to lay claim to the divorced woman. She is the property of another man. He has no business stealing her by means of divorce especially misusing the Mosaic permission."
He then goes on to make the point that "and marries another" has confused Bible students for years. It is not in conflict with polygyny, as we know, but it is, instead, reinforcing Exodus 21:10:
Exodus 21:10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
In other words, if a man cannot or does not want to afford two wives, he cannot divorce the first in order to take on another.
The fascinating thing to me about Dr. Luck's teaching here is what he states about the phrase, "makes her commit adultery". This is the Greek word μοιχευθηναι. So I don't misrepresent something, I will cut and paste directly from Dr. Luck's writings on this:
"That word is the aorist, passive or middle infinitive of the word for “commits adultery.” This means that the action is definite, either done against her by someone else (passive voice) or by her against herself (middle‐intensive voice: “her herself to commit adultery” or reflexive‐middle voice: “causes her to commit adultery against herself”).
Wherein then comes the traditional interpretation which is active (“to commit adultery”)? Some have mistakenly identified the verb as a deponent, a verb which, in its history, has deposed its active form and borrowed the passive/middle form while retaining its active voice. However, grammarians inform us that this never happens in the aorist tense, and even if it did, the whole concept of deponent verbs is under reconsideration insofar as the deposing of the active form should not in itself also depose the passive/middle voices. We should at least have three choices. But, I say, it’s an aorist, so that’s a battle we don’t have to fight.
So then we have to decide if the verb is passive or middle voice. Both are possible, but the middle doesn’t make any sense. To say that the woman commits adultery against herself or that she herself commits it is counter to the obvious direction of the saying, which is to hold the man accountable for what happens to her. Simply put, the middle voice would seem to exonerate the man and place the blame on the woman, and that’s not what Jesus is doing. Additionally, one must remember that no remarriage, of either party is even mentioned in the first saying. It is also not proper to borrow a remarriage from the second saying. In all coupled saying of Jesus, they are made up of independent sayings. So whatever adultery is committed in 5:32a, it happens just with the elements provided.
The only remaining option, the passive is difficult to word. The great Greek teacher, RCH Lenski (The Interpretation of St Matthew’s Gospel) opted for “causes her to be stigmatized as an adulteress,” while admitting that a better translation might be found. He thought that the reason Jesus used this somewhat odd way of speaking was to emphasize that the woman, though guiltless was being made to look like she was the guilty party. Perhaps. But two other translations present themselves: “causes her to be adulterized” or “causes her to experience adultery.” The first is my option, the second that of my friend Dr. Keith Sherlin. Mine is a bit more literal than his, but either will do. But why didn’t Jesus just say it as He did elsewhere: “he commits adultery against her.” (Matt. 19/Mark 10; Luke 16)?
My surmise is that the odd form is intentional to make us stop and think about what is being said to happen. That, after all, is the function of figures of speech, of which this is sort of one. This is the first time that “adultery” had been used of a man divorcing his wife. It is 180 degrees from what the Pharisees thought it meant. They supposed that the divorce in Deut. 24:1 was the man’s right. They disagreed over what that gave him that right, but that it was his right they firmly believed. Jesus is saying that the divorce grounds in Deut. 24:1 was inadequate... insufficient...that the man taking advantage of it was immoral...guilty of a breach of the Seventh Commandment by failing to provide what he had promised in the original contract...and of the Eighth, insofar as in doing so he reduced his wife to a piece of chattel property that he could discard at will. Malachi had called such action treachery (Mal. 2:14, 16). Jesus merely used another offense term for it. And in doing so we have the final connotational element of the definition of adultery: breach of covenant, where the promise breached was an essential one to the covenant of marriage. The woman’s promise was to be exclusive, while the man’s was to provide. Either promise could be breached. Either was adultery.
Unilateral divorce, that is, divorce without the other person having committed a covenant‐breaching act, constitutes the act of adultery, and anyone participating in such a divorce could be charged with that offense. This is underscored by the second saying of Jesus, where, again, the man is guilty of adultery by marrying a woman divorced. Though here again we come upon questionable translation. This time the key term is for divorce itself: απολελυμενην, is a perfect passive or middle participle. Being perfect, it is an action which is completed in the past. As a participle it is a “verbal noun.” The difficulty is in whether or not it is passive or middle voice. Most translations adopt the passive. She has been divorced by someone else. Here borrowing meaning from the prior saying is as unacceptable as was to borrow meaning from the second saying for the first. They are independent...each saying must stand on its own.
One thing is similar, between the saying, however: the fact that the divorce is presumed to be unjust and covenant‐breaking. But, if that is the case, why hold the second husband accountable for adultery? If her marriage is over, then she has the right to remarry...right? Yes. But that is not the point of the charge of adultery. Here again the divorce is the sin, but the divorcing should be seen to be initiated by the woman (without grounds) at the instigation of the second husband.
Many have avoided this interpretation based upon the infrequency of women divorcing their husbands in Jesus’ day. However, that general truth overlooks the particular fact of the most notable divorce in the days of Jesus: Herodias’s divorce of Herod Philip, was instigated by Herod Antipas, so that she might marry him. Herod Antipas had himself recently divorced his long time wife, Phasaelis, the daughter of Aretas IV, the King of Petra, so that he could marry Herodias. (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews. Book 18, chapter 5, part 1) History has not recorded the specific grounds alleged by Herod of Phasaelis, but the Herods were not known for citing trivial grounds to justify their evil actions. Aretas is said to have considered the divorce an insult to his daughter, and the sources say that Phasaelis “fled” Israel. All of this is consistent with a charge of adultery. Without a doubt, Phasaelis was innocent of any wrongdoing though Herod alleged that she was guilty of something justifying her removal. In view of that, we can see how Herod was guilty of what he alleged she had done: been unfaithful to his vows.
This is the thrust of Lenski’s interpretative translation of the first saying. Also without a doubt, this same Herod was also guilty of stealing his half‐brother’s wife by instigating her divorce, which she initiated. Said Josephus:
“This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome:...” (Josephus Antiquities 18.5.1)
“Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas.”(Josephus Antiquities 18.5.4)
I do not have the Greek of the Antiquities, but “divorced herself” would be a middle translation of 5:32b. Thus Herod fits very precisely the man who was guilty of the separate offenses noted by Jesus in Matt. 5:32. His actions also exactly fit both sides of the offenses against the 8th Commandment: abuse of one’s own property to the hurt of another person, and theft via conspiracy to defraud Herod Philip.
The Pharisees had not condemned Herod as Jesus did in the Sermon and as John the Baptist had done according to the Gospels. John had lost his head by standing up to Herod and rebuking him for his incestuous marriage to Herodias (marriage to the brother’s wife when the brother was still alive was considered incest according to Leviticus 18). But the text of the gospels mentions that John condemned him for his other sins as well. That surely would have included his unjust divorce of his own wife and his complicity in the divorce of Philip by Herodias...exactly the sins mentioned by Jesus in the Sermon.
Jesus confronted the Pharisees over the matter in Luke 16. Thereafter speaking of the Pharisees as being unjust stewards of God’s Law by giving God’s creditors a “cut rate,” He pitches into them by saying that they were just such unjust stewards, and He identified an example: John the Baptist (mentioned in the context). Jesus repeats His teaching from the Sermon that it was adultery for a man to divorce his wife (in order to marry someone else), and adultery for a man to marry a woman whom he had gotten to unjustly divorce her husband...both Herod’s sins.
The Pharisees regrouped on the subject and came at Jesus in the event recorded in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. They asked Jesus if it was lawful to divorce a woman on any ground. Note carefully that they said, lawfully. That limits the discussion to non‐disciplinary divorce, i.e., Deut. 24:1. When Jesus cites the creation teaching that a man who marries commits himself to that new family and God stands behind that commitment to hold him accountable for it, the Pharisees pounced on Him as denying the meaning of erwat dabar in Deuteronomy 24:1. Jesus simply replies that that law was designed to deal with hard‐hearted husbands, and that from the beginning all the way through history up to that moment, God was not trying to give man moral permission unilaterally to end his marriage. Only if the woman committed adultery did the man have grounds...but of course everyone knew that Deut. 24:1 wasn’t dealing with the woman having broken her vows. The schools of both Hillel and Shammai knew that erwat daber couldn’t mean adultery/fornication, because Leviticus 20:10 penalized such sin with execution—in the Law. Thus Jesus tells them that whatever erwat dabar means it isn’t moral ground for divorce, but rendered the man guilty of adultery. God hadn’t given that regulation to empower men, but to protect women, just as He had Exodus 21:11.
Jesus’ disciples were shocked that men didn’t have a right to end their marriages on any basis other than adultery. They say that it’s better not to get married if marriage is that binding. Jesus rebukes them by saying in effect that the rules of marriage aren’t for people who can’t marry or don’t want to. Those need not listen to his rules.
Incidentally, Mark 10 includes the reversal clause which makes it clear that Jesus is speaking of the woman unjustly divorcing her husband, rather than simply being divorced.
To summarize, Jesus condemns unjust divorce as adulterous...just as God had spoken through the prophet Malachi (chapter 2). The teaching does not discuss disciplinary divorce, but deals only with treacherous putting away. It primarily speaks to male treachery, but mentions female treachery as well. Just divorce is where the partner has broken their vows and has refused repent. Thus Joseph (Matthew 1) sought to put Mary away, since she seemed to have undeniably been guilty of fornication (she was pregnant) but denied wrongdoing. God had to clarify the issues to Joseph in order to block an unjust divorce in that case."
Thoughts?
