Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12: in relation to polygamy

[nathan]

For those theologically inclined: twice this week I've been contacted for folks looking for more input on this verses, as someone used it as the major hammer in the NT against polygamy, with them. This is always a tough verse to clearly interpret, admittedly.

11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

I've pointed them here: http://www.christianpoly.org/divorce.php (Half-way down.)

And to Tom Shipley, Man and Woman in Biblical Law, p133, Chapter 41:
http://www.newcovenantpatriarchy.com/images/uploads/Man_&_Woman_in_Biblical_Law_5.pdf
which is lengthy, and I'll include below.

Does anyone else have a good written understanding of these passages, either of their own creation, or another source?

Thanks, Nathan

The New Covenant and Polygamy, Matthew 19:3-12
“From the beginning it was not so.”
Matthew 19:3-12 (and parallel Mark 10:2-12) is the most commonly cited passage appealed to by
those who propose a “monogamy-only” ethic as being the ethic endorsed and mandated by the Bible.
The reason that this passage is particularly important is because, first of all, it is a New Testament
pronouncement of the Lord; and secondly, because the Lord appeals to the authority of the creation
purpose of God in Genesis (which is, remember, an Old Covenant scripture).
“Monogamy only” adherents assert that there is in Matthew 19 an abolition and annulling of at least
three Old Covenant laws, in reference to 1) divorce, 2) the very definition of adultery and 3)
polygamy. That is a very presumptuous path to be cutting in view of Jesus’ own warning in the same
Gospel to not think that he had come to destroy/nullify the Law, even to the least of the
commandments. I refer the reader back to what I said in the two articles, “ ‘Contradictions’ Between
Genesis and the Law.” And I exhort the “monogamy-only” crowd to get their theology square with
Matthew 5:17-19. I reiterate once again, we are not dealing with ceremonial ordinances but with
moral law when we discuss marriage.
3 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?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female.
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to
his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement,
and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to
put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not
good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is
given.
12 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.
It is to be pointed out, first of all, that the subject matter is divorce and not polygamy. If there is
anything here in this passage which is relevant to polygamy, it must be by way of inference,
implication and deduction. Now there is nothing wrong with drawing valid logical inferences, but
many commentators treat Matthew 19 as if it is an explicit teaching on polygamy, which it manifestly
is not, and as if Christ is asserting a fundamental change in the Law of Moses regarding marriage law,
which is a proposition impossible to reconcile with Matthew 5:17-19.
I have already quoted Greg Bahnsen’s rock-solid commentary on Matthew 19:8 and now do so again.
“Some commentators have mistakenly viewed this word as indicating a deprecated
toleration of a positive evil (i.e., reluctantly forbearing something against which you
have strong scruples or detest). Such a connotation must be read into the word. It is
used quite simply for the giving of candid permission (without overtones of
disapprobation). When ‘epitrepo’ is used elsewhere in the NT there is no reason to
think that the person using it intends to approve of something that he considers
definitely improper. It is primarily used for the gaining of authorization from a
superior...Jn. 19:38...Acts 21:39-40...Acts 26.1...Acts 27:3...Acts 28:16...Mat. 8:21...I
Cor.16:7...Heb. 6:3...Gen. 39:6 (LXX)...Est. 9:14...Job 32:14...Therefore it is
unwarranted to maintain that, in Matt. 19:8, Jesus represents the Mosaic law as
‘tolerating with disapproval’ an immoral activity, viz. divorce.

“The verse simply reports that Moses authorized the use of divorce. One should note,
in passing, that the commentators who read the connotation of disapproval-of-animmoral-
activity into the word ‘epitrepo’ fail to justify their view that an all holy God
could enact an immoral law. How, one must ask in astonishment, could the God who
is ‘of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on iniquity’ (Hab. 1:13), the just
Lord who ‘will do no iniquity’ (Zeph. 3:5), tolerate the legislation of immorality in
His law, which is itself perfect, right, pure, and righteous altogether (Ps. 19:07-9).
Even leaving linguistic considerations aside this theological difficulty with the view
is insurmountable.” — (“Theonomy in Christian Ethics,” n. pg. 102)
Bahnsen’s comments are more than sufficient to refute the notion of God “tolerating sin” via His
laws. But what about the notion that the New Covenant brings with it a redefinition of sin and change
The New Covenant and Polygamy, Matthew 19:3-12 135
of standard? Is what Christ taught in Matthew 19 about divorce different than the Old Covenant
standard? (Again, reference and consult Matthew 5:17-19).
“Except it be for porneia”
In the Hebrew, Deuteronomy 24:1 states that a husband must find “nakedness of a thing”
(“uncleanness” in the KJV) as a basis for divorcing his wife. What else can this phrase, “nakedness of
a thing,” refer to other than that which men and women do when they are naked, that is, engage in
sexual relations? This is more than my own guesswork. The Hebrew translators of the Septuagint
(250 B.C.) translating the Old Testament into Greek for Greek-speaking Hebrews, translated
“nakedness of a thing” as “porneia,” the Greek word for the English “fornication.”
It is manifest, therefore, that the Old Testament requirement for a man to divorce his wife was an act
of fornication on the part of the wife. Is not this precisely the same standard that Jesus proclaims?
How, then, do so many commentators perceive an alteration of Old Testament law in these words of
Jesus? Where is the basis for such a contention? Jesus simply reasserts the Old Covenant law.
What, then, does Jesus mean by “from the beginning it was not so?” Quite simply, that from the
beginning, when there was no sin, there was no provision for divorce. But, man fell into sin, and
subsequently hard-hearted men commit adultery with other men’s wives and hard-hearted women
commit adultery and other acts of fornication against their husbands. Divorce comes in on the heels of
sin because it is necessary to punish sin, which is what divorce is, a punishment, a sanction (in
essence, a disinheritance).
We see in Matthew 19 zero evidence for any allowance of evil by God, and we see here zero evidence
for any alteration of divorce law from the Old Covenant, Mosaic standard. And is this not precisely
what we should have expected to find given Jesus’ pronouncement in Matthew 5:17-19 that he had
not come to abolish/nullify the Law but ratify it?
So what of the supposed inference from this passage that there is a change of law with respect to
polygamy? Since the law on divorce is the same, why would there be a change of law with respect to
polygamy?

But some will reply, “Does not Christ’s pronouncement that putting away a wife and marrying a
second constitutes adultery invalidate polygamy?” To which I reply, no, that is a comparing of apples
and oranges. Polygamy is not the circumstance addressed, but the substitution of one wife with
another and the dissolution of the one-flesh marital bond with the first wife in so doing. Serial
monogamy and divorce is the scenario. Where is the offense against the first marriage and the first
wife when a man takes a second wife but does not put away the first wife but maintains the one-flesh
relation with her? The putting away of the first wife is essential for the adultery to occur.
We see a virtually identical factual circumstance described in Exodus 21:10-11a: “if he take him
another wife her...duty of marriage shall he not diminish. And if he do not (this) unto her...”

Note the context described by verses 10-11a: here we have a man who takes a second wife and a defacto
putting away of the first wife in the desertion of the marriage bed. This is the same factual
situation described by Christ in Matthew 19. What is the consequence of these actions of the man? “If
he do not (this) unto her (i.e., maintain sexual relations) she shall go out free without money.”
The first wife described in this scenario, a concubine/servant wife, has the right to divorce her master.
But note well: it is not the addition of a second wife which occasions this right but the failure of the
husband to maintain “the duty of marriage” with the first wife. In other words, according to Exodus
21:10-11, the man must be guilty of adultery by these acts in coordination. This is not stated
explicitly, but note that the redress for the woman is divorce, so are we not, therefore, redressing
adultery, an offense against the marital bond?
If someone would take exception to the proposition that verse 11 is a divorce provision, consider that
concubinage is a package deal. The objective of selling one’s daughter as a maidservant (concubine)
is marriage. Exodus 21:3, pertaining to male servants, stipulates that in the seventh year they shall
“go out free” from their master, the same language used in verse 11 pertaining to the concubine. Verse
7 states, “If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”
The reason that the female servants do not “go out free” from their masters is because marriage is
involved in concubinage, and “going out free” would involve dissolving the marriage. It becomes
clear when comparing verses 3, 7 and 11 that verse 11 is unquestionably a divorce provision.
The consistency of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19 with Exodus 21:10-11 is so tight, and the factual
circumstances described so identical, that it is hard to believe that he was not in fact reiterating
precisely the law of Exodus 21:10-11 there, but with the additional circumstance of polygamy
factored in in Exodus 21:10-11. Without the cessation of sexual relations, there is no basis to “go out
free” from the marriage. The invalidation of polygamy, therefore, must be read into and superimposed
upon Matthew 19.

Finally, what about Jesus’ pronouncement, “From the beginning it was not so?” Is this not an
endorsement of a basic principle, and since what we see in the beginning is God’s act of giving one
wife to Adam, is not Christ thereby endorsing monogamy as the standard for marriage? This question
has already been sufficiently answered in the introductory article to this work, “In Defense of
Patriarchy.” What we see from the beginning is patriarchy. And patriarchy involves the validity of
polygyny. One cannot reason solely from the basis of an example that the example is fully normative
in all of its aspects for all men. An example occurs in a context and may very well be one form of
manifestation of a more general principle with more than one form of expression. And that is what we
see in Genesis: we see an example of patriarchy in the monogamous marriage of Adam to Eve. And
we see examples of patriarchy in the polygamy of other men in the Bible. The general, universal
principle is patriarchy; both monogamy and polygamy fulfill this mandate.

 

[Mark C]

Yeah, Nathan...I've posted this link before:
(and last time I did I came to realize that there were two versions of the article; same conclusions, but slightly different emphasis.)

http://www.missiontoisrael.org/m-d-remar.php?print=1

The last time this was discussed on this site, the emphasis was on divorce (and the difference between a 'get' or certificate and the "putting away" part). The other thing to note about the longer Matthew citation is the difference in v 11; he "CAUSETH her to commit adultery".

So long as the correct definitions are in place, this one is straightforward:

It's adultery, in this case, because of the fact that by "putting her away" WITHOUT a divorce, the husband is still responsible for her. By so doing, he CAUSES HER to commit adultery when SHE "remarries", because she is NOT properly divorced. The husband is at fault by his failure -- and it has nothing to do with whether HE takes another wife or not!

The claim that it is 'anti-polygyny' is a mis-application.

Here's the original article:

Marriage & Fidelity

"Then Yahweh1 God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.' ...So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And Yahweh God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh....' For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:18-242)

That, of course, is what is known as the story of Adam and Eve. A love story, and I am quite confident that the half of it was not told. How thrilled Adam must have been when he first gazed upon Eve. And oh, how he must have loved her, having been alone, without anyone for some unknown period of time. How thankful he must have been that God's plan for him included marriage, a wife and children. It has been the same for untold numbers of men and women ever since.

In verse 18 of Genesis 2, we are told that God did not consider it good for man to be alone. Consider also the inspired wisdom of Solomon on this same subject:

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from Yahweh." (Proverbs 18:22)

According to these passages marriage is a good thing. It was from the beginning ordained and blessed by God. God used it as a model for His own special relationship with His people Israel. He was married to them, and them to Him. It was also at a marriage ceremony that Yahshua commenced to unveil his divinity by performing His first miracle. All of this demonstrates that the sacrament of marriage was and is held in high esteem by Yahweh. It should be safe to say that the act of marriage is even loved by Yahweh.

With this being true, would it not also be safe to say that the opposite is just as true as well, that is, that God hates divorce? "Of course," many Christians would declare, "after all, that is exactly what Malachi was inspired to write!"

"For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel." (Malachi 2:16)

Is that not correct? No, it is not! Please do not misunderstand me. I did not say that God does not hate divorce. I strongly suspect that He does in most cases. What I did say was, that this is not what Malachi was inspired to write.

Hopefully, I now have your attention so that you will stay with me through the rest of this treatise. I will explain my reason for writing what I just did concerning Malachi 2:16. However, first let me assure you, the reader, that I am not promoting divorce amongst God's people in these articles.

The Tragedy of Divorce

Divorce is tragic and has lasting effects on generations to come, at least when children are involved. In most instances it leaves deep, often permanent scars on one or both divorcees, sometimes even resulting in suicide and/or murder. Yet even with that, probably the most grievous aspect about divorce is the impact that it has on the children. One study conducted on the effects of divorce on children, after studying 131 children under thirteen years of age whose parents were divorced, reported that the "…most pervasive fact to emerge from the study was the enormity of the grief all the children studied felt over their parents' divorce. They were sad beyond measure." After reading this, one can not help but think of Yahshua's words as recorded by Matthew:

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!" (Matthew 18:6-7)

A six year old that I was personally acquainted with was helping his mother make cookies. He was using a cookie cutter and after producing a heart-shaped piece of dough he declared, "Our family has a lot of this!" He then tore the heart shaped piece of dough in half and said, "This is what happens to hearts when people are divorced!" It would seem that he spoke more truth than his young mind could even comprehend. Or, possibly he understood it better than the hardened and callused minds of most adults.

As harmful as it is on the immediate children of divorcees, let us not forget that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations (Deuteronomy 5:9-10). In other words, in many cases it becomes a perpetual cycle unless one generation finally breaks the cycle.

What about the grandparents? Seldom are they considered, yet they are victims of divorce as well. When couples divorce they not only divorce themselves, but in many cases they also divorce the grandparents from their grandchildren. Often one of the divorcees remarries and moves away with the children. In some cases, the genetic grandparents on one side are told that their grandchildren now have new grandparents and that it would be best if they did not confuse matters and are then asked to stay out of the lives of their grandchildren. The grandchildren lose, and one of the most important influences in their lives is sacrificed on the altar of divorce. Divorce is almost always a losing proposition for everyone involved, except of course, for the divorce lawyers who promote divorce for their own financial gain.

Every couple before deciding to be wed should understand that "Getting married is like buying a phonograph record. You buy it for what is on one side, but you have to take the flip side as well. Divorce is like getting the hole in the middle."

The answer to divorce, simply put, is marriage! Yahweh's design is for man to "cleave to his wife." Far too many people look upon marriage as being an event, when in actuality the wedding is the event; marriage is a lifetime accomplishment. Nevertheless, does all of this mean that God does not permit divorce under any circumstances?

Scriptural Divorce

Yahshua declared that it had been God's design from the beginning that husbands and wives should remain together (Matthew 19:4-8). Does this then mean that God hates divorce? Does the Bible say that He does? No, it does not. However, as was stated previously, I strongly suspect that God does hate divorce since, almost without exception, divorce brings grief, heartache and havoc upon everyone it comes in contact with. Yet, on the other hand, Yahweh did provide for divorce:

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.... (Deuteronomy 24:1)

According to God's Law divorce was an option, but, for what reasons was it allowed? This may shock a lot of evangelical Christians, nevertheless we are told that a husband may divorce his wife if she "finds no favor in his eyes" and if he finds "some indecency in her." Yet, when we come to the New Covenant era, many modern preachers and commentators insist that Yahshua changed the law on divorce. Whereas Moses wrote that a man can divorce his wife for any just cause, in the gospels Yahshua appears to limit divorce to only cases of adultery. At least that is what many are led to believe from reading most modern commentaries, as well as from reading several New Testament passages in some of the newer translations.

Although many Christians have taken this position on divorce, I doubt whether they really understand what doing so implies. If their theology is correct, then Yahshua would have been a sinner, or at the very least promoting sin. In order for Yahshua to have been our perfect sinless sacrifice He had to fully keep and accurately teach the Old Covenant Law. The Apostle John declared, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4). Thus, had Yahshua broken or changed the law, He would have been guilty of sin and thus could not have been our Savior.

Even if Yahshua had changed God's moral law under the New Covenant dispensation, as some Christians claim, His dissertations on divorce in the Gospels were given during the Old Covenant dispensation. Additionally, Yahshua Himself declared, "…Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).

Whatever the law on divorce was in Deuteronomy 24, not the smallest letter or stroke of it was changed by Yahshua. Therefore, we can safely conclude that something is wrong with the theology usually advanced regarding divorce.

The erroneous interpretation of Yahshua's instructions can be traced to two modern mistakes. This error is first made because most of today's preachers and commentators believe that Yahweh's Old Covenant laws have been abolished and replaced, thus they seldom consult them. Secondly, mistaken conclusions on this subject are derived from translation errors in most modern English versions of the Bible.

Divorce & Remarriage

My purpose in the remainder of this treatise is to clear up the mistaken notions held by many Christians regarding divorce and remarriage. Let us begin by going back to Yahweh's law concerning divorce. In Deuteronomy 24 we find that the divorce process can be broken down into three parts: (1) The husband must write out a certificate of divorce, (2) he must deliver it himself to his wife, and (3) he must then send her away. It takes all three integral parts in order for the divorce to be lawful, and to be recognized by God. A husband was not allowed to simply send his wife out into the streets. He was to formally divorce her through the aforesaid process. She was to be given a certificate of divorce, that is, a breaking of the lawful contract of marriage with a lawful contract of divorce. In other words, she was to be provided with proof that she was a lawfully divorced woman.

This is more serious than probably it first appears. Without this lawful document, and if a woman was to "remarry" or attach herself to another man, she and the one whom she "remarried" would have been considered adulterers, and that was a stoning offense!

In this light, the writ of divorcement was intended to be a letter of protection for the woman, more than a letter of permission for the man.

"Divorce" & "Put Away"

In addition, the two terms "divorce" and "sends her out" (also translated as "put away" and "send away") should also be considered. It is extremely important to understand that nowhere in the Scriptures are these two terms used interchangeably. The Hebrew word for "divorce" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is found in only two other locations: Isaiah 50:1, describing Yahweh's future divorce of the House of Judah, and Jeremiah 3:8, regarding Yahweh's previous divorce of the House of Israel.

Deuteronomy 24, Isaiah 50 and Jeremiah 3 are the only three instances where the Hebrew word for "divorce" can be found in the Old Testament. That is right; this is not the word used in Malachi 2:16 as would be expected if God were saying that He hated divorce in that passage.

The Hebrew word translated "divorce" is a very specific term, and in all three instances it is used in conjunction with the term "bill," "writ," or "certificate." On the other hand the Hebrew word translated "sent out" or "put away" is a very common term and is used nearly a thousand times in the Old Testament.

Malachi 2

There is no interchangeability between these two Hebrew words. One could not be divorced without being put away. However, one could be put away without being divorced. It is this latter condition that was addressed by the Prophet Malachi:

...you cover the altar of Yahweh with tears ... because He [Yahweh] no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because Yahweh has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. (Malachi 2:13-14)

Note that the women spoken of in this situation were still considered as being wives by covenant or contract with their husbands, that is, they had never been lawfully divorced.

...Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. For I hate divorce, says Yahweh, the God of Israel.... (Malachi 2:15-16 -- New American Standard Bible)

Is that how God intended this verse to be translated? No it is not. Had He intended this, He would have inspired Malachi to use the same Hebrew word translated as "divorce" in the twenty-fourth chapter of Deuteronomy. Instead, He inspired Malachi to use the same Hebrew word translated as "sends her out" or "put away" in Deuteronomy 24.

The King James Version translated Malachi 2:16 correctly:

For Yahweh, the God of Israel saith that He hateth [the] putting away....

In other words, the treachery committed by these men was not in divorcing their wives, but rather in that they were putting their wives away without a certificate of divorce. In their vindictiveness, they were putting their wives in a horrible no win predicament. If the wives had "remarried" or had attached themselves to another man, they would have been subject to stoning for adultery since without a certificate of divorce they were still lawfully married to their first husband. If they would not commit adultery then these women were left to fend for themselves which was nearly impossible under the conditions of that time.

Consequently, one can perceive the treachery in what these men were doing, and consequently understand why God would hate it. You can also visualize the hardness of some men's hearts and then understand why Yahweh would provide for divorce (Mark 10:2-5). On the other hand, if divorce itself is treachery then even God promoted it by allowing for it and even making provisions for it in Deuteronomy 24. Additionally, God would be guilty of treachery Himself since He divorced His wife, Israel.

New Testament Divorce & Remarriage

As can be seen, much has been misunderstood about this subject, resulting in much injury and unnecessary guilt being laid upon the backs of divorcees. This has occurred because much of modern Christendom has rejected Yahweh's perfect law and because of the mistranslation of some key words pertaining to this subject.

The same has happened with the New Testament Scriptures. God is not the author of confusion, thus He cannot be blamed for the turmoil over this subject. Rather, man is to be blamed for it. The devastation of divorce is undeniable, however under certain conditions both divorce and remarriage were permitted according to God's Law as provided to us in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Taking then what we have already learned from the Old Testament let us now see if we can not make sense of Yahshua's statements in the New Testament on this important subject.

The two Hebrew words translated "divorce" and "sent out" or "put away" in Deuteronomy 24 mean two different things and are not interchangeable. The same is true with the corresponding New Testament Greek words. The Greek word for "put away" is apoluo, whereas the Greek word for "divorce" is apostasion. With this knowledge, let us examine Yahshua's instructions on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5:

And it was said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of dismissal"; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32-32 NASV)

Have the translators of the New American Standard Version conveyed accurately God's will on this matter? Hardly! Contrast the New American Standard Version's rendition of this passage with the King James Version's rendition:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement [apostasion]....

Yahshua was simply quoting Deuteronomy 24:1 which declares that it is not permissible for someone to put away his wife without giving her a certificate of divorce. Verse 32 in the King James Version continues:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [apoluo] committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32-33 KJV)

The King James Version is nearly flawless. Had the King James translators rendered the last apoluo as "put away" it would have been perfect. If God had wanted this last phrase to have read "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," He would have inspired Matthew to have used the word apostasion. Instead it should have been rendered, "whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery."

If, in verses 32 and 33, Yahshua had said what the New American Standard and King James' translators wrote, Yahshua would have been guilty of heresy for having changed God's Law. Earlier in Matthew 5, Yahshua Himself declared:

Think not that I [Yahshua] am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.... (Matthew 5:17-19)

Are we to believe that Yahshua is "least in the kingdom of heaven"? We have no choice but to admit that He is if the translators of the New American Standard and King James versions are correct.

The first phrase of verse 32 in the New American Standard reads: "...everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery...." In God's law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) divorce is not limited to just cases of unchastity. If the New American Standard is correct then Yahshua is at variance with Yahweh's morality as communicated to us in His laws.

In the latter part of verse 32, both the New American Standard and King James translators have Yahshua declaring that "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Yet God's law (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) allowed for a properly divorced woman to remarry. On the other hand, when verse 32 is translated correctly we find that Yahshua is in perfect harmony with the Law as one would expect Him to be. He was simply saying that any man who only puts away his wife, that is, without a writ of divorcement (a lawful breaking of the marriage contract with a lawful divorce contract) causes his wife to commit adultery if she "remarries." And the one who "marries" a woman only put away but not lawfully divorced commits adultery as well since by contract she would still be the wife of another man.

The Exception Clause

With the foregoing understood, someone is sure to inquire, "What about the exception clause in Matthew 5:32?" The New American Standard Bible renders it:

"…except for the cause of unchastity…."

The King James Version renders it much better:

"…saving for the cause of fornication…."

The word "fornication" is translated from the Greek word porneia. What constitutes porneia or fornication? Rather than speculating let us allow the Bible to answer that question for us. Following is a list of acts described by the Greek word "porneia":

* Incest -- 1 Corinthians 5:1
* Harlotry or Prostitution -- 1 Corinthians 6:13-18, 10:8
* Forbidden Lineage and/or Interracial Relationships -- Hebrews 12:15-16 3
* Homosexuality -- Jude 7

Those four acts of immorality are all identified in the New Testament as being cases of porneia or fornication. Although not specifically identified as such in the New Testament there are other immoral acts that should also be viewed as fornication:

* Bestiality -- Leviticus 20:15-16
* Remarrying a Divorced Wife a Second Time After She Married Again and was Divorced from Her Second Husband -- Deuteronomy 24:1-4
* Marrying an Unlawfully Divorced Woman -- Matthew 5:32

The foregoing acts should all be identified as fornication because porneia is simply unlawful sexual relationships. So what do these acts have to do with what Yahshua declared in Matthew 5:31-32?

Yahshua in Concert with Yahweh's Laws

It must be remembered that in Matthew 5 Yahshua was not condemning divorce, but rather the putting away of a wife without a bill of divorcement. Following is Matthew 5:31-32 as it should have been translated, including what can now be understood as being acts of fornication:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement [apostasion]: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [apoluo] his wife [without a writing of divorcement], saving for the cause of fornication [incest, prostitution, forbidden lineage and/or interracial relationships, homosexuality, etc.], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is put away [apoluo, without a writing of divorcement] committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)

In other words, a man is not permitted to put away his mate without a certificate of divorce unless it is an incestuous relationship, or one with a prostitute, or a forbidden lineage or interracial relationship, or one with someone of the same sex, or one with an animal, or one with a wife previously divorced and divorced a second time, or one with a woman unlawfully divorced.

Note, I identified these as relationships not marriages since in God's eyes none of these relationships constitute a lawful marriage. That is why a man could put away these partners without having to provide them with a certificate of divorce. In these cases, a bill of divorcement was not required since (from God's perspective) there was no lawful marriage contract that required annulment with a divorce certificate. These kinds of relationships only required repentance and the putting away of the unlawful partner.

In Ezra 10:1-9 God provided us with a Biblical example of such a separation. Nowhere in this passage is a certificate of divorce required for the Israelites to "separate [put away] ... their strange wives." The following passage from the book of Ezra provides us with the reason why a writ of divorcement was unnecessary:

...The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands ... even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands.... (Ezra 9:1-2)

All of the nations cited in that passage with whom the Israelites had intermingled were descended either from Canaanites, Moabites or Ammonites; all of which were lineages that Yahweh had forbid Israel to intermarry. Thus they were unlawful unions, and therefore acts of fornication. Hence, in that particular instance, they were not required to present them with a certificate of divorce. They were only required to repent of their sins and put away their foreign wives.

This is the correct interpretation of the exception clause. It validates God's Law and Yahshua's confirmation of the same. Anything else puts Yahshua in conflict with the Law and morality of Yahweh. Instead of being at variance with God's Law, Yahshua was simply expounding upon the same. In so doing, He confirmed that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was the standard for divorce and remarriage except in cases of fornication.

Clarity

It is to be hoped that this thesis has cleared up what has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by many in modern Christendom. Hopefully this study will aid in removing unnecessary guilt from those who have been lawfully divorced and who have remarried. God's Law does not promote divorce, but it does permit it.

Once again, I am not promoting divorce either, but simply wanting to put it in its proper Scriptural perspective. I am also hoping to relieve the pseudo guilt that some have carried on their shoulders for far too long. Divorce should always be the last resort, the solution only when all else fails and reconciliation is absolutely impossible. Divorce is seldom, if ever, a positive good but usually just the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, in light of God's Law and Yahshua's validation of the same, divorce and remarriage can no longer be entirely denounced.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with the relevant conclusions of both articles regarding polygyny, but I have noticed a tendency to try to create an artificial distinction between our modern concept of "divorce" and the Hebrew terms "garash" or "shalach", presumably to explain away unlawful divorcement as only referring to a lack of a certificate of divorcement.

"Divorce" (H7971) and "Put or send away" (H7971) are not the same thing."

...because of the fact that by "putting her away" (H7971) WITHOUT a divorce (H7971)..."

I am convinced that if every time we used the word "divorce", we were required to reference the exact Hebrew or Greek word we are speaking of, this confusion would quickly fade away. Comments such as these come across as gibberish because there really is no such word as "divorce" anywhere in Scripture. The most accurate English term is "put away" or "sent away", whether originating from Hebrew (shalach and garash) or from Greek (apoluo and apostasion). We cannot reverse-engineer "divorce" back into the original text to change its meaning. The only terms we need be concerned with are the original Hebrew and Greek words used, whether we choose to translate them into English as "put away" or "divorce".

I am presently working on a detailed essay to address this specific issue and will link the final result when completed, but suffice to say for now, irrespective of any "certificate of divorcement", a "put away" wife is just as much "put away" with or without any certificate. The exact same Hebrew term is used of the woman in both cases.

Love in Him,
David