What The Bible Says Ministry

Divorce And Re-Marriage

"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 ca

 

"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," (Mt.5:31-32).

 

"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," (Mt.19:3-9).

 

It's obvious that the majority of the world disregards the sacredness of marriage and devalues the societal stability of the sound Biblical family unit. With the Hollywood-glamorization of unfettered adultery, homosexuality, open marriages and multiple partners, this is an evil which preys upon the very foundation of our survival as a nation. Very few, if any of us, who are members of the New Testament church of Christ would question the fact that the institution of marriage, by God's design, is one man and one woman joined together by the Almighty for life. My desire in this work is not to comprehensively address every verse which relates to marriage, but rather to consider the schism which exists within the body of Christ on the issue of divorce and re-marriage. Initially I must insist that if man didn't "put asunder" what God has "joined together," there would be no division on this topic and the "exception" mentioned by Jesus would be irrelevant. Malachi says, "...the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant," (Mal. 2:14), and Solomon, in referring to the adulterous woman who has forsaken the husband of her youth, said she, "...forgetteth the covenant of her God," (Prov. 2:17). Marriage is an avowed covenant between the man, the woman, and God! Unfortunately, man has been universally uncooperative with God's commands throughout the eons of time, but through God's longsuffering and love for His creation, He has always provided guidance to those who humbly obey His voice.

 

The texts above have been the root of much division within the body of Christ through the years. As with many things we can think about, God's original design was perfect, however, when man is interjected into the equation, His plan is held in contempt due to man's unwillingness to abide by God's purpose. God created man, placed him in the garden to, "...dress it and to keep it," (Gen.2:15), and told him he could eat of all the trees, except one, and that really was just how simple it was. Likewise, marriage is just as simple: one man and one woman, for life! Only when one spouse decides to renege on the wedding vow does trouble arise, and man begins to seek justification for the problem he has just created. Do the passages above teach that the innocent spouse can divorce the unfaithful partner for sexual infidelity and remarry, or do the scriptures teach that death is the only circumstance which separates husband and wife?

 

Basically, the opposing viewpoints are:

 

#1) since these words were spoken during the Old Testament dispensation, that Jesus is merely elaborating on the law of Moses (LOM), and therefore the "exception" He states in these two passages (that divorce is only permissible based on the grounds of fornication) does not apply under Christ's New Testament law since the LOM, as it is argued, was abolished at the cross (Col.2:14), and thus death is the only justified separation of husband and wife which would allow a second marriage;

 

#2) Jesus was teaching His followers that according to God's original design of the marriage institution, prior to the LOM, divorce and re-marriage would be permissible for only one cause, i.e., illicit sexual intercourse, which would continue under the gospel dispensation.

 

Our Lord's words in the texts above, as in every place throughout the gospels, must be taken in context. Those whom I have discussed this first point of view with don't consider Matthew—John to be part of the New Testament; but rather, they consider them to be of historical merit, believing the New Testament, or gospel age began after the cross. In one discussion it was said to me, "While it is true that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were supposedly written after the start of the church, sometime in the 1st Century...if we assume or accept that such is true, such a fact does not preclude their writings as historical. In other words, as we study the historical context of those writings, the time of their actually being penned does not prove which covenant they have reference to."

 

It is true that when Jesus spoke these words, the LOM was still in effect, however, there is a serious flaw in hermeneutics when someone disregards the fact that Jesus was preaching the gospel during this time of His personal ministry. It must be remembered that John and Jesus came preaching, repent for the kingdom is at hand; it must be acknowledged that, "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it," (Lk.16:16); and on the mountain of transfiguration, when Peter wanted to make a tabernacle for Moses, God spoke from heaven and said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him," (Mt. 17:5). While the multitudes of the Jews, Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., to whom Jesus spoke were living under the Old Testament dispensation of time, yet they were commanded to repent and to be baptized for the remission of their sins, a command not found in the LOM, but spoken to the same people, and in the same settings and context as Mt.5:32 & 19:9, which leaves no legitimate reason to exclude these two passages from the New Testament gospel. Let's consider what the Bible says of this period of time preceding Christ's crucifixion.

 

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," (Mt. 5:3).

 

The opening statement of our Lord's sermon on the mount reveals His teaching pertained to the gospel of the kingdom of heaven, which is unquestionably corroborated when one will look at the surrounding context, of what precedes this passage, as well as what follows.

 

Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"

 

"Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;" (Mt. 4:12). Let's allow this verse to represent all the preaching of John that they were to repent of their sins and be baptized, because the kingdom was at hand. "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Mt. 4:17). "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel," (Mk. 1:14-15).

 

The following passages reveal events which also occurred prior to the sermon on the mount:

 

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears," (Lk. 4:16-21).

 

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (Jn.3: 3-5).

 

Our Lord makes it clear in His own words that His mission, prophetically appointed by the Father, was to preach the gospel.

"And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent," (Lk. 4:43).

 

"And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this?" (Mk. 1:27).

The above sample of scriptures should establish incontrovertibly that the purpose of Jesus' coming, not only was the confirm the promises made to old covenant Israel (Rom.15:8), but also was to preach the gospel of the approaching kingdom. Then as we come to His sermon on the mount, we see this same theme continuing.

 

"And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:" (Mt. 5:1).

 

The "multitudes" here were comprised of those people who had already been made disciples through the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:4), at the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus with His 12 disciples (Jn. 3:22-24; 4:1-2), and these multitudes were following Him to hear His preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven.

 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, 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: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven," (Mt. 5:17-20).

 

Jesus makes it plain here that His coming was not for the purpose of destroying the LOM, but that the time was at hand for the law and prophesy to be fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah to redeem Israel from her sins. They considered Him a Divine teacher who was teaching them heavenly things and of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. What would be the rationale in making the statement (Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil) if what He was teaching wasn't a new and different message, i.e., the gospel of the new covenant wherein sins would be remembered no more (Heb.8:7ff)? Jesus' teaching did not destroy nor change the LOM. He was proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of which he later said that the Comforter would be sent to the apostles to bring all these things He had spoken, to their remembrance: if Jesus was not preaching something, during His ministry, which differed from the LOM, what then would the Holy Spirit bring to their remembrance after the cross? Notice here in His own words that the gospel that would be preached after the cross was the same gospel Jesus was preaching here in His sermon on the mount, and during His personal ministry.

 

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come," (Mt. 24:14).

 

Just prior to His crucifixion, Jesus told the apostles, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you," (Jn. 14:26), then after His resurrection, He commissioned them and said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," (Mt. 28:19-20).

 

I see no great difficulty in comprehending that the things which would be brought back into the minds of the apostles by the Holy Ghost at Pentecost and beyond, was His preaching of the gospel in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecyduring His personal ministry, recorded in Matthew—John. The idea that the events and teachings of this period of time are merely of historic value, and not part of the new covenant of Christ is refuted by an unbiased consideration of what the Bible says.

 

"And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people," (Mt. 9:35).

 

"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Mt. 10:7).

 

"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where," (Lk. 9:6).

 

"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John," (Mt. 11:12-13).

 

"And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel…" (Lk. 20:1).

 

Even though He lived under the LOM and taught people to abide by that law, the time had arrived to usher in the new covenant, but it would take time to adjust the minds of the people to accept this "new doctrine" (Mk. 1:27), this gospel of the kingdom of God, especially with the eventual inclusion of the Gentiles, and Jesus accomplished this by preaching the gospel Himself, teaching His apostles, and sending them, as well as the 70 out to preach this gospel. How did they preach this gospel other than from the Old Testament scriptures, and by the teachings of Jesus? Then later, Peter preached from Psalms and Joel on the day of Pentecost; from Moses in Acts 3; Philip preached the gospel from Isaiah to the eunuch in Acts 8, but this gospel had to be introduced to the people by Jesus during His personal ministry.

 

Consider the following passages and notice a truth which emerges when these passages, with their surrounding contexts, are harmonized in a side-by-side comparison:

 

Matthew 19

Matthew 5

Luke 16

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 away doth commit adultery.

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.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 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: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 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.

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

 

Notice that Lk. 16:17, was spoken at a later time than Mt. 5:17-19, but both are in the context of proclaiming the gospel of the approaching kingdom! One of the criticisms laid against those who believe the unfaithful spouse can be put away, allowing the innocent spouse to remarry is that this interpretation of Jesus' statements in Matthew accuses Him of contradicting the LOM. Jesus did not contradict nor change the LOM, however, He did come preaching the gospel, and preparing the people to receive the new covenant, which obviously differed from the LOM. Under the Patriarchal age, incest in many of the forms later prohibited, was not considered to be wrong. Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed, (Exodus 6:20); Abraham’s nephew Lot begat two sons by his own daughters while in a drunken stupor (Genesis 19:30-35). During the Patriarchal period, there were familial marriages that do not appear to have been condemned by Jehovah, but which were later prohibited under the LOM. Just as the Ten Commandment law was different than the Patriarchal Law, the New Testament law would be different to the LOM, but that in no stretch of the imagination means that God contradicted Himself.

 

Since John, Jesus, the apostles, and the 70 had gone out preaching the kingdom of heaven and baptizing for the remission of sins, a new doctrine which was different to the LOM, had this multitude of His disciples violated or contradicted any part of the LOM by being obedient to this new doctrine? The powers that be decided to pass a new safety law which would require all drivers to wear a seatbelt in any vehicle (except buses). This law went into effect first in New York on 12-01-84. I wore my seatbelt before this new law came into effect and was not in violation of any existing law by doing so! Could Christ's audiences comply with His preaching of the gospel and at the same time NOT violate any of the existing laws of Torah?

 

If I being a Jew, am about to divorce my wife, but I love God and want to follow him, and Jesus says, yes, Moses suffered this (divorce if the husband no longer finds favor in her) because of the hardness of your hearts, but that has not been God's will from the beginning, what am I going to want to do? Would I proceed with the divorce because the Law allows it, in spite of God's original purpose, or would I do what God truly wants? Wouldn't you want to follow God's real intent (not to divorce), especially since you could do so and not be in violation of the LOM by staying married?

 

Jesus said, …"from the beginning it was not so" in response to the question, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" When you think about "how" He answered this question, it becomes obvious that it was this precept (written by Moses in an attempt to diminish an evil practice which he could not abolish), that contravened God's original intention: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come" (Gal 3:19), so when the Author of the LOM came, He had the authority to supplant this precept which tolerated divorce for something less (some uncleanness) than sexual transgression, which apparently was only allowed during the Mosaic dispensation of time, because the phrase, "since the beginning it was not so" would imply that it was not that way under the Patriarchal age.

 

Mt. 5:32 & 19:9 cannot be mere elaborations of Deut. 24:1-4, based on the following evidence:

 

1) If a man took a wife and then discovered she was not a virgin, she, being guilty of pre-marital sex, was put to death, (Deut. 22:13,14,20,21);

2) If a man's wife committed adultery, the wife (and her accomplice), guilty of extra-marital sex, was put to death, (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22);

3) If a man raped a virgin (not espoused), he had to pay the maiden's father 50 shekels of silver and take the maiden for his wife and could not divorce her "ALL HIS DAYS," (Deut. 22:28-29);

4) If a man suspected his wife of adultery, she was taken before the priest and given the water of jealousy, (Num. 5:11-31) which resulted in her acquittal for innocence, or her death for guilt;

5) If a man falsely accused his new bride of pre-marital sex, he was chastised, fined 100 shekels and he could not put her away "ALL HIS DAYS," (Deut. 22:13-19).

 

When you consider that these 5 specific laws covered all forms sexual transgression, there was no provision made in the LOM for a husband to divorce his wife for pre-marital sex nor post-marital infidelity, for both transgressions were punished by death. This fact proves that, "some uncleanness" (for which the wife was given a bill of divorcement and sent out of the house), must refer to something other than a sexual sin, for that offense brought death. This begs the question then, "Under Christ's new covenant, what is to be done with an unfaithful spouse since the death penalty was rescinded at the cross?" Notice the following incident which occurred during our Lord's ministry of preaching the gospel:

 

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more," (Jn.8:3-11).

 

Why was the commandment from the LOM not carried out in this instance? By what was written in the law, He actually did tell them to stone her, but in His wisdom, he suggested that the one who was sinless should cast the first stone. "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them," (Lk. 9:56). Jesus, in proclaiming the gospel, was preaching repentance from sin, and commanded her to not continue in sin. Could this woman return to the man she was sleeping with? I am somewhat confident that we will all agree that repentance required her to not commit adultery any more, so why would it be difficult for us to discern that as baptism for the remission of sins first requires repentance of sins, likewise an unlawful marriage requires repentance of the adulterous relationship in order for baptism to be efficacious. Baptism is for the remission of sins, not the remission of an unlawful marriage. John told Herod that his marriage to his sister-in-law was not lawful (Mt. 14:4), so could Herod and Herodias have continued on in their marriage had they been baptized of John? During the time of Ezra the men of Israel had taken wives of the pagan nations which God had explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 7:1-4, and they were told, "...Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives," (Ezra 10:10-11). These men were required to put away the wives of their unlawful marriages in addition to making confession to the LORD.

 

Mt.19:1-12 and Mk.10:1-12 record the same event as witnessed by two individuals, therefore they must be harmonized.

 

Matthew 19

Mark 10

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

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 away doth commit adultery.

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.

1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

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.

 

 

As we see here, Mark's record reveals that Jesus also said, "…And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." This shows us that Jesus was not merely explaining Deut. 24:1-4, because the LOM made NO provision for a woman to put away her husband! The fact that Jewish women could not divorce their husbands proves beyond question that Jesus was teaching God's universal law (not the Jewish law) on this subject.  Josephus says, "...Salome...sent him a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but with the wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away," (emphasis added). When you harmonize the two versions of the same conversation, the woman could put away her husband for fornication. This is another proof that "fornication" in this context cannot refer solely to pre-marital sex, because it would be impossible to prove the man's guilt!

 

Again, since it can't be denied that this is the same incident and conversation, when you harmonize Matthew's record of Jesus saying, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication..." with Mark's record of Jesus saying, "…And if a woman shall put away her husband...," then, "except it be for fornication" is also implied as grounds for the wife divorcing her husband. The fact that the "exception" is not mentioned in Mk. 10:11-12 & Lk. 16:18 gives us no authority to remove it from Mt. 5:32 & 19:9, however, proper hermeneutics demands that because it is stated in Mt. 5:32 & 19:9, it also applies in the parallel passages of Mk. 10:11-12 & Lk. 16:18! Since the practice of the wife divorcing her husband was not allowed by Jewish law, this proves to the unbiased mind that Jesus was teaching God's universal marriage law which allows divorce and remarriage for one cause, i.e., unlawful sexual intercourse.

 

One unusual interpretation of Mt. 5:32 is, "Whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to commit adultery unless he is putting her away because she has committed fornication and in such a case he will not cause her to commit adultery because she will be stoned to death." Let's see how this interpretation aligns with what Jesus said:

 

INTERPRETATION

MATTHEW 5:32

Whosoever shall put away his wife

Whosoever shall put away his wife

unless he is putting her away because she has committed fornication

saving for the cause of fornication

causeth her to commit adultery

causeth her to commit adultery

and in such a case he will not cause her to commit adultery because she will be stoned to death

and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery

[how can someone marry her after she is stoned to death?]

 

The fallacy of this interpretation should be patently obvious in that it denies plausibility! The fact that Jesus said, "whosoever shall put away his wife...causeth her to commit adultery..." necessitates the possibility of her committing adultery. Now, since we observed above in the 1st & 2nd of the 5 specific laws, that under the LOM both pre-marital sex (fornication) and extra-marital sex (adultery) invoked the death penalty, and Moses suffered the husband to divorce the wife, giving her a writing of divorcement which allowed her to re-marry without being considered an adulteress, how could she possibly commit adultery after being divorced? When the high priests were looking for a wife, they were not permitted to take, "...a divorced woman..." (Lev. 21:14), which from the laws we've just considered would indicate a woman that was put away for something less than fornication or adultery. If Jesus meant the husband, "...will not cause her to commit adultery because she will be stoned to death," why would He proceed to say, "...and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery,"?? If she was put to death, it would be impossible for her to be involved in adultery! Again, if the wife is put to death, the husband would be loosed from the marriage bond, thereby eliminating all possibility of the husband committing adultery, but yet Jesus says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery," (Mt. 19:9 & Lk. 16:17).

 

The unavoidable conclusion is that our Lord's teaching is outside the purview of the LOM since the death penalty obviously is not under consideration, therefore, all efforts should be made to find the truth of these texts. One such truth is only found in Mk. 10:11: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her," i.e., if the husband divorces his wife and remarries, he commits adultery "against his wife," because the husband is still joined to his wife, by God, except in a instance where the wife had illicit sexual intercourse with another person.

 

Mt. 19:9 "Whosoever shall put away his wife...and shall marry another, committeth adultery [against his wife]: except it be for fornication."

 

Lk. 16:17 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery [against his wife, except in a instance where the wife had illicit sexual intercourse with another person].

 

Mt. 5:32 "Whosoever shall put away his wife...causeth her to commit adultery [against her husband], saving for the cause of fornication."

 

The common thread through all of these passages is, "...and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

 

Paul said, "Art thou bound [married] unto a wife? seek not to be loosed [divorced]. Art thou loosed [divorced] from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned," (1 Cor. 7:27-28). To the unbiased and objective mind, this can only be interpreted one way, i.e., what Jesus taught in Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12 and Lk. 16:18 is exemplified here as Paul says a divorced man does not sin if he marries.

 

A second major flaw in this line of thought stems from a disparity and misapplication of the terms "fornication" and "adultery" as defined from the original language in which the apostles penned these words.

Adultery – μοιχάω"to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with," (Thayer).

Fornication – πορνεία – "1) illicit sexual intercourse; 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.; 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18; 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar. 10:11-12; 2) metaphorically the worship of idols; 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols," (Thayer).

 

(For a complete list of the word-families of these two terms, click here)

 

From the definition of the Greek language, adultery is a specific act occurring when a married person has illicit intercourse with someone one other than their spouse, while fornication is a much broader term: as the term "vehicle" could be used to describe a bicycle, car, truck, train, airplane, boat, etc., fornication refers to and includes all forms of sexual immorality, such as incest, homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and includes adultery. Notice how the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to describe the following incident:

 

"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife," (1 Cor. 5:1).

 

Observe here the fact that she was a "wife" which suggests she was currently married: from her perspective this affair would constitute "adultery," while being with her step-son simultaneously made this relationship "incest," but Paul described this situation as "fornication."

 

After giving quite an unmistakable description of homosexuality, Paul said, "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication..." (Rom.1:29).

 

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication..." (Jude 1:7).

 

From these examples, it is irrefutable that homosexuality/lesbianism, incest and adultery are all classified as "fornication." This confutes the idea that because Jesus said, "saving for the cause of fornication," He can only be referring to "pre-marital sex," thereby specifying which definition of the term is intended, i.e., because Jesus did not say, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for adultery..." meaning that after a woman becomes a wife, any sexual immorality would be considered "adultery" rather than "fornication," therefore His usage of the term fornication could only be referring to pre-marital sex, thus establishing death as the only viable separation of husband and wife. This line of thought simply doesn't work because, 1) had Jesus said, "except it be for adultery..." then all other forms of fornication not being defined as adultery, would be acceptable, as long as they preceded marriage; 2) this interpretation ignores the fact that the term fornication includes adultery and thereby condemns all forms of illicit sexual contact both before and after marriage, 3) it ignores the colossal fact that the LOM made no provisions for divorce based on sexual misconduct! This is WHY the "exception" our Lord states here cannot be connected to the LOM in any way. This is WHY divorce and remarriage is permissible, only on the grounds of sexual infidelity, because that is the only sinful act which breaks the divine bond.

 

Though used figuratively, please notice how Jesus uses both terms interchangeably: "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds," (Rev. 2:20-22).

 

Now, let's look at Matthew 19:

 
In verse 3, The Pharisees approach Jesus and ask, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.”  Interestingly, He did not say, "Yes," or "No," but He responded with, "Have ye not read…" 
a statement in which He set Himself in opposition to them every time He said it (Mt.12:3&5; 33:31; 21:16; Mk.2:25; 12:10&26; Lk.6:3).  Notice He does not go to the LOM to prove His statement, but back 
to God's original institution from the beginning, i.e., one man and one woman, joined for life, thereby skillfully avoiding their snare.  Further evidence that He was not explaining Deut. 24:1-4 is seen in verse 
7, when the Pharisees turn to the LOM by saying, " Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"  If He was in agreement with, or explaining the LOM, why did 
they turn to the LOM to counter His response?
 

Jesus replied in verse 8, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives…" Moses allowed that which was not God's original intent, "…but from the beginning it was not so." The conjunction "BUT" shows that God's original design of marriage differed with what Moses allowed. What Moses allowed was in opposition to God's universal law from the beginning, as was polygamy which was not considered adultery under the LOM, but is forbidden under the gospel (1 Cor.7:2).

 

In verse 9, harmonized with Mk.10:12, Jesus reinstates God's original law: anyone who divorces their spouse and remarries commits adultery! One man, one woman, a lifetime contract with only one exception, i.e., infidelity; was that what Moses allowed? No, all sexual sin was considered heinous and punishable by death, and Moses allowed divorce (for some uncleanness), and remarriage without adultery being the consequence under an imperfect law that was designed to be temporary (a schoolmaster, Gal. 3:24), and replaced with the perfect law of liberty when the promised Seed came. Verse 10 says, "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." If He was in complete agreement with, or merely elaborating on the LOM, why do the disciples seem so stunned?

 

It is my sincere desire in this work to call upon all to study this subject with an honest and good heart, with the goal of attaining a more unified body of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To consider a discussion of this subject between brother Tim Eldridge and myself, click here.