God is the same yesterday, today and forever. - Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8. I am sure most of you have heard this phrase, however, have you fully realized its meaning? I believe a lot of the confusion with Jesus' teaching today is because many people do not correlate Jesus' teaching with God's original commands in the Old Testament.
While doing research for this article, I noticed that many articles written online defending various viewpoints on the divorce topic, generally use only the New Testament, in conjunction with English dictionaries to prove their point. However, such a method is dangerous and can easily lead to error, because: 1. The Bible was not written in English. 2. The Old Testament is required to clarify what the New Testament is saying. So, rather than pulling out an English dictionary and declaring what a word means, you should be looking at the Old Testament and the original manuscripts for clarification. Otherwise, you could be leading yourself and others astray. So, the goal is to have your viewpoint harmonious with every scripture(OT and NT) in the Bible (in the original languages).
Jesus confirms that God changes not, when he said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Matthew 5:17. Consider, Jesus said this right before going through the interpretation of various parts of the Law from the Old Testament. We should take his words literally. What was Jesus refering to when he said that he came to fulfill the Law and the prophets? He is refering to the type and shadows from the Ordinances of the Mosaic Law, particularly sacrifing bulls and lambs, yearly sabbaths and more. This is made clear in Colossians 2:14 - "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;". And, Hebrews 10:1 - "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."
So, seeing Jesus mentions in Matthew 5:17, that he did not come to destroy the law, and then he discusses the law, should we not then assume he is interpreting the Old Testament and correcting false interpretations and misconceptions of his day? So, this alludes to Jesus also using the Old Testament understanding of divorce in the very same chapter, Matthew 5:31-32 - "5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 5:32 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."
At one time, I used to believe that divorce was sin in basically all situations. I previously believed that only in the case of the spouse cheating in betrothal(engagement) can you obtain a divorce. Since then, I have learned that this was just an interpretation, rather than what Christ actually taught.
So, what did Christ teach? Well, as I mentioned above, I don't believe Jesus taught anything new on common morality (such as the 10 Commandments). In other words, I do not believe Jesus changed anything regarding marriage covenant moral structure from the Old Testament to the New Testament. And, my goal is to prove this point here.
So, in this verse above, where Jesus is discussing divorce, what passages from the Old Testament is he illuding to?
He is directly refering to Deuteronomy 24:1 - 4, as he even quoted it partially: "bill of divorcement", by quoting what people in his time were commonly saying, but notice, that they were saying it incorrectly by leaving out the requirement of "uncleaness" as the condition to get a divorce.
kjvdeu24.htm
"24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house."
Now, lets compare Jesus' words with this Old Testament law:
kjvmat5.htm#31
"5:32 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."
Both have a "condition" for a person to be permitted to get a divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1, it says "uncleaness" is the condition. In Matthew 5:32, it says "fornication" is the condition. Could fornication and uncleaness be the same word, or did Jesus teach something new?
Well, interestingly, if you look at the hebrew definition of "uncleaness" you find it means:
|
Orig: from 6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):--nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness). H6168 Grk Strong: G152 G602 G808 G809 G2487 1) nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda
1a) pudenda (implying shameful exposure)
1b) nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour
1c) exposed, undefended (fig.)
|
Now, lets compare this to the greek term "fornication" found in Matthew 5:32:
|
Orig: from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--sexual immorality. G4203 Heb Strong: H2183 H8457 1) illicit(unlawful) sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with an unlawfully divorced man or woman; Mr 10:11,12
2) metaph. the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
2b) any form of idolatry
|
Many Christians do not fully understand what the word "fornication" actually means. They often simply think it means sex before marriage, however, that is not what it means. It actually means "harlotry", "unlawful sexual conduct" and "idolatry" according to the original greek.
Now, you may have ideas on what is "unlawful sexual conduct", however, you can actually look at these passages here to know exactly what God considers as unlawful sexual conduct: Leviticus 18:5-23. This is what I was refering to at the beginning of this article. To know a definition of a word like "fornication" in the English New Testament, do not consult a regular dictionary. Rather, consult the Old Testament and the original manuscripts. Otherwise, you could have error and be leading others into error on various doctrines, ideas, etc. Also, consider the fact anyone can construe the word to mean anything, using the dictionary route.
Again, look at both definitions above and notice the similarities. Did you notice how the hebrew defintion mentions "nakedness" or "exposed", which seems to relate to "sexual misconduct" of the greek definition? So, when it says "nakedness" in the Hebrew definition, it is refering to "uncovering nakedness", such as a man uncovering his brother's wife's nakedness, as to sleep with her, which is the same as the greek term. Therefore, one component of this condition for a divorce would be sexual misconduct, such as being caught with another person. Not mere accusations, but something more concrete, actual evidence of misconduct.
Further, notice that this condition for divorce does not seem limited to just sexual misconduct. With the Hebrew definition, you see "uncleaness" as part of the definition, which can be a lot more than just sexual misconduct. The term "uncleaness" and "improper behaviour" can mean any type of uncleaness or evil behaviour. In the Old Testament, any sinful activity can make you unclean (for instance, worshipping an idol). Notice also, there is one definition on the greek term that seems a little out of place, namely, "idolatry". How in the world would "idolatry" ever be construed as a reason for divorce?
A question for you: Is a non-Christian an idolater? Now, that seems like an odd question, yes? Well, interestingly, Paul mentions one condition when a believer can get a divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:15 - "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.". So, it seems here, if you look at the verse in context of the chapter, that Paul is saying to all believers, if you are married to a non-believer, and that person departs from you, you are not "under bondage" (not bound or bonded in marriage) to that person anymore. How can this be? Did not Jesus say, "except for the cause of fornication"? Well, as I just mentioned, all non-believers are "idolaters" which is a form of "fornication", according to the definition. An example of the word "fornication" being used in scripture to represent idolatry, see: 1, 2, 3, 4. Further, this concurs with the hebrew definition of "uncleaness" as a non-believer is also unclean, as you can see Paul declaring in this verse here: 1 Corinthians 7:14.
Isn't that the strangest coincidence in the world? Paul is calling unbelievers "unclean" in 1 Corinthians 7:14. And in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, one of the conditions for getting a divorce is "uncleaness". Further, one of the definitions of "fornication" in Jesus' mirror passage of Matthew 5:31, is "idolatry" and anyone who does not worship the true God is an "idolater". Showing, how Jesus did not change the moral law on divorce and further, showing Paul did not either.
The act of committing fornication is equivalent to commiting "idolatry" or "adultery" or any "sexual sin" in general. I believe this is equivelant to the term "uncleanness" in the Old Testament passage and is acceptable grounds for divorce. However, to curb the misuse of this rule, God also said that if you divorce your spouse, you can not get back together with that person ever again (assuming they got into another marriage and came back around to you). This was to make the decision for divorce as serious as your decision to first marry. In other words, it isn't to be some flippant decision.
So what do you think? Is idolatry just worshipping an idol? Or is it more than that?
Colossians 3:5 says this about idolatry:
kjvcol3.htm#5
"3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: "
IN other words, your spouse cheating on you is not the only grounds for divorce, but rather is more broad as the Old Testament says "some uncleaness". So, the term porneia (except for the cause of fornication) includes also having various evil desires, such as wanting to hurt your spouse, a desire to treat them in an evil manner, etc. So men and women who are emotionally, verbally, physically abused are not required to stay with their abusive spouse, as their spouse has and acts on their evil desires, which is a form of idolatry according to Colossians 3:5. Of course, it could be your spouse has other evil desires which are manifested and intolerable. These also can be grounds for divorce. Keep in mind, though, it is to be a very important decision and not something you do flippantly or for the wrong reasons. If the marriage can be salvaged, it should be done, as God's ideal is for those who God has joined, let not man put asunder.
Now, this article here would not be complete, if I did not discuss Mark 10:2-12, as it is the favorite verse of those who do not believe you can get a divorce. OK, lets break this down bit by bit to see what it really says:
First, the Pharisees tempted him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife?"
Now, the question we have to ask is, "Why is this tempting?" Well, it is a trick question. It is lawful ONLY if there is uncleaness. Yet, the pharisees delibrately left it out, so they could catch him in an error. Because if he said "Yes", they would have said, not true, because "uncleaness is required". And if he said "No", they would have said untrue, because it says it is permitted in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. See their silly little trick? Kind of petty and immature, would you not say?
So, he answers with a question, forcing them answer their own question. But, they do not actually answer the question correctly, as they conviently leave out the "condition" of "uncleaness". See verses 3 and 4.
Now, on verse 5, this is where many make the mistake in interpretation. Jesus says it was for "hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept". "He", being Moses, in the passage. Now, who instructed Moses to write the Law? Did not God instruct Moses to write the law? When it says "hardness of hearts" what was Jesus refering to? Is he not refering to "sinful nature" and people refusing to live right? Does this mean the person getting the divorce is "hard of heart" or perhaps, the person who has "uncleaness" is "hard of heart".
And here is another passage that hangs up many people. Verses 6-9: "10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Now, I will show you something you probably have not seen before. First, what is Jesus quoting here? He is quoting Genesis 2:24. NOW, this is something I just realized not even 5 days ago and have never heard anyone mention. What is Genesis chapter 3? The fall - Adam and Eve's first sin. So, Jesus said "from the beginning" it was not so. From the beginning means, "before the fall". So, God's original design for marriage was before man's sin came into the picture. After man's sin came into the picture, divorce had to be permitted in some cases, as some people were "unclean" and the one who is clean can not be in line with someone unclean. Paul eludes to it in this passage here: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" - 2 Corinthians 6:14. So, we can see here, that Jesus was saying, that from the beginning, God's design was for two to get married and never have a divorce. But, after the fall, God permitted divorce in certain cases.
Last, but not least, Mark 10:11-12 it says, "10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Now, surely, this seems to contradict this "conditional divorce" idea, right? Well, actually, wrong. When the term "put away" is used, it is a term that can mean either "illegal" or "legal" divorce. To make you see it for yourself, just look at the definition of "put away" in the greek and you will see it says to literally "send away". A question for you: If I said to you, "I sent away my wife" would you assume I properly divorced her? So, to "send away (gk630)" does not equal the word "divorce". So, here, Jesus is saying, just putting away a woman without a legitimate reason (such as "uncleaness"), would cause the woman to commit adultery, if she remarried. As this passage here, is a mirror of Matthew 5:32 (same instance in time). You can see it more clearly, if you put all of Mark chapter 10 in context. IN Mark 10:11-12, the disciples are asking about what was discussed with the pharisees. Jesus did not say "Moses was wrong". Rather, he said it was permitted or "suffered" because of "hardness of hearts", which then led to his next statement about God's original design before the Fall. So, Jesus never contradicts Moses. And, later, the disciples are asking about the discussion and he says, yes, if you divorce (without real cause), it is causing a violation. As remember, the pharisees, tempted him to answer their trick question of getting a divorce for ANY reason. And Jesus was clarifying to the disciples that you can not divorce for any reason.
Lets revisit Matthew 5:32 again and analyze the end part of the verse.
"5:32 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."
When it says "whosoever shall marry a woman that is divorced committeh adultery", it is refering to a woman who went through a divorce, where the marriage was not legitimately ended. Again, look at the greek word for "divorce " here. Again, it is not the word "divorce", but the word "to send away (grk630)". And, they are not one in the same, as I can send away a woman without being properly divorced. For instance, lets say two are married and there is no uncleanness found and they just go their separate ways. IN this instance, they are still married in God's sight and for them to remarry, they would be committing adultery. Ironically, once they have committed the sex act with their new spouse, this will officially end the first marriage in God's sight, because now, there is uncleanness and legitimate reason for the first divorce. However, obviously, this is not a good pattern and the idea is to stay married to the one you are with and be serious about the relationship. Don't keep making the same mistakes over and over like the woman at the well.
For those who would think that Matthew 5:32 is saying, yes you can get a divorce, but no you can not marry, let me show you your error in understanding. If Jesus says, you can get a divorce, if there is "fornication", it means, the marriage is over. It does not exist anymore. Hence, to remarry, you would not commit adultery, as adultery's definition is "to cheat on your marriage contract" or "unlawful intercourse with a married woman". Hence, obviously, if the first marriage is correctly ended, the woman's status changes from "married" to "single" and there is no possibility of "adultery". This shows Jesus would be logically contradicting himself, if he actually meant "you can get a divorce, but not remarry".
With all these divorce scriptures both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, it uses terms such as "putting away" or "sending away", as can also be seen in Malachi 2:16 - "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for [one] covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." You can even see here, God is saying he "hates putting away" and shows how the people were dealing "treacherously" with their wives, by leaving them without righteous cause(uncleaness), because they lusted after foreign wives (according to historical background studies). So, this passage here is not saying "God hates divorce", but rather "God hates unjust divorce".
I believe that many of Jesus' commands, particularly those mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount, are literally just quotes or explanations or rewordings of Old Testament morals and commandments. Many people believe he "changed" various moral doctrines or they just do not consider what the Old Testament says and try to deduce what Jesus meant. As Isaiah 28:10 says, "28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little".
For a more elaborate explanation of divorce that harmonizes all scripture on the topic, click here.
|