Obviously, a church should not take into church membership, nor retain in church membership, a person who is "living in adultery." If someone is in fact "living in adultery," he or she should quit the adultery, confessing and repenting the sin, before membership should be had in the church of Christ. The question is, however, exactly what is "living in adultery"?
It has been my thesis that a person who divorces or marries without a biblical reason, though initially sinning in doing so, does not continue to sin by remaining in what many call an "unscriptural marriage"; And, that repenting of such a sin does not involve annulling such marriages.
It has also been my contention that the refusal to baptize or to take into church fellowship those who have sinned by involvement in non biblical divorces and marriages, is wrong and hurtful to the souls of penitents. Of course, in this writing I am talking about marriages between a man and a woman, and not about "marriages" between homosexuals and lesbians. In those cases, there is actual "living in adultery" or "living in sexual immorality."
In this series, I will talk more broadly about divorce, marriage, and remarriage, than that which would be involved in talking merely about the "living in adultery" issue that has divided groups like the Hardshells and the Campbellites.
Let us begin by looking at Matthew 5: 31-32 and Jesus' teaching.
"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." (Matt. 5:32 kjv)
There are a number of preliminary remarks that I must make in relation to understanding the teaching of the Lord in these words.
First, let me say that much confusion in interpreting these words is due to the translation of the Greek text. This is not uncommon. Many false interpretations of passages result from trusting a given translation of a particular verse. I know that in saying this that I have already lost the KJV only cultists, for they will contend that the translation of the above verses are perfect and best, and that there is no need therefore to consult either the Greek text or other English translations. But, in spite of the KJV cultists, I must look at the Greek, for understanding it clears up many of the difficulties in interpreting the words of the Lord Jesus.
Second, one of the difficulties is what is meant by "commit adultery" in the two instances mentioned in the text. What is the precise sin denoted by those words? Is it the unjust divorcing? Is it the second marriage of a spouse who had no previous legal or biblical divorce?
Third, is Jesus calling for the breakup of non biblical divorces and for a return to unions with previously divorced spouses?
Fourth, is Jesus condemning a woman who has been unjustly divorced? Or, is he only condemning the man who unjustly divorced his wife for a cause other than fornication?
Fifth, how does a man's unjustly divorcing his wife "cause her to commit adultery"? If the unjustly divorced woman remains unmarried, then how was she forced into adultery by her husbands action? Is such a woman not forced into celibacy in order to keep from committing adultery? Does that not seem cruel and harsh, considering that the woman is a victim of an unfaithful husband wrongly divorcing her?
Sixth, why is it sin, or "committing adultery," for another man to marry the woman who is the victim of an evil and wrongful "putting away"? It seems that such a man, rather than sinning, should be viewed as doing good. She has been put away unlawfully by her husband. She is now homeless, having no means of support, and must needs become a beggar or starve to death, unless she marries. It seems in such a case that the man who marries her is a savior to her. When Jesus said "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," did he mean "whoever marries her that is unjustly divorced" or "whoever marries her that is justly divorced"?
Seventh, is Jesus saying that the person who is divorced because he or she was guilty of fornication must forever remain unmarried? It seems so, based upon the interpretation of many Hardshells and those who share their views on this subject.
Eighth, is it the obligation of every person, who thinks of marrying one who had been previously married and divorced, to investigate the causes of that divorce and become sure that is was due to fornication, before marrying that one? Does every person who marries a person who was divorced because of fornication or adultery thereby automatically commit adultery?
Ninth, was Jesus correcting the law of Moses, or was he simply properly teaching it? Was he changing the law or simply giving the right interpretation of it?
Based upon all these questions, it might seem that the words of our Lord raised more questions than they answered!
Not all of these questions are easy to answer. But, this should not deter us. The answers are there in the text, especially compared with what Jesus said further on the subject at other times, and in looking at all the texts that record the teaching of Jesus on the subject. Having done my research on this topic, I am happy to share with you the fruit of my labors and give to you the conclusions I have reached.
The Wrong Interpretation
Before giving the correct interpretation of the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5: 31-32, let me give an example of an incorrect interpretation, which is the one believed by many, including Hardshells who hold to the "strict" or "conservative" view, such as was believed by my father and elder McKee, who I cited in the previous posting. Here is what Dr. John Gill wrote in his commentary on this important passage (emphasis mine), first on verse 31 (emphasis mine):
causeth her to commit adultery; that is, as much as in him lies: should she commit it, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce
First, the KJV text does not say that the man who unlawfully divorces his innocent spouse may or may not cause her to commit adultery, depending upon whether or not she allows the divorce to lead her into another marriage. There is no "should she" in the text. The text says that the unjust divorce, in every case, "causes" her to "commit adultery." Whatever her committing adultery means or involves, it is seen as the inevitable result of being unjustly divorced. Jesus did not say "whoever unjustly divorces his wife may cause her to commit adultery, depending on her reaction to the circumstance." That is how Gill and others want to interpret the words. By this interpretation, the woman, who is an innocent victim of an unlawful divorce by a hard-hearted husband, is active in choosing to become an adulterer, and goes from being the victim of a sin to being a sinner herself. She could choose to remain unmarried in her reaction to being treated unjustly. Such an interpretation fails to see how Jesus' purpose is not to focus on the possible sin of the female victim but to focus on the sin of the man who brings about an unlawful divorce.
Second, the "causes her to commit adultery" is not an indictment of the woman, of the victim, for in the Greek, as we will see, the words are in the passive voice, denoting not what she does actively, but what is being done to her.
Third, there is no ground for Gill to say that the divorce was not real, or that it really did not, in the eyes of God, dissolve the woman's marriage to the man who divorced her. No where in these words did Jesus say that the "putting away" (divorcing) of the woman by the man was not really a putting away.
Now, let us see what Gill said about verse 32. He wrote:
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man; and it may be added, from Matthew 19:9 that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, would be guilty of the same crime.
First, as we will see, the error of Gill and many others, in regard to verse 32, is in failing to see that the woman in verse 32b is not the same woman of verse 32a. Notice that Jesus says "her that is divorced." Jesus did not think the divorce was not a real divorce. He acknowledged that there was a real divorce, a divorce that actually put asunder the two who had been joined together. No where does he deny that there was a real divorce, a divorce that gave the woman the right to remarry. No where does Christ say that the man and woman are still married "in the eyes of God." But, more on all this later.
Contextual ObservationsFirst, let me say that much confusion in interpreting these words is due to the translation of the Greek text. This is not uncommon. Many false interpretations of passages result from trusting a given translation of a particular verse. I know that in saying this that I have already lost the KJV only cultists, for they will contend that the translation of the above verses are perfect and best, and that there is no need therefore to consult either the Greek text or other English translations. But, in spite of the KJV cultists, I must look at the Greek, for understanding it clears up many of the difficulties in interpreting the words of the Lord Jesus.
Second, one of the difficulties is what is meant by "commit adultery" in the two instances mentioned in the text. What is the precise sin denoted by those words? Is it the unjust divorcing? Is it the second marriage of a spouse who had no previous legal or biblical divorce?
Third, is Jesus calling for the breakup of non biblical divorces and for a return to unions with previously divorced spouses?
Fourth, is Jesus condemning a woman who has been unjustly divorced? Or, is he only condemning the man who unjustly divorced his wife for a cause other than fornication?
Fifth, how does a man's unjustly divorcing his wife "cause her to commit adultery"? If the unjustly divorced woman remains unmarried, then how was she forced into adultery by her husbands action? Is such a woman not forced into celibacy in order to keep from committing adultery? Does that not seem cruel and harsh, considering that the woman is a victim of an unfaithful husband wrongly divorcing her?
Sixth, why is it sin, or "committing adultery," for another man to marry the woman who is the victim of an evil and wrongful "putting away"? It seems that such a man, rather than sinning, should be viewed as doing good. She has been put away unlawfully by her husband. She is now homeless, having no means of support, and must needs become a beggar or starve to death, unless she marries. It seems in such a case that the man who marries her is a savior to her. When Jesus said "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," did he mean "whoever marries her that is unjustly divorced" or "whoever marries her that is justly divorced"?
Seventh, is Jesus saying that the person who is divorced because he or she was guilty of fornication must forever remain unmarried? It seems so, based upon the interpretation of many Hardshells and those who share their views on this subject.
Eighth, is it the obligation of every person, who thinks of marrying one who had been previously married and divorced, to investigate the causes of that divorce and become sure that is was due to fornication, before marrying that one? Does every person who marries a person who was divorced because of fornication or adultery thereby automatically commit adultery?
Ninth, was Jesus correcting the law of Moses, or was he simply properly teaching it? Was he changing the law or simply giving the right interpretation of it?
Based upon all these questions, it might seem that the words of our Lord raised more questions than they answered!
Not all of these questions are easy to answer. But, this should not deter us. The answers are there in the text, especially compared with what Jesus said further on the subject at other times, and in looking at all the texts that record the teaching of Jesus on the subject. Having done my research on this topic, I am happy to share with you the fruit of my labors and give to you the conclusions I have reached.
The Wrong Interpretation
Before giving the correct interpretation of the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5: 31-32, let me give an example of an incorrect interpretation, which is the one believed by many, including Hardshells who hold to the "strict" or "conservative" view, such as was believed by my father and elder McKee, who I cited in the previous posting. Here is what Dr. John Gill wrote in his commentary on this important passage (emphasis mine), first on verse 31 (emphasis mine):
causeth her to commit adultery; that is, as much as in him lies: should she commit it, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce
First, the KJV text does not say that the man who unlawfully divorces his innocent spouse may or may not cause her to commit adultery, depending upon whether or not she allows the divorce to lead her into another marriage. There is no "should she" in the text. The text says that the unjust divorce, in every case, "causes" her to "commit adultery." Whatever her committing adultery means or involves, it is seen as the inevitable result of being unjustly divorced. Jesus did not say "whoever unjustly divorces his wife may cause her to commit adultery, depending on her reaction to the circumstance." That is how Gill and others want to interpret the words. By this interpretation, the woman, who is an innocent victim of an unlawful divorce by a hard-hearted husband, is active in choosing to become an adulterer, and goes from being the victim of a sin to being a sinner herself. She could choose to remain unmarried in her reaction to being treated unjustly. Such an interpretation fails to see how Jesus' purpose is not to focus on the possible sin of the female victim but to focus on the sin of the man who brings about an unlawful divorce.
Second, the "causes her to commit adultery" is not an indictment of the woman, of the victim, for in the Greek, as we will see, the words are in the passive voice, denoting not what she does actively, but what is being done to her.
Third, there is no ground for Gill to say that the divorce was not real, or that it really did not, in the eyes of God, dissolve the woman's marriage to the man who divorced her. No where in these words did Jesus say that the "putting away" (divorcing) of the woman by the man was not really a putting away.
Now, let us see what Gill said about verse 32. He wrote:
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man; and it may be added, from Matthew 19:9 that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, would be guilty of the same crime.
First, as we will see, the error of Gill and many others, in regard to verse 32, is in failing to see that the woman in verse 32b is not the same woman of verse 32a. Notice that Jesus says "her that is divorced." Jesus did not think the divorce was not a real divorce. He acknowledged that there was a real divorce, a divorce that actually put asunder the two who had been joined together. No where does he deny that there was a real divorce, a divorce that gave the woman the right to remarry. No where does Christ say that the man and woman are still married "in the eyes of God." But, more on all this later.
Professor William F. Luck, Sr., who I will be citing frequently in this series, in his classic book "Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View," wrote these words (emphasis mine):
"Clearly, the ethics of divorce/remarriage were in a state of disarray in the days of Jesus. And into this morass of ethical confusion Jesus stepped, spoke a few words on the subject, and, we may presume, in the minds of His disciples eventually cleared up the issues. But we, His latter-day disciples, have taken those few words and produced from them our own Pharasaical controversies and traditions. We disagree as to which of His statements on the subject came first and as to whether all the statements attributed to Him in the texts of the Gospels are His, as opposed to interpretations by the evangelists or even the early Church."
That is certainly the truth! Many today truly "have taken those few words and produced from them our own Pharasaical controversies and traditions"!
For many of Luck's writings on this topic see here.
Did Jesus Correct Moses?
Did Jesus change Old Testament law on marriage? In Luck's book, section 6, "The Teachings of Jesus on Divorce — (Matthew 5:31-32a)," (see here) he wrote:
"The Deuteronomic provision for the wife of a hard-hearted husband (protecting her from his treacherous intentions, Deut. 24:1-4) was turned upside down to favor the husband, and the Pharasaical schools argued back and forth over what had to be wrong with the wife before the husband could exercise his right to put her away. The liberal school of Hillel thought that a man had the right to end his marriage if his wife did something he found distasteful. The conservative school of Shammai thought the man’s right to divorce was limited to the case of a wife who had committed something nearly equal to adultery. Both schools were concerned for the rights of the man and had little concern for the woman, thus reversing the concern of the Bible."
Many people (including myself at one time) fail to understand the intent and meaning of Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, the passage that Jesus chiefly is interpreting in his remarks in Matthew 5: 31-32. The chief purpose of that Mosaic provision was not to give hard-hearted husbands a way out of a marriage that no longer made them happy, but was rather for the purpose of "protecting" the women who were victims of such hard-hearted men. This is what Luck rightly points out.
Luck also wrote:
"First, all the rabbis centered their discussion upon the very verses that Jesus quotes, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Second, they all interpreted that passage as a provision on behalf of the husband. By so doing, they all presupposed that the Deuteronomic Law was setting forth a right of the husband and identifying a problem with the wife that justified the husband putting her away. Third, the Pharisees seem to have held that it was morally obligatory for the offended husband to put the offender away. I believe that the teaching of Jesus analyzed below disagrees with all Pharasaical views that accepted these points."
Next, under the heading "CONTEXT OF THE TEACHING," and under the sub heading “I Have Not Come to Abrogate the Law,” Luck wrote:
"Any understanding of Jesus’ divorce teaching in the Sermon on the Mount must be grounded upon a more general understanding of what Jesus is about in the Sermon as a whole and of what He is about in the section that includes the divorce teaching. Regarding the first point there is a great deal of disagreement among scholars. Some hold that Jesus is altering the Old Testament Law. They see this in His quoting of certain commandments and in His immediate “correction”: “but I say unto you … ” Others respond that Jesus is merely trying to clarify certain popular misconceptions about Old Testament Law, pushing His listeners toward a fuller understanding of that Law than was being taught by the religious leaders of His day. There are a number of other views; it is not possible for us to go into this disagreement at any significant length, but I do need to make it clear where I stand on the issue."
I certainly do agree with Luck in these words. Jesus is not changing God's law on marriage and divorce but is simply correcting the false interpretation that many had about the OT teaching.
Luck continued:
"In the Sermon Jesus clearly states, “Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). He is concerned that His disciples not limit the holiness of God to fastidiously kept rules that relate only to the outer, legal life.
The second thing that stands out is that Jesus is loyal to the Old Testament Law. In verses 17-19 He tells His listeners that He has not come to abolish the least of the Old Testament rules, but that they shall stand until “heaven and earth pass away.” It seems clear, then, that Jesus means to recover the Law and bring out its fullness, not to make changes in it that would negate the least of its principles. This leads us to conclude that Jesus intends to clarify misunderstandings."
Again, I think that this should be clearly understood.
Luck continued:
"Seen in this light, the text is certainly not trying to teach a new doctrine about marital relation—that is, a doctrine that differs from that found in the Law.
But, some will protest, does not Jesus quote the Law and alter it with His own teaching? The answer is no. Jesus does on several occasions in the subsection quote Old Testament material, but He has served notice that He is correcting Pharasaical misinterpretations of the Law. It is as if He were saying, “You have heard the Old Testament quoted and explained in the following way, but let me explain to you its true and full meaning.” In other words, the very quoting of the Law evoked in His listeners’ minds the aberrant teaching that Jesus intended to correct. He does not intend to annul the commandment, only its Pharasaical interpretation.
For these reasons the idea that Jesus is directly altering God’s Law through Moses, must be rejected. Thus, in the divorce saying too, Jesus is rebuking the Scripture-twisting Pharisees."
It seems a bit ironic, but now, almost 2000 years after Jesus' words in Matthew 5: 31-32, we not only must see his words as correcting the misinterpretation of the OT teaching on marriage and divorce, but the misinterpretation of many Christians who fail to understand just what Jesus is teaching.
Kevin Pendergrass, who I have already cited in this series (see here - emphasis mine), wrote:
"Jesus taught on marriage and divorce once during the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:31-32), and He taught on marriage and divorce when He was challenged by the Scribes & Pharisees (Mt 19:1-2; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18). Jesus taught the same principles in both occasions.
The Jews had twisted and misinterpreted the law to justify their hardheartedness and the unjust treatment of women through unlawful divorce (Mt. 19:8; Mk. 10:5). It is important to note that Jesus is not giving a new teaching on marriage and divorce. Jesus is giving the correct understanding of the law and answers questions and correctly interrupts the law on marriage and divorce.
Some have misinterpreted Jesus’ words to teach that God allowed unlawful divorce under the Old Law because of the hardness of their hearts. This idea could not be further from the truth. This would imply that they were “rewarded” and God was more “lenient” because of their hardness of hearts under the Old Law. Are we to believe that Jesus was teaching them that had they not had hard hearts, then God would have been stricter on them, but since they had hard hearts, then God was softer on them? Are we to believe that Jesus was teaching that God was more tolerant towards hardhearted men under the Old Law than He is on innocent women who would be the victims of hardhearted men under the “New Law?”
Again, these words, like those of Luck, are "spot on."
Pendergrass continued:
"This makes absolutely no sense. Instead, the law put in place because of their hardness of hearts was the law that commanded that a divorce certificate be given when a divorce did take place (Mt. 19:7-8; Mk. 10:3-5; Deut. 24:1-4).
God, knowing the hardness of their hearts, gave Moses a precept that would protect the woman — the divorce certificate. Even though it was never God’s intent for man to unlawfully divorce, God knew that because of sin and the hardness of their hearts, divorce was inevitable. Therefore, Moses commanded that when divorce did take place, a certificate be given to the woman.
The certificate was put in place to protect the woman from being passed back and forth as well as protecting her future rights and assets if the former husband were to claim she was still his wife in the future (Ex. 21:10; Deut. 24:1-4). The purpose of the certificate was to prove that she had been divorced by her husband and that she could remarry. The certificate dissolved the marriage and intrinsically gave the right to remarry. Historically, the wording of the divorce certificate can be traced as far back as the 5th century BC. The wording reads:
“You are allowed to marry any man you wish” (Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible, Instone-Brewer, p. 29).
Jesus taught the Jews that unjust divorce was sinful and never commanded. The command to give a divorce certificate was to protect the woman and not justify the man’s unlawful divorce. Yet, they had taken this command to justify themselves in unlawfully divorcing and then attempted to put the blame on the law and Moses! Jesus taught that such was an abuse and gross misunderstanding of the law. This was nothing more than a result of their hardness of hearts. After Jesus explains this and makes an appeal back to creation for God’s original intent for marriage (one man-one woman for life; Mt. 19:5-6), He then proceeds to address unlawful divorce."
Why is it that men like Dr. Gill, and the strict Hardshell interpreters, fail to see that the "divorce certificate" actually dissolved the marriage, even when it was unjust? And, as Pendergrass points out, if she is actually divorced, then she has the right to remarry. As Pendergrass stated, "The certificate dissolved the marriage and intrinsically gave the right to remarry."
Pendergrass continued:
"It is my conviction that Jesus is condemning the act of unlawfully divorcing. The “adultery” Jesus is speaking of isn’t in a subsequent marriage after an unlawful divorce, but rather in the unlawful divorce...It must be remembered that Jesus is speaking to the hardheartedness of people in these verses. Therefore, I believe Jesus is speaking against the following two groups of people in His marital teachings:
1. Married persons who unlawfully divorce their spouses.
2. The complicit person/catalyst whom the divorcer unlawfully left their spouse for (i.e., the home wrecker).
Both of these groups of people are guilty of actions committed in hardheartedness."
These are insights into the true meaning of Matthew 5: 31-32 that Dr. Gill and many of the strict Hardshells miss seeing. As we analyze the words of the text, we will see how Pendergrass' statement that "the adultery Jesus is speaking of isn't in a subsequent marriage after an unlawful divorce." Rather, the "adultery" is the unlawful divorce. In this case, the adulterer of verse 31 is the man who puts away his wife, thereby "adulterizing" her. But, this is not so evident in the KJV or in some other English translations, though it is evident in the Greek, as we will see. Further, the adulterer of verse 32, the one who marries the woman who unjustly puts away her husband, is the "home wrecker," as we will see.
Unlawful Divorce Produces Adulterers
What is meant by "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, Causeth her to commit adultery"? How does an unlawful divorce cause the innocent spouse to automatically become an adulterer, what the words of this translation (KJV) seem to say? If the woman, who is a victim of an unlawful divorce, does not remarry, how did the divorce make her into an adulterer?
In an Internet article titled "What Does “Makes Her an Adulteress” Mean?, by Wayne Jackson (see here), we have the two most probable views regarding this problem stated. He wrote (emphasis mine):
"There are two possible views relative to “maketh her an adulteress” (or "causes her to commit adultery KJV - SG), as found in this passage. But before we get to those two possibilities, we would observe that whatever conclusion one reaches, it must harmonize with the overall teaching of the New Testament on the general topic of marriage and divorce.
What are the two views?
One view suggests that the sense is this: the man who divorces his wife in a capricious fashion, without the legitimate reason (see Matthew 5:32; 19:9), causes that put-away woman to be viewed as an adulteress, since the common perception would be that she would not have been put away unless she had been guilty of unfaithfulness.
From this viewpoint, the sense then would be: “he gives her the reputation of being an adulteress.” This would not suggest that she actually is an immoral woman, but she will be perceived as such.
William Hendriksen has argued this view, and his chief point is that a passive voice verb is employed. He writes:
The Greek, by using the passive voice of the verb, states not what the woman becomes or what she does but what she undergoes, suffers, is exposed to. She suffers wrong. He [the husband initiating the divorce] does wrong. To be sure, she herself also may become guilty, but that is not the point which Jesus is emphasizing. Far better, it would seem to me, is therefore the translation, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the basis of infidelity exposes her to adultery,” or something similar (1973, 306).
Another view is that Jesus assumes, given the culture of that day, that a divorced woman would be driven to find another man, having been cast out. Since, in the contemplation of the language employed, she did not have a valid reason for a remarriage, joining herself to another man would place her in an adulterous union.
And so the sense of the phrase would be: “she is caused to commit adultery [by the dire circumstances which impel her to contract a subsequent marriage].” This is the sense assigned by William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (1967, 528).
Each of these ideas is a matter of interpretation which attempts to extract the meaning from the grammar, the historical background of the passage, and the general biblical information relative to the divorce-remarriage controversy."
First, consider the fact that the woman is viewed as being the innocent victim of a hard-hearted husband who divorces her, and who throws her out into the cold, so to speak, to fend for herself (and which would be tragic in those days, almost a death sentence), and it therefore seems out of place in such a context to find fault with the victim. Second, the text is clear that the woman becoming an adulterer is the result of the man who hard heartedly puts her away, and is not viewed as being her fault. Third, the text does not say "makes her to commit adultery if she later marries and makes herself an adulterer," nor does it say "makes her an adulterer perhaps sometime later," which is what the text should say if the view is correct that makes the woman guilty via an unjust marriage after her divorce. Fourth, the idea that the woman commits adultery by her remarrying forces one to affirm that the divorce was not a real divorce in the eyes of God or his law, and therefore did not give her a right to marry again, and this is not tenable at all. It forces us to say that the woman, though divorced, was really still the wife of her estranged hard hearted husband, and that she must remain single, in poverty and deprivation, until her husband takes her back. This too is totally untenable.
One other way in which many err in their interpretation of these verses is the fact that they fail to see the second part of verse 32 as a separate independent clause that is not directly related to the first part of the verse. In other words, the words "and whoever marries her that is put away commits adultery" is not saying "and whoever marries the innocent woman who was unlawfully divorced commits adultery." There are several reasons why this view is correct. But, I will enlarge upon this shortly. Before doing that let me enlarge upon the proof that avers that the words "makes her an adulterer" is not an indictment of a sin of the female innocent victim of an unlawful and cruel divorce.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Unfortunately, many English translations have caused confusion over this statement due to a poor translation. In the Greek, this literally reads: “causes her to be adulterated” or “causes her to be the victim of his adultery.” In other words, this innocent woman is the victim of her husband. The man is the one who is guilty and the woman is the victim. This is seen as an action actually done to her.
The NIV correctly translates Matthew 5:32a as:
"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery."
I have no doubt that ποιεῖ (makes or causes) αὐτὴν (her) μοιχᾶσθαι ( makes her to commit adultery) means “causes her to be adulterated” or some other such translation that keeps the hard hearted man as the one who causes the adultery, and therefore is the one who is the adulterer.
The Pulpit commentary says this: "Revised Version, maketh her an adulteress, since the right reading, μοιχευθῆναι, connotes being sinned against rather than sinning."
That is correct. As stated already, the Greek word in the passage is passive. Various translations render the key phrase vastly different, such as "causes her to commit adultery" or "makes her an adulteress" or "makes her a victim of adultery."
Active and Passive Adultery
The original Greek of Matthew 5: 32 uses the root verb moicheuo (“commit adultery”) twice. In the first instance, in the words "makes her an adulterer" (or "commit adultery"), the word is in the passive voice, as I have already shown and discussed. However, in the second instance, where the words are "whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery," the word is in the active voice. The man and the woman here do not do the same thing, according to the Greek.
The difficulty in translating the words is due to the fact that we don’t have a convenient passive for “commit adultery” in English.
Some people try to deal with the passive voice use of "adultery" in Matthew 5: 32a by making it insignificant. They will say that the bible sometimes will use the passive voice to describe the woman’s adulterous act even when it is clear that she was not passive but active. For instance, John 8:4 describes a woman who “was caught in the act of [committing] adultery.” And some will say "the Greek verb there is passive." But, this is not tenable. The verb in John 8: 4 is not to be viewed as passive but as middle voice. In Greek the passive and middle voice are both written alike. It is easy to discern the active voice construction of a word for it is different from the passive or middle voice. So, since both the middle and passive voice are written the same way, how do we discern which it is? By the context or syntax. Clearly the adultery of John 8: 4 is middle voice, meaning not only is the woman doing the action (adultery) but is doing it for her own self, for her own benefit. According to ntgreek.org (see here) "The Greek middle voice shows the subject acting in his own interest or on his own behalf, or participating in the results of the verbal action."
As we have stated, μοιχευθῆναι (commit adultery) in Matthew 5: 32a is a passive infinitive. The passive voice implies that the subject is the recipient of the action. The NIV correctly reasons that the wife can't be said to commit an action if she is the recipient of it. Support for the NIV translation is found in Thayer's Greek lexicon where it renders one possible translation of μοιχευθῆναι as "to suffer adultery", specifically referencing this passage.
Jerry Starling in “CAUSES HER TO BECOME AN ADULTERESS,” an article discussing Matthew 5:32 (see here) cites several translations of ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι, makes her to commit adultery, one of which is from the Good News Bible, a paraphrase that translates the words as "he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again." In regard to this he correctly says (emphasis mine):
"How can my action in divorcing my wife make her guilty of anything? The paraphrase “translation,” The Good News Bible, adds a clause not found in the text at all – “if she marries again.” But that is not what Jesus said. He said the one divorcing his wife makes her an adulteress. Some have used this as a way to paper over the problem in this verse. They say that when you divorce without proper cause, you put your divorced spouse in a position where temptation to marry again will be strong – and that if he or she does remarry, then he or she is guilty of adultery. But that adds something to the text Jesus does not say."
Exactly so! As I have already stated, Jesus did not say "perhaps causes her to commit adultery," but "causes her to commit adultery," that is, in every case where a man unjustly divorces his wife. He did not say "sometimes causes her to commit adultery." Further, as we will see, the causing is linked with the divorcing, both occurring at the same time. To say that the unlawful divorcing occurs long before the adultery will not fit the Greek grammar and syntax, as I will show.
Wrote Starling:
"ποιει (poiei) – literally, “is making“ - This is the 3rd person, present tense, active voice, indicative mood of ποιεω. The subject of this verb (i.e., the one acting in it) is the man who divorces his wife.
αυτην (auten) – literally, “her“ - This is the 3rd person, singular number, accusative case, feminine gender of the personal pronoun. The accusative case is roughly equal to the English direct object case, that is the receiver of the action. In this case, the woman whose husband divorces her, except for fornication, is the one acted upon by the verb “makes.” She herself is doing nothing; she receives the action of her husband who is divorcing her. By the divorce, he treats her as if she is an adulteress.
μοιχασθαι (moichasthai) – literally, “to defile a married woman; to have unlawful intercourse with a married woman“ This is the present tense, infinitive, passive voice of the verb μοιχαω (moichao). The passive voice means something happens to the subject of the clause. In this case, the subject of the clause is the woman divorced, except for fornication. This is the usual word for “to commit adultery.” In the passive voice, it would mean “to have adultery committed upon [or against] one.” The wife is the violated one. She becomes defiled passively by the fact he divorces her.
There is a textual variation in the Greek manuscripts for this word. The above paragraph looks at the Textus Receptus (or Received Text), which is the basis for the King James Version (1611). This text is mainly supported by late MSS. The variant, supported by the earlier MSS, is μοιχευθηναι (moicheuthenai). This is the aorist tense, passive voice infinitive of the verb μοιχευω (moicheuo). It comes from the same word family as that in the paragraph above, but with a slightly different meaning. It means, in the passive voice, “to suffer adultery, be debauched” (Thayer). Thayer gives Matthew 5:32 as an example of this use. This older reading is most likely correct.
Each of these variants is passive. The unjustly divorced wife is the violated person. She is not the one sinning; she is sinned against. The older, more likely, reading is even stronger in showing the wife as a victim, not a sinner. To say that my action in divorcing my wife unjustly makes her guilty of adultery makes as much sense as saying that if I beat her up, I make her to be an abuser. She would not be the abuser, but the abused. She is the victim sinned against, not the one who is sinning."
These are exactly my sentiments, what I believe is the correct interpretation of the words of Jesus. Anyone who tries to make the woman in this text into a willing and guilty adulterer is doing serious wrong. Jesus puts the blame for the adulterating of the woman solely on the man who divorced her.
In concluding his remarks under the sub heading "What It All Means," Starling wrote:
"A careful examination of the meanings of these words shows that Jesus is saying the woman divorced without cause becomes an adulteress in the same sense we make God a liar when we say we have not sinned. Her husband treats her (by divorcing her) as if she is an adulteress."
Excellent explanation! Wrote Starling:
"One reason for the difficulty in translating this passage is that the English language does not have a verb corresponding to the noun “adultery.” Hence, translators resort to some variation of “to commit adultery.” This passage is further complicated by the fact it is in the passive voice. To say “makes her to have adultery committed against her” is very cumbersome – and it still does not get the proper nuance of meaning.
The closest English verb that would translate this idea is adulterate, a word that comes from the same Latin word family as adultery. We do not normally use this word to mean adultery – but the meaning is very close, for adultery is an adulteration. That is, it adulterates the covenant witnessed by God between the man and the woman (cf. Malachi 2:14). It violates the holiness of that union and makes it unclean and impure. Her husband treats her as if she were an adulteress; society looks at her with suspicion; and she herself feels adulterated – all without any sinful act on her part. Of course, if she has committed fornication, she has made herself an adulteress. His action in divorcing her does not make her any more of an adulteress than she already is."
Again, an excellent explanation.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"His adultery against her is the result of his unlawful ending of their marriage. This is a sin her husband committed against her, not a sin she committed. Therefore, the first person guilty is the male who unlawfully divorced his spouse. He is rightly the “adulterer” by unlawfully ending his marriage. It is vital that one notes this man commits adultery against his wife here by simply unlawfully divorcing her with no remarriage taking place. He is guilty of adultery by unlawfully divorcing his wife. The “adultery” takes place in the unlawful divorcing.
Therefore, Matthew 5:32a could rightfully be paraphrased as:
“Whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality is guilty of committing adultery and makes his ex-wife the victim of his adultery.”
Again, this is what Jesus was teaching, although the KJV and some other English translations hinder arriving at the correct interpretation.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Now, let’s go to Matthew 5:32b:
“And whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”
Many Bible students read Matthew 5:31-32 as a continuous statement. They assume this is the same woman who was just unlawfully divorced by her husband. However, grammatically, such is not the case. Matthew 5:32b is a completely different statement than Matthew 5:31a. In Greek, the participle is indefinite when speaking of this woman. This means this woman should not be understood as the same woman just spoken of in Matthew 5:32a. This is a different woman and a different scenario Jesus is now speaking to."
This is exactly correct. The divorced woman of the latter half of verse 32 is not the same woman in the first half. The woman in the first half of the verse is a victim of an unjustified divorce, and by that divorce is free to marry who she wills, and therefore it can be no sin for anyone to marry her. Her first husband committed adultery in unlawfully putting her away and she was able to remarry without committing adultery. To disagree with this is to make the woman into a further victim. She has been unlawfully divorced and made destitute. Is she now to be condemned to that destitute condition by being cursed to remain in it? Is she doomed to remain single and destitute with her only hope being that either her hard hearted husband 1) remarries her (takes her back), or 2) commits adultery himself (by fornicating or remarrying), thereby freeing her to marry again herself. For these reasons alone, we cannot accept that the woman in the latter half of the verse is the same woman. Marrying the woman in 32b is an act of adultery for the man who marries her, but it is no act of adultery to marry the woman in 32a.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Furthermore, if Jesus was condemning the remarriage of an innocent woman who was put away by her hardhearted husband, then this would mean that Jesus was abolishing the protection laws for innocent women found in Deuteronomy 24 and Exodus 21 which gave the woman the right to remarry, as well as protected her from any future exploitation her ex-husband many attempt. If Jesus was abolishing the protection laws of innocent women, then this understanding would make absolutely no sense culturally or historically."
Exactly so!
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Contextually speaking, this is the exact opposite point Jesus is making. Why would Jesus negate the laws put in place to protect women only to give the hardhearted man further power by putting her in a position where she could never remarry? This would mean that not only would the husband not have to financially provide for her living rights as the law states (Ex. 21:10), but she could no longer be free to go to someone else. The tenor of this passage and the marital teachings of Jesus is to protect the innocent, not destroy the regulations that were put in place to protect them."
Again, this just makes sense!
Wrote Pendergrass:
"So, if the woman in Matthew 5:32b is not the innocent woman who was divorced by her husband, who is she? Well, she would be a woman who unlawfully divorced her husband. When considering the “divorced woman” in Matthew 5:32b, the participle could be understood as middle (reflexive intensive) which would emphasize the woman’s unlawful initiation of the divorce in this statement. This also harmonizes nicely with what Jesus said in Mark 10:12:
“If a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
If that is the correct translation (and it is), then it is clear that the two women are not the same. The first woman is the victim of an unlawful and cruel divorce, but the second woman is the woman who initiates the unlawful divorce.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Therefore, this would mean that in the first saying in Matthew 5:32a, a man who unlawfully divorces his spouse is guilty. In the second saying in Matthew 5:32b, a woman who unlawfully divorces her husband and the man whom she divorced her husband for are both guilty."
Again, I think this is clearly the correct interpretation.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"This would also make sense as to why the man in Matthew 5:32b who would marry this divorced woman is guilty of adultery. He is guilty because he is the complicit partner and beneficiary of this woman’s unlawful divorcing of her husband. In other words, the “homewrecker” is not innocent. This would emphasize that the adultery is not in the future marriage itself, but in the way it was being attained (i.e., through an unlawful divorce, specifically caused by a third complicit party).
The preferred paraphrase of Mathew 5:32b would be:
“And the homewrecker whom the woman unlawfully divorced her husband for is also guilty of adultery because he is the beneficiary/complicit partner of her unlawful divorce.”
Again, this is how I believe we should interpret the words.
This is a long posting and I know that many will have lost interest before they have finished. But, for those who see the importance of the subject, they will see the importance of such a lengthy investigation. In the next posting I will have a few more things to say regarding Matthew 5: 31-32 and its proper interpretation. I will also deal with whether the there is any suggestion that anyone guilty of adultery in the passage continues to "live in adultery" while in a marriage that was entered into unlawfully. I will also in the next posting begin to look at the other verses in the gospels where Jesus talked about divorce and remarriage and cases of adultery.
