Thursday, September 7, 2017
The Need For Colleagues
Christian bible students need colleagues, especially those who become scholars and teachers of the word of God. They need to be able to discuss bible topics and passages with those who are on the same level with them or with those who know more and can help them. That is why I enjoy the correspondence I have with other teachers and preachers. Father and I use to have the blessing of being able to discuss doctrine on a high level. I am glad that some others call me from time to time and I am able to discuss the deep things of God with them. It is sad that many preachers don't have colleagues with whom they can discuss freely their difficulties in understanding certain scriptures or to just share thoughts. So many times I have hungered for the opportunity to discuss bible topics with men of learning. I am glad for those I have had such a relationship. I am hopeful to have more and better colleagues in the word in the future.
Everlasting Task For Hardshells
There is a well known book titled "Everlasting Task For Arminians" By William Gadsby. Many Hardshells have historically promoted this book. I want to use that title as a basis for this short posting "Everlasting Task For Hardshells."
What is the everlasting task for the Hardshells? It is the task of trying to take all the scriptures that speak of the results of evangelical faith and to make them speak only of a temporal salvation or blessing!
What is the everlasting task for the Hardshells? It is the task of trying to take all the scriptures that speak of the results of evangelical faith and to make them speak only of a temporal salvation or blessing!
On The Justification Regeneration Ordo Debate
One of the blogs I read is by Steve Hays, a voluminous writer who often has good articles and who defends Calvinism. However, he is a Hyper Calvinist in his placing regeneration before conversion and justification. I have constantly written against those Calvinists who put regeneration before justification and have shown how the first Reformers, John Calvin et als, did not do so. Hays recently had a post titled "Repentance, remission, and justification" (see here) and I wish to quote some things Hays said and respond to them. Hays said (his words in black and the Catholic in red - emphasis mine):
"A recent exchange I had with a Catholic apologist (indeed, a sedevacantist!):
Here St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer done by the Holy Spirit) is how God justifies the sinner. This means that justification involves an ontological change within the believer, not merely a legal declaration. This also refutes the Protestant claim that sanctification is separated from justification and happens after it - to the contrary, in Titus 3:4-7 St. Paul says that sanctification is the basis for justification.
It has been my contention that it is the Catholics who put regeneration before justification and that the Protestants have put justification before regeneration. See my posting Justification precedes Regeneration for instance. Those Calvinists therefore who put regeneration before faith and justification are in league with the Pelagian Catholics and have deviated from Calvin and the first Reformers.
Hays wrote this in response:
i) At most, your conclusion only follows if the relationship between v6 and v7 is chronological, where justification is the effect of spiritual renewal. But more likely Paul is saying that inheriting eternal life is the combined effect of spiritual renewal and justification by grace.
ii) And even if there's a chronological sequence, that's entirely consistent with Calvinism: justification is contingent on faith while faith is contingent on regeneration.
Notice how Hays agrees with the Catholic on the point! He says regeneration precedes justification! Further, he claims that "Calvinism" has such an ordo salutis! Yet, the truth is, it is the Hyper Calvinist who puts regeneration before justification and is in league with the Pelagians!
Wrote the Catholic:
"This is also why Paul says in Romans 6:16 that obedience leads to righteousness - exactly as the Catholic Church teaches."
"But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification."
Responded Hays:
"I have no idea where you came up with that. In Reformed theology, justification is a consequence of faith while faith is a consequence of regeneration. So you've got the causal sequence out of order.
ii) I don't know where you get the idea that in Reformed theology, sanctification is the result of justification. Rather, sanctification is an outgrowth of regeneration. Justification is categorically different from regeneration or sanctification in Reformed theology. Justification is an ascribed status whereas sanctification is a process of moral and spiritual transformation."
Hays is wrong when he says that the Reformers put regeneration before justification! It is not the Calvinists who put regeneration before justification but it is the Hyper Calvinists who are in league with the Pelagian Catholics!
"A recent exchange I had with a Catholic apologist (indeed, a sedevacantist!):
Here St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer done by the Holy Spirit) is how God justifies the sinner. This means that justification involves an ontological change within the believer, not merely a legal declaration. This also refutes the Protestant claim that sanctification is separated from justification and happens after it - to the contrary, in Titus 3:4-7 St. Paul says that sanctification is the basis for justification.
It has been my contention that it is the Catholics who put regeneration before justification and that the Protestants have put justification before regeneration. See my posting Justification precedes Regeneration for instance. Those Calvinists therefore who put regeneration before faith and justification are in league with the Pelagian Catholics and have deviated from Calvin and the first Reformers.
Hays wrote this in response:
i) At most, your conclusion only follows if the relationship between v6 and v7 is chronological, where justification is the effect of spiritual renewal. But more likely Paul is saying that inheriting eternal life is the combined effect of spiritual renewal and justification by grace.
ii) And even if there's a chronological sequence, that's entirely consistent with Calvinism: justification is contingent on faith while faith is contingent on regeneration.
Notice how Hays agrees with the Catholic on the point! He says regeneration precedes justification! Further, he claims that "Calvinism" has such an ordo salutis! Yet, the truth is, it is the Hyper Calvinist who puts regeneration before justification and is in league with the Pelagians!
Wrote the Catholic:
"This is also why Paul says in Romans 6:16 that obedience leads to righteousness - exactly as the Catholic Church teaches."
"But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification."
Responded Hays:
"I have no idea where you came up with that. In Reformed theology, justification is a consequence of faith while faith is a consequence of regeneration. So you've got the causal sequence out of order.
ii) I don't know where you get the idea that in Reformed theology, sanctification is the result of justification. Rather, sanctification is an outgrowth of regeneration. Justification is categorically different from regeneration or sanctification in Reformed theology. Justification is an ascribed status whereas sanctification is a process of moral and spiritual transformation."
Hays is wrong when he says that the Reformers put regeneration before justification! It is not the Calvinists who put regeneration before justification but it is the Hyper Calvinists who are in league with the Pelagian Catholics!
Monday, September 4, 2017
Hardshells Decry the Gospel's Power
Recently I wrote an article titled "Hardshell Anti Faith Preaching" in which I observed that the Hardshells have deviated far away from their historical roots, from their forefathers who endorsed the Philadelphia Baptist Confession and who founded their separate denomination under the dual names of "Old School Baptists" or "Primitive Baptists" in the 1830s. Their forefathers sang of the power of faith, but today's Hardshells only speak of its impotency.
Those old Baptist forefathers also often spoke of the POWER of the gospel, of what it was "able" to do when attended with the blessing of God, and with "the hand of God," and were often crediting it with being the instrument of their internal change of heart that was the essence of rebirth. They seemed to not be able to stop heaping up enough praise to the glory, beauty, and conquering power of the gospel when preached with the Holy Ghost. In fact, two of the favorite verses of those forefathers (as anyone who is familiar with the writings of the Hardshell forefathers will agree) was to cite the words of Paul who spoke of the gospel being spoken "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (I Cor. 2:4 KJV) and who said "for our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." (I Thess. 1:4 KJV) They were often citing the words of Paul who said that "the gospel of Christ...is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth." (Romans 1:16 KJV) Another apostolic statement about the place of the gospel in the scheme of salvation, that they often quoted, were the words of Paul in II Thess. 2: 13 - "chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
Today's Hardshells, instead of speaking of the power of the gospel, of how it has made saints of sinners, has awakened sinners, has revealed Christ, and has regenerated, birthed, saved, converted, and transformed them, and how it is God's means in their preservation in Christ and in their necessary perseverance in the faith of the gospel, will rather decry how the gospel has no power to do these things. It only has power for the living, we are told, and not for the dead. It only has power to those who are already born and saved. This is what characterizes their preaching today. It is obvious that their views regarding the gospel's power is quite different in comparison to that of their forefathers. They not only are "anti faith" in their views regarding this Christian grace, and in their talks about the nature and power of faith, but are "anti gospel" in their views about the power and efficacy of the gospel when preached in the power of the Holy Spirit.
I would love to see things change in the ranks of my Hardshell brethren. I would love for them to repent of their anti means view of salvation and begin again to sing the praises about the gospel's power as did their forefathers. If they do not retrace their steps on this issue, to the place where they went wrong on this issue, and throw off their novel view, and adopt the true historic view of their forefathers, they will dwindle and die. It seems to me that they would love to see sinner's effected by the power of gospel preaching.
Those old Baptist forefathers also often spoke of the POWER of the gospel, of what it was "able" to do when attended with the blessing of God, and with "the hand of God," and were often crediting it with being the instrument of their internal change of heart that was the essence of rebirth. They seemed to not be able to stop heaping up enough praise to the glory, beauty, and conquering power of the gospel when preached with the Holy Ghost. In fact, two of the favorite verses of those forefathers (as anyone who is familiar with the writings of the Hardshell forefathers will agree) was to cite the words of Paul who spoke of the gospel being spoken "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (I Cor. 2:4 KJV) and who said "for our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance." (I Thess. 1:4 KJV) They were often citing the words of Paul who said that "the gospel of Christ...is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth." (Romans 1:16 KJV) Another apostolic statement about the place of the gospel in the scheme of salvation, that they often quoted, were the words of Paul in II Thess. 2: 13 - "chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
Today's Hardshells, instead of speaking of the power of the gospel, of how it has made saints of sinners, has awakened sinners, has revealed Christ, and has regenerated, birthed, saved, converted, and transformed them, and how it is God's means in their preservation in Christ and in their necessary perseverance in the faith of the gospel, will rather decry how the gospel has no power to do these things. It only has power for the living, we are told, and not for the dead. It only has power to those who are already born and saved. This is what characterizes their preaching today. It is obvious that their views regarding the gospel's power is quite different in comparison to that of their forefathers. They not only are "anti faith" in their views regarding this Christian grace, and in their talks about the nature and power of faith, but are "anti gospel" in their views about the power and efficacy of the gospel when preached in the power of the Holy Spirit.
I would love to see things change in the ranks of my Hardshell brethren. I would love for them to repent of their anti means view of salvation and begin again to sing the praises about the gospel's power as did their forefathers. If they do not retrace their steps on this issue, to the place where they went wrong on this issue, and throw off their novel view, and adopt the true historic view of their forefathers, they will dwindle and die. It seems to me that they would love to see sinner's effected by the power of gospel preaching.
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Hardshells & The Adultery Question V
In the previous postings we began to consider the teaching of Jesus concerning marriage, divorce, remarriage, and what constitutes "adultery" or "living in adultery." In the immediate previous posting I began with a close examination of Matthew 5: 31-32, a portion of the Sermon on the Mount. Focus was on verse 32 where Jesus said:
"...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." (KJV)
In looking at this text, I did not discuss what is meant by the word "fornication" (Greek poinei) because it is not an issue with my targeted audience. I did not address why Jesus did not use the word "adultery" instead of "fornication" in the exception clause. Why did Jesus not say "except it be for adultery" instead of "except it be for fornication"? Isn't the fornicating act of a married person an act of adultery? This becomes an issue to address when in discussion with those who think that all divorce is illegal and against the will of God. These people believe that only death dissolves a marriage and frees the married partner to marry again. They think that there is nothing, including adultery or fornication, that dissolves a marriage. Many Catholics believe this, as well as some Protestants. John Piper, a well known Baptist pastor and theologian, holds to this view. (see here)
These folks will argue that "fornication" is what occurs before a marriage, while one is single, and would be grounds for breaking a betrothal but not a marriage. They bring up the case of Joseph, who thought about "putting away" Mary, during their engagement, thinking that her pregnancy proved her guilty of "fornication." Of course, I reject that view, and so do the Hardshells. So, I am not going to deal with it, except to say that by such reasoning it makes God do wrong when he divorced Israel. (See Jeremiah 3:8)
I do believe that the word "fornication" (poinei, from which we get our word "porn" or "porno") is a broad term used for all kinds of forbidden sexual activity, and that the word "adultery" (Greek moicheia) is less broad, falling within the general category of fornication, a case of genus and difference.
Recap of Matthew 5: 32
In the previous posting I dealt at length with the first part of Matthew 5:32 and particularly on what is meant by the husband, who divorces for an unjust cause (not because of fornication), "causing" his divorced innocent wife to "commit adultery." I showed that the NIV translation was much closer to the truth in translating the words of Jesus as "makes her the victim of adultery." In this posting I want to give some further argumentation to uphold this view.
In the previous posting I also began to give what I consider to be the correct interpretation of the latter part of verse 32, a separate independent clause from the first part of the verse, where it is translated in the KJV as "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I want to enlarge upon what was stated in the end of the last posting, in regard to that clause, and to further demonstrate that the woman in this clause is not the same woman who was divorced unjustly in the first part of the verse, who was the "victim of adultery," as many falsely assume.
I will also in this posting consider whether the "committing adultery" by the man who marries a divorced woman is a one time act or whether it is a continuous state of sin, or a case of "living in adultery." If it is a one time act, then to repent of it would involve confessing the sin, and expressing sorrow for it, with a resolve not to do it again. If it is a continuous state, then to repent of it would involve divorcing the spouse, dissolving the unlawful union, and either remaining single and celibate or returning to the previous spouse, who is judged to still be the lawful spouse in spite of a divorce.
Recall that I was demonstrating that the common view about these questions was false. That view says that the woman actively sins, or commits adultery, when and if she marries another before her husband, who divorced her, A) commits adultery (by either 1. having sexual relations or 2. by marrying another) or B) dies. It was shown that such a view is false because 1) the woman is viewed as passive in being "made an adulteress" or in being a "victim of adultery," and 2) the text does not say "perhaps causes her to commit adultery," nor "sometimes causes her to commit adultery," which it would say if the popular view was correct, and 3) the text does not deny that the woman is actually divorced and thus allowed to marry again, and 4) affirms that the "committing adultery" occurs at the same time that the "putting away" and "causing" and not at some later time.
In the previous posting it was shown that "causeth (or maketh) her to commit adultery" (kjv) was a misleading translation in that it seems to indicate that the adultery of the woman, who is the victim of an unlawful divorce, is not a mere victim but rather a sinner, who commits adultery actively. Though this translation does put some blame upon the man who divorces his wife by the use of the word "causeth," nevertheless implicates the woman by adding the word "commit" in translation (interpretation). It was argued that the NIV translation best translates ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι by the words "makes her the victim of adultery."
It is possible to keep a translation such as "making her an adulteress" (Philips Translation) as long as one interprets the words as not denoting the actual making of an adulteress but only making one so in appearance. Recall that I cited from Starling on this point, who said - "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." (I John 5: 10) The husband who unlawfully divorced his wife in Matthew 5: 32 "makes his wife an adulterer" in the same way John said that hypocrites and false teachers "make God a liar."
It has also been stated that an unlawful divorce may in itself be an act of infidelity or adultery. But, let me enlarge upon this a little here.
Unlawful Marriages & Divorces = Adultery
If an husband causes his wife to be an adulteress, or to commit adultery, or to be the victim of adultery, by his divorcing her, then he is implicated in her being such. It is a case similar to our "felony murder doctrine." This rule of law is defined as - "The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer." Those who illegally divorce their spouses may be said, in like fashion, to be guilty of adultery even though there may not be a prior instance of actual sexual activity.
Keep in mind also that many times a husband will divorce his innocent wife because he has already mentally committed adultery in his heart and mind, and has formulated plans to actually do it once the divorce is finalized.
Most Christians probably do not think of "adultery" as sometimes denoting acts that are non sexual. If we have a case of adultery in a remarriage, when was it first committed? When the marriage was effected in the wedding ceremony? Or later when there was sexual intercourse for the first time? If we say the former, that the act of remarrying is also adultery, then we have not limited the definition to sexual acts.
What if an old man, who is impotent, and cannot have sexual relations, marries the "divorced woman" of Matthew 5: 32? Does he escape being guilty of "committing adultery" by not having sexual relations with his wife? Of course not. Obviously the Scriptures do not define marital adultery as necessitating a forbidden sexual act. Therefore, we argue that since the definition of the sin of "adultery" may denote an act of "marriage," so an act of "divorce" may also be an act of adultery. Both unlawful marriages and unlawful divorces are viewed as violations of the command not to commit adultery. Remember Matthew 5: 32 says "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Unlawful marriage is a "committing adultery" even if there is no sexual intercourse. (See also Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16: 18)
In APPENDIX D - On the Possibility of Nonsexual Adultery (see here), Luck wrote:
"In his commentary on Matthew 19:9, D. A. Carson says that if the remarriage clause is excluded, the thought becomes nonsensical: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits adultery”—surely untrue unless he remarries."
"Is this the case? Is it nonsense to speak of “nonsexual adultery”? I believe not. Consider first the difference between adultery, fornication, and marital sex. All may involve sexual acts, but what makes them different is their relationship to the matter of covenant. The sex of marital sex is moral since covered by covenant. The sex of fornication is a sin because it is not. And the sex of adultery is sin because it breaks the covenantal bonds. The essence of adultery is unfaithfulness. Adultery never takes place unless someone’s marriage vow has been broken."
"But does an act of sex have to take place in order for the breaking of a vow to be considered adulterous? In one sense, no. According to Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28, an unfaithful thought or, more precisely, a thought of unfaithful sex merits the offense-term adultery. Although it is true that the thought is about sexual relations, Jesus’ revolutionary saying contradicts the Pharisaical teaching exactly at the point at issue: must sexual acts be committed in order for the term adultery to be merited? Thinking of sexual acts is not in itself a sexual act; it is a mental act...Jesus is at pains to say that the man does not have to actually commit an act of sex to be guilty of sin."
"Matthew 5:32 speaks of a man adulterizing his wife by unjustly divorcing her. The adulterization takes place whether or not that woman remarries."
Remember that the sin of adultery is said to occur at the time of marriage, not at the time of the honeymoon when physical intercourse begins. "Whoever marries her that is divorced," said Jesus, "commits adultery." He did not say "whoever marries and has intercourse."
Luck also wrote:
"The next clause (of Matt. 5: 32b - "whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery" SG) is, as argued in chapter 7, independent of the first. If so, the New Testament is consistent with Malachi in identifying a nonsexual form of adultery, that is, the covenant breaking of unjust divorce. It is treachery, clear and simple. And it remains the sin of adultery whether or not either or both of the former partners remarry...seeing marital breach as “adultery” regardless of whether it involves sex...Unjust divorce (or desertion) is a form of adultery; adultery is a form of porneia; and porneia is justifiable grounds for divorce and remarriage."
Yes, it is important to see "marital breach" as an instance of "adultery," and that "whether it involves sex" or not. "Unjust divorce" indeed "is a form of adultery." Thus, the hard hearted husband who puts away his innocent wife for reasons other than fornication, is committing adultery and making his wife a victim of it.
Luck also wrote:
"Rather than concur that nonsexual adultery is linguistic nonsense, I argue that the idea is eminently sensible and biblically sound. On the contrary, what is nonsense is arguing that remarriage must take place for adultery to occur."
How anyone can say that non sexual adultery is nonsense in light of the words of Jesus is amazing. He clearly said that unlawful marriages are instances of adultery.
Definition of the Greek verb moicheuō (commit adultery)
The KJV, according to Strong, translates the verb in the following manner: commit adultery (13x), in adultery (1x).
to commit adultery
to be an adulterer
to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another's wife
of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols
Thayer also, as has been previously stated, gave "to suffer adultery" and "be debauched" in cases like Matthew 5: 32a where the word is written in the passive voice form.
On the uniqueness of the way the Greek word for "adultery" is given in Matt. 5: 32a Luck wrote:
1. The verb moikeuthanai in the text of Matthew 5:32 is an aorist passive/middle infinitive. As an infinitive, it is a verbal substantive. The question is, which (verbal or substantive) predominates this verse? The infinitive in question seems to be the direct object of the main verb, in our case, “to make” or “cause “ It identifies what the divorcing man makes her to experience.
Recall that we cited from Dr. Phil Johnson in the first article in this series who argued that the "aorist" tense, being "punctiliar," does not generally denote continuous or linear action. Many argue that since the present tense is mostly used to describe the action of adultery in the pertinent passages, it must therefore describe a continuous "state" of adultery because most often the present tense is linear, not denoting a specific point in time as does the aorist tense. But more on that later.
Luck continued:
2. As to voice, its force may be presumed to be not as strong as that of the main verb, but it cannot be ignored. In the case of our infinitive, the voice is passive or middle. If middle, there is a stress upon personal interest in the actor, in this case the treacherously divorced woman. It would emphasize her part in committing the sin of adultery. Since such interest would seem to displace the interest which the text clearly places upon the man who divorces her without grounds, the selection of this voice is generally ignored by interpreters in favor of a simple active force. If it is a passive, then the woman becomes the recipient of the adultery which is caused (main verb) by the divorcing husband. She suffers the sin of adultery, not commits it. The presumption rests with the passive, since the middle voice is more rare, and since the middle places a wrong emphasis upon the woman’s culpability rather than that of her former husband.
As we have stated, verbs in the passive and middle voice are written alike in Greek. So, it is possible, though unlikely for contextual reasons, that "commit adultery" be middle voice; And, if so, then the woman certainly would be implicated. She would then be viewed, after her unjust divorce, as not only actively sinning in remarrying but doing it for her own benefit. She would be not only the actor but the recipient of the action. But, as Luck says, "the selection of this voice is generally ignored by interpreters," though they offer an active voice interpretation to what is a passive voice word. She obviously is not committing adultery with or on herself!
Luck continued:
3. The exception to this presumption is when the verb is defective. Such a defective verb, called “deponent” by Greek scholars, would have to be one of a short list of such verbs which had, through the process of the evolution of the language, lost their active voice forms. Moikeuthanai is not one of those verbs, therefore, the presumption remains in favor of the passive interpretation and anyone suggesting otherwise has the burden of proof if he suggests another voice/force, namely active. The translation preferred would be either “he causes her to be adulterized” or “he causes her to suffer adultery.”
Those are two good translations, far better than those which imply that the woman herself sins by committing adultery.
Luck rightly points out that the act of the husband makes the innocent wife "AN ADULTERIZED WOMAN." He wrote:
"If a person is morally permitted only to divorce his wife on the grounds of “unchastity” (and in most instances this would entail adultery), but instead divorces her without these grounds, what does the divorce imply about this woman? The watching world will see the divorce and assume that the woman is guilty of adultery. This in effect puts the sin of the husband upon the head of the woman! He broke his vow of provision by divorcing her (a non-sexual form of adultery or treachery; see appendix D) and framed her with the stigma of being guilty of the only grounds for divorce allowed in the kingdom: sexual adultery. Thus, the woman is treated like a piece of property that has received the stamp “DEFECTIVE,” when in fact, it is the “stamper” who is morally defective. Moreover, grammatically, if the idea of the infinitive as a purpose of the main verb is stressed, it makes sense to say that the aim of his divorcing her is to render her adulterized, or “as an adulteress.” This might even be stronger if the infinitive were rendered as a noun: “He makes her an adulteress.”"
This is a better interpretation of Matthew 5: 32a than is commonly given in the commentaries, for it gets closer to the truth. Yet, it still comes short of what the words of the text are saying. Luck will demonstrate that truth.
Luck continued:
"But the likelihood is that the adulterization that the text wishes to express is not his “making her out to be” an adulteress (so Lenski), but rather that his act of divorcing makes her adulterized. In other words, it seeks to identify her husband as an adulterer. After all, the chief problem with the prevailing Pharasaical teachings on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was their implication that the husband was guiltless. But as I believe I have shown in chapter 3, the text of Deuteronomy intends nothing of the kind; it was intended to protect the woman from such a man. How ironic that Murray and others have preserved the exact Pharasaical mistake by insisting that the woman is “implicated in adultery.” Rather, it is the husband who is guilty of adultery in the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:31 f."
It is indeed the husband who is guilty of adultery by his divorcing his wife without lawful grounds. As I have shown, "adultery" does not necessitate an actual sexual act, but an unlawful divorce or marriage are examples of it. Luck correctly says "it is the husband who is guilty of adultery."
When Does The Innocent Woman "Commit Adultery"?
Two questions need to be answered in regard to the woman who was put away by a hard-hearted husband and who is said to "commit adultery" (KJV and others) as a result. First, how, or in what way, does the innocent woman "commit adultery" in being unjustly divorced? Second, when does the innocent woman who has been divorced wrongfully become a victim of adultery?
Luck continued:
"As to when the act occurs, that is determined by the main verb, “to cause.” But the tense of the clause is present and must be supplemented by some other wording to identify when this causing is occurring. For that, the immediate context provides the explanation: when the divorcing takes place."
When does the husband cause his wife to commit adultery, or to be adulterized? It is at the time of the divorce. The Greek makes that very clear. This being so, it makes it totally untenable to say that the woman is made to commit adultery in a subsequent remarriage. Yet, in spite of this argumentation, many commentators continue to say that the woman is made to commit adultery when she remarries sometime later than the divorce. These facts are detrimental to those interpreters who interpret the words "causes her to commit adultery" (KJV) as being fulfilled at a time later than the time of the divorce and when the woman supposedly unlawfully remarries another man.
Luck continued:
5. The participle (“he who is divorcing”), which matches the main verb as to tense (present), voice (active) and mode (indicative) is predicative (essential to the meaning of the sentence), making a statement about the subject of the sentence, namely the divorcing man. It is possible that both the verb and the participle are present tense verbals functioning as perfects. That is with a stress more on the state of the action as being complete, rather than durative or continuing actions. But, in either option (present or perfect) the time of the participle is determined by the main verb and is presumed to be inexorably tied to it as to time. The “causing” the man does, occurs when the divorcing takes place, not at some subsequent time, such as her speculated remarriage.
Again, such reasoning destroys the idea that the woman commits adultery at a time later than the divorcing.
Luck continued:
Thus, in sum: “the one who is divorcing without the cause of fornication is causing his wife to be adulterized’ or “the one who is divorcing without the grounds of fornication is making his wife to suffer adultery”—or simply, when he groundlessly divorces her he makes her suffer adultery. He has broken his vows to her to care for her.
The woman was made the victim of the man's adultery when she was divorced. The two verbs "divorcing" and "making" are joined together and cannot be separated as to time.
Luck continued:
"Though they emphasize different sides of the coin, the main intent of both Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Matthew 5:31-32 is to protect the woman from a hard-hearted husband who is treacherously inclined to treat her like chattel property. Deuteronomy 24 emphasizes the protection of the innocent wife. Matthew 5 emphasizes the culpability of the divorcing husband. Deuteronomy is not trying to exonerate the husband of the guilt of a form of adultery; Matthew is not trying to implicate the wife in adultery. Deuteronomy is not trying to offer a legal way out of a broken marriage; Matthew is not trying to prohibit the legal ending of a broken marriage. And by the same token, it is not the main purpose of Matthew to teach a legal way out of marriage. The exception clause is only an aside to the main point: implicating the treacherous male as an adulterer in the eyes of God over and against a Pharasaical, chauvinistic society."
It is important to realize, as Luck states, that Jesus, in the words of Matthew 5: 32, "is not trying to implicate the wife in adultery," although commentators and latter day interpreters try to do so.
Luck wrote:
"The grammar of the key verb form (“he who is divorcing”) is a present active participle, masculine singular. The Greeks seem to have loved participles, and a good number of that verb form are found in key divorce passages. Summers describes a participle as a verbal adjective. Being present active, the idea of continuous action is underscored. But, as Summers is quick to add, ‘The time of action in participles is indicated in the relation of the action of the participle to the action of the main verb.” He goes on to say, ‘The present participle indicates action which is contemporaneous with the action of the main verb.” And again, “… it is sufficient to know that the present participle indicates continuous action which takes place at the same time as the action of the main verb.” Thus, in our verse, the divorcing of the woman occurs at the time when he causes or makes his wife to experience adultery. This participle appears to be used in the attributive position and therefore should be given a relative translation: “The one who divorces…is the one who is causing…” It is, therefore, not proper to imply, as many interpreters seem to do, that the divorcing subsequently leads to the causing of the woman to commit adultery, when she remarries. The divorcing occurs at the time of the causing, not previously to it."
Clearly Luck shows the error in finding the fulfillment of "commit adultery" in a subsequent remarriage that occurs at a time later than the time of divorce.
Next, Luck wrote:
"R. C. H. Lenski had previously challenged this traditional interpretive framework as poorly analyzed by it proponents. In 1943 Lenski argued the following points:
1. The woman of 5:32a is innocent of wrong. It is her husband who has destroyed the marriage by the divorce-rendering her unable to fulfill her marital commitments. It is improper grammatically to find the responsible agent for her “adultery” in a second, hypothetical husband, for the causal agent of an infinitive must precede it.
I believe this to be so. The "cause" for the woman being an adulteress, or the victim of adultery, is not in her remarrying, but is in the act of her husband divorcing her. His divorcing her is the "causal agent" that precedes her being adulterated. It cannot be that her subsequent remarriage is what causes her to "commit adultery" for that act comes after the infinitive.
All commentators who find that the woman "commits adultery" in her remarriage make her to do it actively and not passively, but such is not possible by the Greek grammar, unless it be taken as a case of the middle voice, which nearly all agree would be out of context to do. It is true that "commit adultery" is a valid translation of most occurrences of the Greek verb because they are in the active voice, but such is not the case in Matthew 5:32a, which gives the verb in either the passive or middle voice.
Luck continued:
"Thus, in sum: “the one who is divorcing without the cause of fornication is causing his wife to be adulterized" or “the one who is divorcing without the grounds of fornication is making his wife to suffer adultery”—or simply, when he groundlessly divorces her he makes her suffer adultery. He has broken his vows to her to care for her."
That is correct. The man who put away his wife for reasons other than fornication is the one guilty of adultery. And, if this is so, then of course the woman has a right to remarry.
Is The Unlawfully Divorced Woman Free To Remarry?
One of the chief questions to determine in regard to the innocent woman in Matthew 5: 32a is whether she is really "divorced," that is, divorced "in the eyes of God." Or, is she, as many affirm, still married (in the eyes of God) to her husband who divorced her without cause? Of course, if the latter is true, then of course she cannot remarry but must 1) be reunited with the husband who divorced her, or 2) remain unmarried until her former husband frees her by his own act of adultery. If, however, the former is true, that she is truly divorced in the eyes of God by the act of her husband, then it cannot be a sin for her to remarry, nor a sin for a man to marry her.
Kevin Pendergrass wrote the following in his article "MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED BY DIVORCE" (see here emphasis mine):
"There are some who teach that marriage can’t be dissolved except through death or a lawful divorce. The reality is that marriage is in fact dissolved through divorce (regardless of the reason) and death. The Bible teaches, in both the Old and New Testament, that marriage is dissolved through divorce, even if it is unlawful divorce."
This is the error of those, like my father, who think that most marriages are not ended by divorce. And, if they are not ended by divorce, "in the eyes of God," then of course a remarriage would be instances of adultery.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, under the Law of Moses, the Bible teaches that if a man divorced his wife and she went and became another man’s wife, then she couldn’t return back to her original husband even if her current husband was to die. This was to protect the woman."
This reasoning completely annihilates the reasoning of those, like father, who think that unlawful divorces are not really divorces, and that people remain married "in the eyes of God" even though they are divorced. If the husband unlawfully divorces his wife (for a reason other than fornication), the strict view would say that the man must seek the return of his divorced wife, and that the divorced wife must also seek to be returned to her estranged former husband, but this text forbids such a thing. Ergo, the strict view is shown to be false. Divorce, even unjustified divorce, severs the marriage.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Jesus also taught that marriage can be dissolved. In John 4:17-18, Jesus recognized that the woman at the well had been married to 5 husbands and was currently living with someone she wasn’t even married to."
Exactly so!
Wrote Pendergrass:
"If marriage was not dissolved through divorce, then Jesus would have told the woman to return to her original spouse, or He would have told her to return to the last man to whom she was scripturally married. However, that wasn’t what Jesus said. Instead, Jesus acknowledged that the woman had been married 5 times. Jesus taught that the woman had no husband (Jn. 4:17). Divorce, even unlawfully, dissolves marriage according to Jesus."
Again, this is correct and is against the strict view of father and many Hardshells and Campbellites that affirms that people who remarry after an illegal divorce "live in a state of adultery."
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Not only did Moses and Jesus teach that marriage can be dissolved, but Paul also taught that marriage can be dissolved. According to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, man can separate what God has joined together. Even though someone may divorce unlawfully, Paul taught that divorce severs the marriage. The apostle Paul says that when a wife departs from her husband they are unmarried. The word for depart/divorces is the same word used in Matthew 19:6, translated separate or put asunder. Thus, one can separate what God has joined together according to Paul. Some believe that Paul is referring to mere separation. However, that position can not be sustained. Paul uses the exact same word Jesus used. Furthermore, Paul is clearly referring to divorce in this context (1 Cor. 7:11b)."
Again, this is correct. We will hopefully expand on some of this when we look at the Matthew 19 and I Corinthian 7 passages.
Is The Adultery Continuous?
Luck wrote:
4. The tense of the infinitive is aorist. This tense implies “punctiliar action,” action which is conceptually complete, not a continuing activity."
Infinitives in English are generally recognized by the use of the preposition "to" (at least what are called "full infinitives"). We don't use them as much in English as do other languages, including NT koine Greek. When we say "to swim is fun," we have used an infinitive. The Greek word moikeuthanai is therefore translated properly in English as "to commit adultery" or "to be adulterized," or "to be the victim of adultery."
The Greek verb moikeuthanai in the text of Matthew 5:32 is an aorist passive/middle infinitive. "Commit adultery" is twice mentioned in Matt. 5: 32, but only in the first instance is the tense aorist, while the latter is in the present tense, its normal tense in the NT. As stated, many argue that "commit adultery" is a state, and not a single act, and say that the present tense shows this to be so, since present tense is "linear" and denotes continuous action. But, there are some problems with this line of reasoning. First, it is not always true that the present tense denotes ongoing action, though it generally does. Second, though it may denote linear action, it does not denote action that has no end. Third, why is the aorist tense used in the first instance of "commit adultery"? Generally, the aorist tense speaks of events that are not linear! This is what Dr. Phil Johnson argued in the first posting. The woman who suffers adultery is not said to suffer it continuously.
Wrote Luck:
"The tense of the infinitive for the act of adultery is aorist, which stresses punctiliar action. “Punctiliar” means specific action, indefinite or undefined as to the time it occurs. If you want further to pin the time down for the infinitive, you have to refer to the time sense of the main verb. Compare this with Acts 15:37, where Barnabas proposes to take Mark on the pending missionary journey. Thus, the debated phrase relating to the divorce woman and adultery, would seem to be saying that the point-act of adultery happens when he causes it, which, in turn happens when the divorce takes place. All of this supports our previous conclusion that recourse to the second, independent saying should not be taken, but the first saying should be interpreted on its own. And, it would seem that only an interpretation such as we have offered here, “causes her to be adulterized,” or perhaps, “causes her to suffer adultery” will do justice to the grammar."
Wrote Pendergrass in "MATTHEW 19:9 AND THE PRESENT INDICATIVE" (see here):
"In the Greek language, the phrase “commits adultery” is present indicative in Matthew 19:9. In the Greek, the present indicative usually carries with it the force of continuation. Some have made the argument based upon the Greek language that one is continuing in adultery as long as they continue in a subsequent marriage after their divorce. In this article, I am going to explain why such is not the case."
But, as stated, "commit adultery" is not always in the "present tense"; the words "makes her to commit adultery," for instance, are in the aorist tense. Though it is true that "the present indicative usually carries with it the force of continuation," it is not universally so.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"First, the present indicative doesn’t necessitate continued action and can refer to a completed action. Professor Osburn states it this way:
“…Greek syntax requires that each occurrence of the present indicative be understood in terms of its context to determine whether continuity is involved. The context of Matt. 19:3-12 involves a discussion of general truth, as a ‘gnomic present’ in which continuity is not under consideration…” (Carroll Osburn, The Present Indicative in Matt. 19:9. Restoration Quarterly Corporation, Abilene, Taxes, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1981. p. 193; See also: Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 517; Robertson, The Grammar of the Greek New Testament In Light of Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn,; Broadman Press, 1934, p. 864-865).
Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that an action must be continual just because it is in the present indicative."
Exactly so, and therefore, the burden of proof is on those who insist that a state of adultery continues when it has been initially committed by an act of adultery.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"The tenses found in the marital teachings of Jesus are anything but uniform. Let me explain.
For example, in Matthew 5:32a, the divorcing is present tense and the adultery committed is aorist. In Matthew 5:32b, the divorcing is in the perfect tense, the remarrying is aorist, and the adultery is in the present.
Below I have broken it down by action:
Divorce (Present: Mt. 5:32a; Lk. 16:18a; Perfect: Mt. 5:32b; Lk. 16:18b; Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a; Mt. 19:9b). Marries Another (Aorist: Mt. 5:32b; Mt. 19:9b; Present: Lk. 16:18a; Lk. 16:18b; Perfect: Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a). Commits Adultery (Aorist: Mt. 5:32a; Present: Mt. 5:32b; Lk. 16:18a; Lk. 16:18b; Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a; Mt. 19:9b).
As one can tell, when we compare the narratives, there is little uniformity among the tenses in the marital teachings."
Again, all this shows that the argumentation for a state of adultery based upon the use of the Greek present tense for the verb translated "commit adultery" is not sound or convincing.
Wrote Pendergrass under the heading "INCONSISTENT APPLICATION":
"If one wants to reason that the adultery is an ongoing state in Matthew 19:9 simply on the basis of the present indicative, then one would also have to reason that the divorce attained unlawfully is an ongoing state of sin as well since it is in the present indicative in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18. When one divorces (or was divorced) unlawfully, even if they remain single, they are in a constant state of separating what God has joined together (Mt. 19:6), regardless if they remarry. Yet, this doesn’t mean one can’t remain single after an unlawful divorce just because it is in the present indicative anymore than it would mean one can’t remain in their new marriage after an unlawful divorce just because it is in the present indicative.
This is sound reasoning!
Wrote Pendergrass:
"In other words, if one wants to base their argument solely upon this faulty understanding of the present tense, then remaining single after obtaining an unlawful divorce is just as sinful as remarrying after obtaining an unlawful divorce since both actions (divorce and adultery) are seen in the present indicative in the marital teachings of Jesus. Obviously, this conclusion is nonsensical and demonstrates why one should abstain from making Greek tense arguments when dealing with hypothetical time."
Again, such reasoning completely overthrows the argumentation that the present tense linear supports the idea that adultery is not a single act but a continuous state.
Wrote Pendergrass under "THE ONGOING EFFECT":
"Let’s say someone rejected all of the above information and still wanted to base their argument on the present indicative, believing that it is continual. If such were the case, then the present indicative at best would show how the effects of the unlawful divorce and marriage are continual. Consider a murderer who takes a man’s life. He can repent, but the effects of that action will always be continuous. He will always be deemed a “murderer.” If a man mistreats his wife and divorces her, there will be an ongoing effect that he was a bad husband. The same is true if someone divorces unlawfully to marry someone else. Sure, they can be forgiven, but those effects will always be there."
Again, this is sound reasoning.
In the next posting we will continue our look at Matthew 5: 32 and particularly the latter part of the verse that says "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
I was intending to include this look at the latter part of the verse in this posting, but seeing it is long enough, will do so in the next.
"...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." (KJV)
In looking at this text, I did not discuss what is meant by the word "fornication" (Greek poinei) because it is not an issue with my targeted audience. I did not address why Jesus did not use the word "adultery" instead of "fornication" in the exception clause. Why did Jesus not say "except it be for adultery" instead of "except it be for fornication"? Isn't the fornicating act of a married person an act of adultery? This becomes an issue to address when in discussion with those who think that all divorce is illegal and against the will of God. These people believe that only death dissolves a marriage and frees the married partner to marry again. They think that there is nothing, including adultery or fornication, that dissolves a marriage. Many Catholics believe this, as well as some Protestants. John Piper, a well known Baptist pastor and theologian, holds to this view. (see here)
These folks will argue that "fornication" is what occurs before a marriage, while one is single, and would be grounds for breaking a betrothal but not a marriage. They bring up the case of Joseph, who thought about "putting away" Mary, during their engagement, thinking that her pregnancy proved her guilty of "fornication." Of course, I reject that view, and so do the Hardshells. So, I am not going to deal with it, except to say that by such reasoning it makes God do wrong when he divorced Israel. (See Jeremiah 3:8)
I do believe that the word "fornication" (poinei, from which we get our word "porn" or "porno") is a broad term used for all kinds of forbidden sexual activity, and that the word "adultery" (Greek moicheia) is less broad, falling within the general category of fornication, a case of genus and difference.
Recap of Matthew 5: 32
In the previous posting I dealt at length with the first part of Matthew 5:32 and particularly on what is meant by the husband, who divorces for an unjust cause (not because of fornication), "causing" his divorced innocent wife to "commit adultery." I showed that the NIV translation was much closer to the truth in translating the words of Jesus as "makes her the victim of adultery." In this posting I want to give some further argumentation to uphold this view.
In the previous posting I also began to give what I consider to be the correct interpretation of the latter part of verse 32, a separate independent clause from the first part of the verse, where it is translated in the KJV as "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I want to enlarge upon what was stated in the end of the last posting, in regard to that clause, and to further demonstrate that the woman in this clause is not the same woman who was divorced unjustly in the first part of the verse, who was the "victim of adultery," as many falsely assume.
I will also in this posting consider whether the "committing adultery" by the man who marries a divorced woman is a one time act or whether it is a continuous state of sin, or a case of "living in adultery." If it is a one time act, then to repent of it would involve confessing the sin, and expressing sorrow for it, with a resolve not to do it again. If it is a continuous state, then to repent of it would involve divorcing the spouse, dissolving the unlawful union, and either remaining single and celibate or returning to the previous spouse, who is judged to still be the lawful spouse in spite of a divorce.
Recall that I was demonstrating that the common view about these questions was false. That view says that the woman actively sins, or commits adultery, when and if she marries another before her husband, who divorced her, A) commits adultery (by either 1. having sexual relations or 2. by marrying another) or B) dies. It was shown that such a view is false because 1) the woman is viewed as passive in being "made an adulteress" or in being a "victim of adultery," and 2) the text does not say "perhaps causes her to commit adultery," nor "sometimes causes her to commit adultery," which it would say if the popular view was correct, and 3) the text does not deny that the woman is actually divorced and thus allowed to marry again, and 4) affirms that the "committing adultery" occurs at the same time that the "putting away" and "causing" and not at some later time.
In the previous posting it was shown that "causeth (or maketh) her to commit adultery" (kjv) was a misleading translation in that it seems to indicate that the adultery of the woman, who is the victim of an unlawful divorce, is not a mere victim but rather a sinner, who commits adultery actively. Though this translation does put some blame upon the man who divorces his wife by the use of the word "causeth," nevertheless implicates the woman by adding the word "commit" in translation (interpretation). It was argued that the NIV translation best translates ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι by the words "makes her the victim of adultery."
It is possible to keep a translation such as "making her an adulteress" (Philips Translation) as long as one interprets the words as not denoting the actual making of an adulteress but only making one so in appearance. Recall that I cited from Starling on this point, who said - "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." (I John 5: 10) The husband who unlawfully divorced his wife in Matthew 5: 32 "makes his wife an adulterer" in the same way John said that hypocrites and false teachers "make God a liar."
It has also been stated that an unlawful divorce may in itself be an act of infidelity or adultery. But, let me enlarge upon this a little here.
Unlawful Marriages & Divorces = Adultery
If an husband causes his wife to be an adulteress, or to commit adultery, or to be the victim of adultery, by his divorcing her, then he is implicated in her being such. It is a case similar to our "felony murder doctrine." This rule of law is defined as - "The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer." Those who illegally divorce their spouses may be said, in like fashion, to be guilty of adultery even though there may not be a prior instance of actual sexual activity.
Keep in mind also that many times a husband will divorce his innocent wife because he has already mentally committed adultery in his heart and mind, and has formulated plans to actually do it once the divorce is finalized.
Most Christians probably do not think of "adultery" as sometimes denoting acts that are non sexual. If we have a case of adultery in a remarriage, when was it first committed? When the marriage was effected in the wedding ceremony? Or later when there was sexual intercourse for the first time? If we say the former, that the act of remarrying is also adultery, then we have not limited the definition to sexual acts.
What if an old man, who is impotent, and cannot have sexual relations, marries the "divorced woman" of Matthew 5: 32? Does he escape being guilty of "committing adultery" by not having sexual relations with his wife? Of course not. Obviously the Scriptures do not define marital adultery as necessitating a forbidden sexual act. Therefore, we argue that since the definition of the sin of "adultery" may denote an act of "marriage," so an act of "divorce" may also be an act of adultery. Both unlawful marriages and unlawful divorces are viewed as violations of the command not to commit adultery. Remember Matthew 5: 32 says "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Unlawful marriage is a "committing adultery" even if there is no sexual intercourse. (See also Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16: 18)
In APPENDIX D - On the Possibility of Nonsexual Adultery (see here), Luck wrote:
"In his commentary on Matthew 19:9, D. A. Carson says that if the remarriage clause is excluded, the thought becomes nonsensical: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits adultery”—surely untrue unless he remarries."
"Is this the case? Is it nonsense to speak of “nonsexual adultery”? I believe not. Consider first the difference between adultery, fornication, and marital sex. All may involve sexual acts, but what makes them different is their relationship to the matter of covenant. The sex of marital sex is moral since covered by covenant. The sex of fornication is a sin because it is not. And the sex of adultery is sin because it breaks the covenantal bonds. The essence of adultery is unfaithfulness. Adultery never takes place unless someone’s marriage vow has been broken."
"But does an act of sex have to take place in order for the breaking of a vow to be considered adulterous? In one sense, no. According to Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28, an unfaithful thought or, more precisely, a thought of unfaithful sex merits the offense-term adultery. Although it is true that the thought is about sexual relations, Jesus’ revolutionary saying contradicts the Pharisaical teaching exactly at the point at issue: must sexual acts be committed in order for the term adultery to be merited? Thinking of sexual acts is not in itself a sexual act; it is a mental act...Jesus is at pains to say that the man does not have to actually commit an act of sex to be guilty of sin."
"Matthew 5:32 speaks of a man adulterizing his wife by unjustly divorcing her. The adulterization takes place whether or not that woman remarries."
Remember that the sin of adultery is said to occur at the time of marriage, not at the time of the honeymoon when physical intercourse begins. "Whoever marries her that is divorced," said Jesus, "commits adultery." He did not say "whoever marries and has intercourse."
Luck also wrote:
"The next clause (of Matt. 5: 32b - "whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery" SG) is, as argued in chapter 7, independent of the first. If so, the New Testament is consistent with Malachi in identifying a nonsexual form of adultery, that is, the covenant breaking of unjust divorce. It is treachery, clear and simple. And it remains the sin of adultery whether or not either or both of the former partners remarry...seeing marital breach as “adultery” regardless of whether it involves sex...Unjust divorce (or desertion) is a form of adultery; adultery is a form of porneia; and porneia is justifiable grounds for divorce and remarriage."
Yes, it is important to see "marital breach" as an instance of "adultery," and that "whether it involves sex" or not. "Unjust divorce" indeed "is a form of adultery." Thus, the hard hearted husband who puts away his innocent wife for reasons other than fornication, is committing adultery and making his wife a victim of it.
Luck also wrote:
"Rather than concur that nonsexual adultery is linguistic nonsense, I argue that the idea is eminently sensible and biblically sound. On the contrary, what is nonsense is arguing that remarriage must take place for adultery to occur."
How anyone can say that non sexual adultery is nonsense in light of the words of Jesus is amazing. He clearly said that unlawful marriages are instances of adultery.
Definition of the Greek verb moicheuō (commit adultery)
The KJV, according to Strong, translates the verb in the following manner: commit adultery (13x), in adultery (1x).
to commit adultery
to be an adulterer
to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another's wife
of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
A Hebrew idiom, the word is used of those who at a woman's solicitation are drawn away to idolatry, i.e. to the eating of things sacrificed to idols
Thayer also, as has been previously stated, gave "to suffer adultery" and "be debauched" in cases like Matthew 5: 32a where the word is written in the passive voice form.
On the uniqueness of the way the Greek word for "adultery" is given in Matt. 5: 32a Luck wrote:
1. The verb moikeuthanai in the text of Matthew 5:32 is an aorist passive/middle infinitive. As an infinitive, it is a verbal substantive. The question is, which (verbal or substantive) predominates this verse? The infinitive in question seems to be the direct object of the main verb, in our case, “to make” or “cause “ It identifies what the divorcing man makes her to experience.
Recall that we cited from Dr. Phil Johnson in the first article in this series who argued that the "aorist" tense, being "punctiliar," does not generally denote continuous or linear action. Many argue that since the present tense is mostly used to describe the action of adultery in the pertinent passages, it must therefore describe a continuous "state" of adultery because most often the present tense is linear, not denoting a specific point in time as does the aorist tense. But more on that later.
Luck continued:
2. As to voice, its force may be presumed to be not as strong as that of the main verb, but it cannot be ignored. In the case of our infinitive, the voice is passive or middle. If middle, there is a stress upon personal interest in the actor, in this case the treacherously divorced woman. It would emphasize her part in committing the sin of adultery. Since such interest would seem to displace the interest which the text clearly places upon the man who divorces her without grounds, the selection of this voice is generally ignored by interpreters in favor of a simple active force. If it is a passive, then the woman becomes the recipient of the adultery which is caused (main verb) by the divorcing husband. She suffers the sin of adultery, not commits it. The presumption rests with the passive, since the middle voice is more rare, and since the middle places a wrong emphasis upon the woman’s culpability rather than that of her former husband.
As we have stated, verbs in the passive and middle voice are written alike in Greek. So, it is possible, though unlikely for contextual reasons, that "commit adultery" be middle voice; And, if so, then the woman certainly would be implicated. She would then be viewed, after her unjust divorce, as not only actively sinning in remarrying but doing it for her own benefit. She would be not only the actor but the recipient of the action. But, as Luck says, "the selection of this voice is generally ignored by interpreters," though they offer an active voice interpretation to what is a passive voice word. She obviously is not committing adultery with or on herself!
Luck continued:
3. The exception to this presumption is when the verb is defective. Such a defective verb, called “deponent” by Greek scholars, would have to be one of a short list of such verbs which had, through the process of the evolution of the language, lost their active voice forms. Moikeuthanai is not one of those verbs, therefore, the presumption remains in favor of the passive interpretation and anyone suggesting otherwise has the burden of proof if he suggests another voice/force, namely active. The translation preferred would be either “he causes her to be adulterized” or “he causes her to suffer adultery.”
Those are two good translations, far better than those which imply that the woman herself sins by committing adultery.
Luck rightly points out that the act of the husband makes the innocent wife "AN ADULTERIZED WOMAN." He wrote:
"If a person is morally permitted only to divorce his wife on the grounds of “unchastity” (and in most instances this would entail adultery), but instead divorces her without these grounds, what does the divorce imply about this woman? The watching world will see the divorce and assume that the woman is guilty of adultery. This in effect puts the sin of the husband upon the head of the woman! He broke his vow of provision by divorcing her (a non-sexual form of adultery or treachery; see appendix D) and framed her with the stigma of being guilty of the only grounds for divorce allowed in the kingdom: sexual adultery. Thus, the woman is treated like a piece of property that has received the stamp “DEFECTIVE,” when in fact, it is the “stamper” who is morally defective. Moreover, grammatically, if the idea of the infinitive as a purpose of the main verb is stressed, it makes sense to say that the aim of his divorcing her is to render her adulterized, or “as an adulteress.” This might even be stronger if the infinitive were rendered as a noun: “He makes her an adulteress.”"
This is a better interpretation of Matthew 5: 32a than is commonly given in the commentaries, for it gets closer to the truth. Yet, it still comes short of what the words of the text are saying. Luck will demonstrate that truth.
Luck continued:
"But the likelihood is that the adulterization that the text wishes to express is not his “making her out to be” an adulteress (so Lenski), but rather that his act of divorcing makes her adulterized. In other words, it seeks to identify her husband as an adulterer. After all, the chief problem with the prevailing Pharasaical teachings on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was their implication that the husband was guiltless. But as I believe I have shown in chapter 3, the text of Deuteronomy intends nothing of the kind; it was intended to protect the woman from such a man. How ironic that Murray and others have preserved the exact Pharasaical mistake by insisting that the woman is “implicated in adultery.” Rather, it is the husband who is guilty of adultery in the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:31 f."
It is indeed the husband who is guilty of adultery by his divorcing his wife without lawful grounds. As I have shown, "adultery" does not necessitate an actual sexual act, but an unlawful divorce or marriage are examples of it. Luck correctly says "it is the husband who is guilty of adultery."
When Does The Innocent Woman "Commit Adultery"?
Two questions need to be answered in regard to the woman who was put away by a hard-hearted husband and who is said to "commit adultery" (KJV and others) as a result. First, how, or in what way, does the innocent woman "commit adultery" in being unjustly divorced? Second, when does the innocent woman who has been divorced wrongfully become a victim of adultery?
Luck continued:
"As to when the act occurs, that is determined by the main verb, “to cause.” But the tense of the clause is present and must be supplemented by some other wording to identify when this causing is occurring. For that, the immediate context provides the explanation: when the divorcing takes place."
When does the husband cause his wife to commit adultery, or to be adulterized? It is at the time of the divorce. The Greek makes that very clear. This being so, it makes it totally untenable to say that the woman is made to commit adultery in a subsequent remarriage. Yet, in spite of this argumentation, many commentators continue to say that the woman is made to commit adultery when she remarries sometime later than the divorce. These facts are detrimental to those interpreters who interpret the words "causes her to commit adultery" (KJV) as being fulfilled at a time later than the time of the divorce and when the woman supposedly unlawfully remarries another man.
Luck continued:
5. The participle (“he who is divorcing”), which matches the main verb as to tense (present), voice (active) and mode (indicative) is predicative (essential to the meaning of the sentence), making a statement about the subject of the sentence, namely the divorcing man. It is possible that both the verb and the participle are present tense verbals functioning as perfects. That is with a stress more on the state of the action as being complete, rather than durative or continuing actions. But, in either option (present or perfect) the time of the participle is determined by the main verb and is presumed to be inexorably tied to it as to time. The “causing” the man does, occurs when the divorcing takes place, not at some subsequent time, such as her speculated remarriage.
Again, such reasoning destroys the idea that the woman commits adultery at a time later than the divorcing.
Luck continued:
Thus, in sum: “the one who is divorcing without the cause of fornication is causing his wife to be adulterized’ or “the one who is divorcing without the grounds of fornication is making his wife to suffer adultery”—or simply, when he groundlessly divorces her he makes her suffer adultery. He has broken his vows to her to care for her.
The woman was made the victim of the man's adultery when she was divorced. The two verbs "divorcing" and "making" are joined together and cannot be separated as to time.
Luck continued:
"Though they emphasize different sides of the coin, the main intent of both Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Matthew 5:31-32 is to protect the woman from a hard-hearted husband who is treacherously inclined to treat her like chattel property. Deuteronomy 24 emphasizes the protection of the innocent wife. Matthew 5 emphasizes the culpability of the divorcing husband. Deuteronomy is not trying to exonerate the husband of the guilt of a form of adultery; Matthew is not trying to implicate the wife in adultery. Deuteronomy is not trying to offer a legal way out of a broken marriage; Matthew is not trying to prohibit the legal ending of a broken marriage. And by the same token, it is not the main purpose of Matthew to teach a legal way out of marriage. The exception clause is only an aside to the main point: implicating the treacherous male as an adulterer in the eyes of God over and against a Pharasaical, chauvinistic society."
It is important to realize, as Luck states, that Jesus, in the words of Matthew 5: 32, "is not trying to implicate the wife in adultery," although commentators and latter day interpreters try to do so.
Luck wrote:
"The grammar of the key verb form (“he who is divorcing”) is a present active participle, masculine singular. The Greeks seem to have loved participles, and a good number of that verb form are found in key divorce passages. Summers describes a participle as a verbal adjective. Being present active, the idea of continuous action is underscored. But, as Summers is quick to add, ‘The time of action in participles is indicated in the relation of the action of the participle to the action of the main verb.” He goes on to say, ‘The present participle indicates action which is contemporaneous with the action of the main verb.” And again, “… it is sufficient to know that the present participle indicates continuous action which takes place at the same time as the action of the main verb.” Thus, in our verse, the divorcing of the woman occurs at the time when he causes or makes his wife to experience adultery. This participle appears to be used in the attributive position and therefore should be given a relative translation: “The one who divorces…is the one who is causing…” It is, therefore, not proper to imply, as many interpreters seem to do, that the divorcing subsequently leads to the causing of the woman to commit adultery, when she remarries. The divorcing occurs at the time of the causing, not previously to it."
Clearly Luck shows the error in finding the fulfillment of "commit adultery" in a subsequent remarriage that occurs at a time later than the time of divorce.
Next, Luck wrote:
"R. C. H. Lenski had previously challenged this traditional interpretive framework as poorly analyzed by it proponents. In 1943 Lenski argued the following points:
1. The woman of 5:32a is innocent of wrong. It is her husband who has destroyed the marriage by the divorce-rendering her unable to fulfill her marital commitments. It is improper grammatically to find the responsible agent for her “adultery” in a second, hypothetical husband, for the causal agent of an infinitive must precede it.
I believe this to be so. The "cause" for the woman being an adulteress, or the victim of adultery, is not in her remarrying, but is in the act of her husband divorcing her. His divorcing her is the "causal agent" that precedes her being adulterated. It cannot be that her subsequent remarriage is what causes her to "commit adultery" for that act comes after the infinitive.
All commentators who find that the woman "commits adultery" in her remarriage make her to do it actively and not passively, but such is not possible by the Greek grammar, unless it be taken as a case of the middle voice, which nearly all agree would be out of context to do. It is true that "commit adultery" is a valid translation of most occurrences of the Greek verb because they are in the active voice, but such is not the case in Matthew 5:32a, which gives the verb in either the passive or middle voice.
Luck continued:
"Thus, in sum: “the one who is divorcing without the cause of fornication is causing his wife to be adulterized" or “the one who is divorcing without the grounds of fornication is making his wife to suffer adultery”—or simply, when he groundlessly divorces her he makes her suffer adultery. He has broken his vows to her to care for her."
That is correct. The man who put away his wife for reasons other than fornication is the one guilty of adultery. And, if this is so, then of course the woman has a right to remarry.
Is The Unlawfully Divorced Woman Free To Remarry?
One of the chief questions to determine in regard to the innocent woman in Matthew 5: 32a is whether she is really "divorced," that is, divorced "in the eyes of God." Or, is she, as many affirm, still married (in the eyes of God) to her husband who divorced her without cause? Of course, if the latter is true, then of course she cannot remarry but must 1) be reunited with the husband who divorced her, or 2) remain unmarried until her former husband frees her by his own act of adultery. If, however, the former is true, that she is truly divorced in the eyes of God by the act of her husband, then it cannot be a sin for her to remarry, nor a sin for a man to marry her.
Kevin Pendergrass wrote the following in his article "MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED BY DIVORCE" (see here emphasis mine):
"There are some who teach that marriage can’t be dissolved except through death or a lawful divorce. The reality is that marriage is in fact dissolved through divorce (regardless of the reason) and death. The Bible teaches, in both the Old and New Testament, that marriage is dissolved through divorce, even if it is unlawful divorce."
This is the error of those, like my father, who think that most marriages are not ended by divorce. And, if they are not ended by divorce, "in the eyes of God," then of course a remarriage would be instances of adultery.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, under the Law of Moses, the Bible teaches that if a man divorced his wife and she went and became another man’s wife, then she couldn’t return back to her original husband even if her current husband was to die. This was to protect the woman."
This reasoning completely annihilates the reasoning of those, like father, who think that unlawful divorces are not really divorces, and that people remain married "in the eyes of God" even though they are divorced. If the husband unlawfully divorces his wife (for a reason other than fornication), the strict view would say that the man must seek the return of his divorced wife, and that the divorced wife must also seek to be returned to her estranged former husband, but this text forbids such a thing. Ergo, the strict view is shown to be false. Divorce, even unjustified divorce, severs the marriage.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Jesus also taught that marriage can be dissolved. In John 4:17-18, Jesus recognized that the woman at the well had been married to 5 husbands and was currently living with someone she wasn’t even married to."
Exactly so!
Wrote Pendergrass:
"If marriage was not dissolved through divorce, then Jesus would have told the woman to return to her original spouse, or He would have told her to return to the last man to whom she was scripturally married. However, that wasn’t what Jesus said. Instead, Jesus acknowledged that the woman had been married 5 times. Jesus taught that the woman had no husband (Jn. 4:17). Divorce, even unlawfully, dissolves marriage according to Jesus."
Again, this is correct and is against the strict view of father and many Hardshells and Campbellites that affirms that people who remarry after an illegal divorce "live in a state of adultery."
Wrote Pendergrass:
"Not only did Moses and Jesus teach that marriage can be dissolved, but Paul also taught that marriage can be dissolved. According to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, man can separate what God has joined together. Even though someone may divorce unlawfully, Paul taught that divorce severs the marriage. The apostle Paul says that when a wife departs from her husband they are unmarried. The word for depart/divorces is the same word used in Matthew 19:6, translated separate or put asunder. Thus, one can separate what God has joined together according to Paul. Some believe that Paul is referring to mere separation. However, that position can not be sustained. Paul uses the exact same word Jesus used. Furthermore, Paul is clearly referring to divorce in this context (1 Cor. 7:11b)."
Again, this is correct. We will hopefully expand on some of this when we look at the Matthew 19 and I Corinthian 7 passages.
Is The Adultery Continuous?
Luck wrote:
4. The tense of the infinitive is aorist. This tense implies “punctiliar action,” action which is conceptually complete, not a continuing activity."
Infinitives in English are generally recognized by the use of the preposition "to" (at least what are called "full infinitives"). We don't use them as much in English as do other languages, including NT koine Greek. When we say "to swim is fun," we have used an infinitive. The Greek word moikeuthanai is therefore translated properly in English as "to commit adultery" or "to be adulterized," or "to be the victim of adultery."
The Greek verb moikeuthanai in the text of Matthew 5:32 is an aorist passive/middle infinitive. "Commit adultery" is twice mentioned in Matt. 5: 32, but only in the first instance is the tense aorist, while the latter is in the present tense, its normal tense in the NT. As stated, many argue that "commit adultery" is a state, and not a single act, and say that the present tense shows this to be so, since present tense is "linear" and denotes continuous action. But, there are some problems with this line of reasoning. First, it is not always true that the present tense denotes ongoing action, though it generally does. Second, though it may denote linear action, it does not denote action that has no end. Third, why is the aorist tense used in the first instance of "commit adultery"? Generally, the aorist tense speaks of events that are not linear! This is what Dr. Phil Johnson argued in the first posting. The woman who suffers adultery is not said to suffer it continuously.
Wrote Luck:
"The tense of the infinitive for the act of adultery is aorist, which stresses punctiliar action. “Punctiliar” means specific action, indefinite or undefined as to the time it occurs. If you want further to pin the time down for the infinitive, you have to refer to the time sense of the main verb. Compare this with Acts 15:37, where Barnabas proposes to take Mark on the pending missionary journey. Thus, the debated phrase relating to the divorce woman and adultery, would seem to be saying that the point-act of adultery happens when he causes it, which, in turn happens when the divorce takes place. All of this supports our previous conclusion that recourse to the second, independent saying should not be taken, but the first saying should be interpreted on its own. And, it would seem that only an interpretation such as we have offered here, “causes her to be adulterized,” or perhaps, “causes her to suffer adultery” will do justice to the grammar."
Wrote Pendergrass in "MATTHEW 19:9 AND THE PRESENT INDICATIVE" (see here):
"In the Greek language, the phrase “commits adultery” is present indicative in Matthew 19:9. In the Greek, the present indicative usually carries with it the force of continuation. Some have made the argument based upon the Greek language that one is continuing in adultery as long as they continue in a subsequent marriage after their divorce. In this article, I am going to explain why such is not the case."
But, as stated, "commit adultery" is not always in the "present tense"; the words "makes her to commit adultery," for instance, are in the aorist tense. Though it is true that "the present indicative usually carries with it the force of continuation," it is not universally so.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"First, the present indicative doesn’t necessitate continued action and can refer to a completed action. Professor Osburn states it this way:
“…Greek syntax requires that each occurrence of the present indicative be understood in terms of its context to determine whether continuity is involved. The context of Matt. 19:3-12 involves a discussion of general truth, as a ‘gnomic present’ in which continuity is not under consideration…” (Carroll Osburn, The Present Indicative in Matt. 19:9. Restoration Quarterly Corporation, Abilene, Taxes, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1981. p. 193; See also: Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 517; Robertson, The Grammar of the Greek New Testament In Light of Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn,; Broadman Press, 1934, p. 864-865).
Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that an action must be continual just because it is in the present indicative."
Exactly so, and therefore, the burden of proof is on those who insist that a state of adultery continues when it has been initially committed by an act of adultery.
Wrote Pendergrass:
"The tenses found in the marital teachings of Jesus are anything but uniform. Let me explain.
For example, in Matthew 5:32a, the divorcing is present tense and the adultery committed is aorist. In Matthew 5:32b, the divorcing is in the perfect tense, the remarrying is aorist, and the adultery is in the present.
Below I have broken it down by action:
Divorce (Present: Mt. 5:32a; Lk. 16:18a; Perfect: Mt. 5:32b; Lk. 16:18b; Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a; Mt. 19:9b). Marries Another (Aorist: Mt. 5:32b; Mt. 19:9b; Present: Lk. 16:18a; Lk. 16:18b; Perfect: Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a). Commits Adultery (Aorist: Mt. 5:32a; Present: Mt. 5:32b; Lk. 16:18a; Lk. 16:18b; Mk. 10:10-12; Mt. 19:9a; Mt. 19:9b).
As one can tell, when we compare the narratives, there is little uniformity among the tenses in the marital teachings."
Again, all this shows that the argumentation for a state of adultery based upon the use of the Greek present tense for the verb translated "commit adultery" is not sound or convincing.
Wrote Pendergrass under the heading "INCONSISTENT APPLICATION":
"If one wants to reason that the adultery is an ongoing state in Matthew 19:9 simply on the basis of the present indicative, then one would also have to reason that the divorce attained unlawfully is an ongoing state of sin as well since it is in the present indicative in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18. When one divorces (or was divorced) unlawfully, even if they remain single, they are in a constant state of separating what God has joined together (Mt. 19:6), regardless if they remarry. Yet, this doesn’t mean one can’t remain single after an unlawful divorce just because it is in the present indicative anymore than it would mean one can’t remain in their new marriage after an unlawful divorce just because it is in the present indicative.
This is sound reasoning!
Wrote Pendergrass:
"In other words, if one wants to base their argument solely upon this faulty understanding of the present tense, then remaining single after obtaining an unlawful divorce is just as sinful as remarrying after obtaining an unlawful divorce since both actions (divorce and adultery) are seen in the present indicative in the marital teachings of Jesus. Obviously, this conclusion is nonsensical and demonstrates why one should abstain from making Greek tense arguments when dealing with hypothetical time."
Again, such reasoning completely overthrows the argumentation that the present tense linear supports the idea that adultery is not a single act but a continuous state.
Wrote Pendergrass under "THE ONGOING EFFECT":
"Let’s say someone rejected all of the above information and still wanted to base their argument on the present indicative, believing that it is continual. If such were the case, then the present indicative at best would show how the effects of the unlawful divorce and marriage are continual. Consider a murderer who takes a man’s life. He can repent, but the effects of that action will always be continuous. He will always be deemed a “murderer.” If a man mistreats his wife and divorces her, there will be an ongoing effect that he was a bad husband. The same is true if someone divorces unlawfully to marry someone else. Sure, they can be forgiven, but those effects will always be there."
Again, this is sound reasoning.
In the next posting we will continue our look at Matthew 5: 32 and particularly the latter part of the verse that says "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
I was intending to include this look at the latter part of the verse in this posting, but seeing it is long enough, will do so in the next.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Work Out Your Own Salvation
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2: 12-13 KJV)
It is not my intention to write exhaustively on these verses as that would require more time and effort than I have at the present. However, I do want to say a few things about them.
When I was in High School, just after being converted and baptized, I recall talking to my Math teacher about religion. I don't even remember the context of our discussion. But, one thing I do remember well in regard to his words to me. He said "you must work out your own salvation." In spite of the fact that he was Catholic, his words to me still ring in my ear to this day. His point was to emphasize to me that salvation was a personal matter between God and me. I believe that with all my heart. Whatever I can do to help others to work out their own salvation, I will do it. But, my chief concern and effort is to work out my own salvation.
As I have grown older and come closer to the time of my departure I see even more the importance of heeding the words of the apostle. I am working on myself. I realize that nothing in this world is as important as my salvation. Physically I cannot do the things I once could. Even my mind is not as sharp as it once was, and my memory suffers. But, in spirit, I am still working, trying to get closer to the Lord, trying to be more like Jesus, cleaner, purer, and more holy. It is a battle. It is a fight to the death. The flesh is strong. The world and the Devil too. Getting tired, the temptation is to quit or give up. But, I must not, I cannot! I must win Christ! I must fight and persevere!
With all the work I do in bible study and writing for the good and salvation of others, my major work is for my own salvation. I cannot neglect my own salvation. It is part of what it means for me to get my house in order. I don't want to die while far off from my God and Savior.
Now, I of course do not believe that the salvation in the words "work out your own salvation" is a "time salvation" as the neo Hardshells teach. It is the same salvation that God is working in! When the scriptures teach that salvation is not by works, it is not excluding the need to work, or to labor, in order to win Christ and final salvation. That is an Antinomian error. Rather, "not of works" is referring to the basis or grounds of salvation, not what is part of the means. Jesus said "he who endures to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 24: 13) That is what I am trying to do as I work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. That is what I would encourage all to do!
It is not my intention to write exhaustively on these verses as that would require more time and effort than I have at the present. However, I do want to say a few things about them.
When I was in High School, just after being converted and baptized, I recall talking to my Math teacher about religion. I don't even remember the context of our discussion. But, one thing I do remember well in regard to his words to me. He said "you must work out your own salvation." In spite of the fact that he was Catholic, his words to me still ring in my ear to this day. His point was to emphasize to me that salvation was a personal matter between God and me. I believe that with all my heart. Whatever I can do to help others to work out their own salvation, I will do it. But, my chief concern and effort is to work out my own salvation.
As I have grown older and come closer to the time of my departure I see even more the importance of heeding the words of the apostle. I am working on myself. I realize that nothing in this world is as important as my salvation. Physically I cannot do the things I once could. Even my mind is not as sharp as it once was, and my memory suffers. But, in spirit, I am still working, trying to get closer to the Lord, trying to be more like Jesus, cleaner, purer, and more holy. It is a battle. It is a fight to the death. The flesh is strong. The world and the Devil too. Getting tired, the temptation is to quit or give up. But, I must not, I cannot! I must win Christ! I must fight and persevere!
With all the work I do in bible study and writing for the good and salvation of others, my major work is for my own salvation. I cannot neglect my own salvation. It is part of what it means for me to get my house in order. I don't want to die while far off from my God and Savior.
Now, I of course do not believe that the salvation in the words "work out your own salvation" is a "time salvation" as the neo Hardshells teach. It is the same salvation that God is working in! When the scriptures teach that salvation is not by works, it is not excluding the need to work, or to labor, in order to win Christ and final salvation. That is an Antinomian error. Rather, "not of works" is referring to the basis or grounds of salvation, not what is part of the means. Jesus said "he who endures to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 24: 13) That is what I am trying to do as I work out my own salvation with fear and trembling. That is what I would encourage all to do!
Monday, August 21, 2017
I Would Like To See More Of This!
Brother Kenny Mann sent me these pics! "Primitive Baptist" involved in Revivals and in Soul Winning!
I hope that the Lord allows me in my retirement years to get involved with these kinds of Primitive Baptists, who are obviously of the non Hardshell type!
Friday, August 18, 2017
Hardshells & The Adultery Question IV
In this posting we will begin looking at the pertinent new testament passages which deal with the issue of divorce and remarriage and with the "living in adultery" issue.
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)
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."
It is my conviction that the correct view is the one that keeps the wrongfully divorced woman an innocent victim. The chief reason for this is because of the use of the passive voice for μοιχᾶσθαι, a single Greek word translated in the KJV by three words - "to commit adultery." This translation gives an active voice meaning to the passive voice. With the active voice, it would be the woman who is doing the adultery. But, with the passive voice, the one who is putting his wife away unjustly is doing the adultery, or adulterating. There are other reasons for seeing this as the correct view.
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.
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.
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 is 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 is 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)