Please note that the writings in blue are clickable links.
Hi Theophilus
If I have correctly understood the things that you have been saying, you have presented the argument that in a remarriage situation adultery only occurs if you separate from a marriage partner without divorcing that partner and then remarry, but if you divorce your marriage partner no adultery will occur in any subsequent remarriage.
This argument is based on the premise that in regard to a marriage situation the Hebrew word
shalach in the Old Testament and the Greek word
apoluo in the New Testament do not refer to "divorce", but mean "separation", with "separation" meaning "non-divorced separation".
Matthew 19:9 (KJV) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
The argument says that the word translated as "put away" (
apoluo) in the Scripture above, and as mentioned by Jesus in the above Scripture and in other Scriptures
Matthew 5:31-32,
Matthew 19:3-12,
Mark 10:2-12,
Luke 16:15-18 actually means: "separate without divorce". The argument also says that "fornication" mentioned in the above Scripture (
Matthew 19:9) and in
Matthew 5:32 is adultery or includes adultery in its definition, even though adultery is referred to as "adultery" in those very Scriptures.
Here is the version of Matthew 5:31-32 presented by you and according to your argument:
…as Jesus stated: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever PUTS AWAY [separates from {apoluo}] his wife, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE. But I say to you that whoever PUTS AWAY [separates and remarries without being divorced from] his wife for any reason EXCEPT SEXUAL IMMORALITY causes her to commit adultery: and whoever marries a woman who is PUT AWAY [separated without being divorced {apoluo}] commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32).
With the word "put away"
apoluo meaning "separate without divorce", and
porneia (translated above as "sexual immorality") meaning something that occurs after the wedding ceremony, this means that if your wife has committed adultery (or sexual immorality, definition of which includes adultery), you are allowed to separate from that partner and remarry without divorcing that partner. That that is a logical result of interpreting "put away" as being "to separate without divorce" is confirmed and accepted by you:
Adultery is a lawful reason for putting away without a writ of divorce.
If sexual immorality/adultery of the wife results in the instant dissolving of the marriage, though perhaps that’s not exactly what you are saying, such that a divorce is not required, and remembering that your argument says it is remarriage without divorce that results in adultery, not remarriage after divorce, then why does not the adultery caused by remarriage without divorce result in the instant dissolving of the previous marriage? For an argument to remain valid, should it not remain logical throughout?
Mark 10:12 states that if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. How can she be committing adultery if her adultery has instantly dissolved the previous marriage?
Some now say that it is only the guilty partner who is committing adultery, and that the innocent partner is free to remarry. This is illogical nonsense as the previous marriage must exist for both not just for one, otherwise how could the previous marriage be an existing marriage? - besides the fact that the Scriptures say that the one who puts away his wife (wife = the innocent partner) causes her to commit adultery and the one that marries her commits adultery.
In regard to the meaning of "fornication" (KJV)
porneia mentioned in
Matthew 5:32 and
Matthew 19:9, how can it have the meaning of sexual sin inclusive of adultery occurring in the period of time after the wedding ceremony and as such be grounds for invalidating the marriage, when
in those very Scriptures themselves Jesus gave example of divorce, remarriage and adultery where
the adultery does not make the original marriage invalid? I only mention this again because even after I raised this question in a previous post you went ahead and posted (November 12, 2013) references from three translations that purport that
porneia is a sexual sin that occurs at a time after the marriage ceremony, but you ignored or did not notice the relevant and valid question that I asked and you did not supply any explanation as to how your definition of
porneia could possibly be true. I feel that that was somewhat amiss on your behalf.
Have you presented your argument in an attempt to give an OK to divorce and remarriage?
Here are some of your thoughts on divorce:
When a couple no longer has a great relationship, their marriage is no longer great. When they care more about their marriage than their marriage partner, they have misplaced the emphasis of their relationship. Being married does not create a great relationship. But having a great relationship creates a great marriage.
Which is greater in God’s eyes, the marriage or the people of the marriage?
If push comes to shove, who do we save, the institution or the people of the institution? And if we face the decision of either saving a marriage or the people of the marriage, which one do we choose? The people no doubt!
Jesus told us to deny ourselves and to take up our cross, and to follow Him. Does Scripture put the emphasis on the "great", or on the marriage?
The summary so far (of your argument) seems to be that if your wife commits adultery you are allowed to separate without divorcing her and remarry, and if your wife does not commit adultery you are not allowed to separate without divorcing her and remarry because the remarriage would be adultery but you are allowed (if the relationship is not great) to divorce her and remarry in which case the remarriage would not be adultery.
Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (KJV)
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send [
shalach] her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Your argument says that
shalach means "separated, but not divorced", even though the woman who was
shalach in the above Scripture was allowed to go and be another man's wife, and even though under the Law it was a requirement of the Law that for a woman to be
shalach she must first be given a bill/certificate of divorce.
According to e-Sword,
shalach is used 848 times in the Old Testament. Let's not confuse
shalach as used in the separation from a marriage situation, with other uses of
shalach, such as in Genesis 3:22 (…lest he put forth [
shalach] his hand, and take also of the tree of life…). The instructions for the
shalach of a wife are given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and which
shalach is preceded by a
cepher kriythuwth - a bill/certificate of divorce.
cepher kriythuwth: bill/certificate of divorce - cepher:writing, letter, scroll; kriythuwth: a cutting.
In Deuteronomy 24:1 & 3 the
cepher kriythuwth comes before (both in word order and in process) the
shalach.
In Western culture separation is followed by divorce, but in the Israelite culture, and under the Law, divorce is followed by separation, and under that criteria therefore a woman who has been
shalach is a divorced woman.
Your argument seems to be somewhat largely based on an interpretation of a passage in Malachi,
Malachi 2:13-16, concerning which your argument says that because these women are called "thy companion and the wife of thy covenant", and because
shalach means separation, these woman have never been divorced, that is, they have never received a bill/certificate of divorce.
And the argument says that it is not divorce that God hates, but separation without a divorce.
Malachi 2:15 NKJV
But did He not make
them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
"Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
It seems very clear that the problem is the breaking of the marriage covenant, a covenant to which God was a witness. How would divorce papers or the lack thereof change the effects resulting from the non-fulfillment and breaking of the marriage covenant? Is the "she is your companion and your wife by covenant" truly a revelation about a lack of a certificate of divorce, or is it an emphasis on the relevance and importance of the covenant?
(The Rotherham says: "was thy consort, and thy covenant wife" and the Brenton says: "was thy partner, and the wife of thy covenant" (they use the past tense). In the King James the word "is" is in italics, which signifies a word not in the original language but which has been added to assist the reader to understand the interpretation of the translator).
Notice how they [the Pharisees] begin by talking about putting away a wife and then switch to divorce.
Matthew 19:7 KJV
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mark 10:2-4 KJV
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put
her away.
In the above two references, the Pharisees mention
in one breath the certificate of divorcement and the putting away. Where therefore is the switching?
In defense of your argument, you say that the conversation in
Matthew 19:3-9 goes from non-divorced separation to divorced separation to non-divorced separation.
When the Pharisees mention the putting away is it not in reference to the certificate of divorcement that initiated the putting away, and when the Pharisees mention the certificate of divorcement is it not in reference to the putting away that resulted from the certificate of divorcement?
Reading
Matthew 19:3-9 and
Mark 10:2-9 together it can be seen that the words of Jesus in reply to the Pharisees "put away his wife" of Matthew 19:3 and to the Pharisees "write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away" of Mark 10:4 are much the same. Therefore the "putting away" and the "writing a bill of divorcement, and putting her away" are the same thing, not two different things. I think an honest reading of the text, and even more so when comparing the account in Mark with the account in Matthew, will show that there is no switching from non-divorced to divorced separation and back to non-divorced separation in the conversation.
Also, as strict followers of the Law, or their interpretation of the Law, it seems unlikely that the Pharisees would neglect the paperwork when divorcing their wives.
At least in some respect, your argument has reduced the words of Jesus to: "Don't forget the paperwork when you are divorcing, fellas."
Also you referred "the beginning" back to the Law, instead of truly back to the beginning.
God gave Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away for her unfaithfulness! That is God divorced Israel because she had fornicated. Can't we do the same?
To start with, I think Israel was an espoused wife when God divorced her, not an "after the wedding ceremony" wife. Nevertheless, by "the same", are you referring to the same faithfulness that God displayed to Israel after He divorced her?
In regard to What is Marriage, please refer to: (link)
WHAT IS MARRIAGE, written by L. Ray Smith. Even though I do not agree with statements in the last couple of paragraphs I direct you to the rest of the article in regard to the significance, importance, and relevance of the wedding ceremony and of the marriage covenant.
Oatmeal