Divorce  (3)
		Addressing some relevant problem areas

This third study on the subject of divorce seeks to handle some of the more obvious objections that might arise from the two previous studies. I do not consider this to be the final and ultimate word on the subject, but it is hoped that these studies will provide further food for thought.

The reader may find some of this material rather technical in places but I am seeking to deal with some objections that have been raised over the validity of the Greek text.

To read the Greek the reader will need to change the font into either "symbols" or a Greek font if you have one available.

1. Whether the phrase in Matt 19:9 allows for divorce and remarriage
	"I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another  commits adultery".

The question is whether the exception clause just relates to "he who divorces his wife"  and not the last phrase, "marries another"?  Some teach that the exception clause  ("except for adultery" ) only modifies the first verb in the sentence ("divorces") and not  the second verb ("marries"). This is certainly the teaching of the Roman Catholic  Church.

Some suggested answers:- 

a)	It is true that an exception clause may modify one part of the sentence without  affecting another, but in this instance (Matt 19:9) the one part which it is said to modify  cannot stand alone (ie  mh e-pi porneia "except for fornication"). If the next part of the  verse is omitted as part of the exception clause (ie kai gamhsh a=llhn  "and marries  another") we are forced to include the final part ( moicatai "commits adultery") and  we thus form a nonsense statement which reads, "whoever puts away his wife except  for fornication commits adultery". No interpreter believes that Jesus was teaching that  divorce on its own meant that adultery was being committed! The "adultery" is only  committed when the person remarries. Hence, it follows that the whole verse is  incomplete without the principle verb "commits adultery" ( moicatai ) It is the  committing "adultery" by remarriage which is the ruling thought in this passage. The  very exceptive clause, therefore, must have a direct bearing upon the action denoted  by the verb that governs. Consequently, if the exception clause has a direct bearing  upon the verb which it governs (moicatai) then it must also have a direct bearing  upon that which must occur before the action denoted by the principle verb, namely,  the marrying of another. Therefore, the exceptive clause must (in syntax) apply to the  committing of adultery in the event of remarriage as well as to the wrong of putting  away.

b)	The principle teaching in Matt 19:9 is that of divorce and remarriage, and it is this  couplet, or "co-ordination", which prepares the ground for the committing of adultery. It  would be incorrect, therefore, to separate the exception clause from the "remarrying"  and apply it merely to the "divorce". Furthermore, the exception clause is well placed in  order to show its influence on all three elements of the text - 'putting away', 'adultery'  and 'remarriage'. Thus the exception affects the whole of the text in its entirety. 

c)	Divorce has the effect of dissolving the marriage bond, as it was under the Mosaic  economy. Thus in the teaching of Jesus the "putting away" ( a=polush "divorce" ) has  the same effect of dissolving the marriage union. The point is that Jesus was opposed  to the concept of the Jews that divorce could be obtained for  "any cause" (kata  pasan ai=tian). For Jesus there was only one single ground upon which divorce  could be allowed, and that was "fornication" ( or adultery committed by one of the  parties). If, therefore, divorce, on the grounds of adultery, dissolves the marriage bond,  then we could not expect that remarriage would be regarded as a further act of  adultery! Hence the point that Jesus is making must be that there is only one ground  for divorce and its attendant remarriage and that is where one member of the marriage   party has committed adultery. The "exception" clause must refer to both parts of the  verse, namely, divorce and remarriage.

d)	If remarriage is not permissible when a divorce has occurred following an act of  adultery, then it must be concluded that in principle the marriage bond still exists. This  is the reason given for those who advocate divorce without remarriage. They argue  that even if divorce has occurred for an act of adultery, the marriage bond still exists in  the eyes of God. Hence, remarriage cannot even be contemplated. It is advocated that  where this happens both parties separate from "bed and board" but they are still  married  and so cannot remarry. But to provide for and sanction permanent separation  while the marriage tie remains unbroken is something that is alien to the whole tenor of  Scripture teaching in regard to the obligations of a significant part of the marriage bond  itself. The teaching on marriage from 1 Cor 7:1-5 becomes impossible to fulfil, yet  advocates of this view maintain that this is still a marriage as the divorce has not  dissolved the original marriage bond3.

e)	It must be remembered that the teaching from 1 Cor 6:15-16 indicates that what  cements the marriage bond is not the Church ceremony, rather it is the act of sexual  intercourse. It is this that makes them "one flesh". Adam and Eve did not have a  "marriage ceremony", but God brought them together and they consummated their  marriage through sexual intercourse. Even within the law of the country, if a legally  married couple do not consummate their marriage alliance through sexual intercourse,  the marriage is pronounced "null and void". It is no marriage at all. It must follow  therefore, that adultery on the part of one member of the marriage gives ground for the  dissolution of the marital bond, for that partner has "become one flesh" with the other  person.  The exception clause, therefore, in Matt 19:9 provides grounds (on the basis  of "adultery/fornication") for the guiltless partner to be divorced with the intention of  remarrying. Adultery alone dissolves the marriage, thus leaving the "innocent" party to  remarry. In simple terms it means that the parties are no longer man and wife, hence a  remarriage of the innocent party is possible4.

2. The variant Greek text in Matt 19:9

a) The Greek texts.
There are two distinct renderings of the Greek text in Matt 19:9 both having strong  manuscript support. If the "variant" is used the problem of the "remarriage" element is  removed.

The two readings are: -
i)  Matt 19:9 reads legw| de u-min o-ti o-j a=n a=polush thn gunaika au=tou mh
 e=pi porneia kai gamhsh a=llhn moicatai. "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife  except for fornication and marries another commits adultery".
Supported by Codex Sinaiticus (a ); ( note also that kai gamhsh a=llhn "and marries  another" is also supported by codex Bezae (D) ).

ii)  The variant reading is - legw| de u-min o-ti o-j a=n a=polush thn gunaika au=tou  parektoj logou porneiaj poiei au=thn moiceuqhnai "except for fornication  makes her to be an adulteress" (see Matt 5:32)
Supported by Codex  Vaticanus (B) and Bezae (D) 

b)	The principle difference is that the former (i) contains the phrase "and marries  another" whilst the latter (ii)  omits it. In the text supported by Codex  Vaticanus (B)  and Bezae (D)  (ii) nothing is said about the possibility of "remarriage"  of the man who  divorces his wife for her adultery. If this variant were to be taken as the main reading it  would mean that there is nothing in the teaching of Jesus to suggest that remarriage is  a possibility. This would solve the problem completely. It will be noticed that this is the  reading of Matt 5:32 even where the exception clause is included, "But I say to you  that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of  adultery, makes her an  adulteress....." ( e=gw de legw u-min o-ti paj o- a=poluwn thn gunaika au=tou  parektoj logou porneiaj poiei au=thn moiceuqhnai ). 

c)	The question is, which of these two renderings is the correct one? Some scholars  who dismiss the idea that remarriage is being taught in Matt 19:9 do so, not on the  grounds that the Sinaiticus text is not the correct one, but on the premiss that this  element was inserted by Matthew at a later date to modify the teaching of Jesus. They  believe that the Sinaiticus text is the correct one, but admit that the text was later  edited by Matthew or another person to bring the teaching in line with current thinking. 

	John Murray suggests5 that it is not without significance that such critical editors of the  Greek NT text such as Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, von Soden, Nestle, and Souter  have all preferred the reading of the Sinaiticus text,  mh e=pi porneia kai gamhsh  a=llhn moicatai , "except for fornication and marries another, commits adultery".  Equally, it is interesting to note that the English translations - AV, RSV, NIV, ARV -  have all used the the Vaticanus text as the standard genuine text. 

d) 	Reasons for the Sinaiticus  text being adopted as the correct text:

	i) The Sinaiticus text which includes the phrase, "and marries another" has support  from a large number of uncial and cursive manuscripts and also versions. 

	ii) The reading of mh e=pi porneia kai gamhsh a=llhn moicatai , "except for  fornication and marries another, commits adultery", (Sinaiticus) is clearly the more  difficult reading because it appears to contradict Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 where  the exception clause does not exist neither the additional part "and marries another".  Therefore, on this basis, if the genuine text of Matthew 19:9 (Sinaiticus )  is the   correct text it is   easy to understand  why  the other variant reading crept in to make it   conform to the Mark and Luke passages. The variant reading (Vaticanus)  removes  the discrepancy  between Matthew and the other two Synoptics and simply becomes a  repetition of Matt 5:32.  But, on the other hand, if the variant is the genuine text ( ie,  Vaticanus, as in Matt 5:32) it is more difficult to see why the other text crept in (ie kai  gamhsh a=llhn "and marries another" Sinaiticus  ). If Matt 19:9 , as we have it in our  bibles, is the genuine Greek text then this makes it a unique piece of NT writing. This  uniqueness argues for it genuineness rather than for the opposite.

3. Why do the Synoptic writers differ in their recording of Jesus words?

a)	Since Mark and Luke do not refer to divorce for adultery, it follows that they could not  refer to the right of remarriage. Given that Matthew 19:9 ( and 5:32) are the only  references which allow divorce on the basis of adultery, it follows that Matthew must  also treat the subject of remarriage. One does not get divorced to remain single, but  with the purpose of forming a second marriage. Therefore it follows that if the  issue of  permission to divorce is handled by the writer, he ought also to handle the matter of  remarriage. The two coexist. On the other hand, where the writers do not mention the  permission to divorce (ie, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18) , one would not expect them to  treat the issue of remarriage. This, then, is the reason why there is a difference  between Matthew and the other two synoptic writers. Mark and Luke are only focusing  upon the evils associated with the Jewish customs of their day, namely divorce for any  cause.

b)	Furthermore, Mark 10:12 raises an issue which none of the other writers mention,  namely the right of the woman to divorce her husband, "...and if she divorces her  husband and marries another, she commits adultery".  Whilst Matthew is the only  writer who comments upon the right of divorce on the basis of adultery/fornication, he  only makes reference to the husband in this case and not the woman. Of course, Mark  does not teach that the woman ( or anyone) has the right to divorce her husband on  the basis of adultery. The point, however, is that Mark is pointing out that the same law  regarding divorce applies to the woman as it does to the man if she takes the initiative  in a divorce suit. Mark does at least contemplate the possibility that a woman may  wish to divorce her husband, and reflects the social order where a woman may choose  to instigate divorce proceedings. Whilst this alone does not prove that the woman has  the same right as the man to divorce proceedings for adultery ( as in Matt 19:9), but it  does show that in the Christian economy there is provision for the woman to be  accorded equal rights as the man in the event of unfaithfulness.

4     Law or Grace - What has happened to forgiveness?

a)	Where the issue of divorce is handled by those who would refuse remarriage to  either the "innocent" or the "guilty" party, one wonders whether there has arisen a  legal/Christian  casuistry. It appears that this is the one "sin" which the Church can  control with strict discipline. By flatly refusing to remarry a divorced person external  discipline can be applied to this particular "offence" in a way that no other sin can be  disciplined. The Church can continue to apply discipline on a continuum by refusing to  permit such a person to the Lord's Table, or denying them a specific role within the  activity of the Church. The person(s) concerned may have repented, acknowledged  their guilt (whether they be the "innocent" or "guilty" party) giving evidence of their  confession, but the rules and regulations of the Church will not demonstrate full and  frank pardon. This divorce and/or remarriage is regarded as a "continuous" sin (  perhaps continually living in adultery) and therefore is "unforgivable". This strictness  applies even where the individual has remarried and there is no opportunity of  reconciliation with the first spouse.

	One can empathise with the Church which takes this firm stand, for it is believed that  to accept such persons into the inner-most folds of the fellowship would be regarded  as an act of condoning the guilt, and thereby either opening the flood gates for further  abuses of marriage or presenting a poor image of the sanctity of marriage for the  younger (unmarried) members of the Church.

b)	However, three important issues arise from this.

	i) The matter of genuine, biblical forgiveness must not be overlooked. Whilst one is  not advocating the dismissal of the importance and purity of marriage, a proper  balance must be struck between seeking to maintain a sacred view of the institution  and the biblical mandate "forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you"  (Ephesians 4: 32).	

	There is a grave danger that the Church, in seeking purity in one area, namely the  sanctity of the marriage bond, may be guilty of transgressing in another area, namely  that of forgiveness. Jesus points out the importance of forgiveness in the words, "So  also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother  from your heart" ( Matt 18:35). See also the Lord's Prayer ( Matt 6:12) where the  claim for forgiveness is built upon the premiss that we are forgiving others.
												
	ii) Grace has always been in danger of abuse. As stated above, the Church's  reluctance to pardon so-called "offenders" may be based upon a fear that forgiveness  will cheapen the concept of marriage and cause many to abuse the Church through  seeking divorce and subsequent remarriage. This is an issue I have referred to in an  earlier paper ( see my "Divorce- the guilty party"). One must agree that such an  approach could produce various abuses, but given that "grace" has always been in  danger of abuse, obedience to the NT command to forgive must not be overlooked. 

	We know that if we preach salvation by grace alone through faith it is open to those  who will think that they can be saved and continue in their sin. Paul was fully aware of  this problem in Romans 6:1 "Shall we sin that grace may abound?" His answer was  that for the genuine believer such a proposition is impossible, "How shall we, who died  to sin, continue to live in it?". A true child of God will not abuse grace, rather it will  humble him and produce genuine repentance leading to greater obedience. However,  knowing that we run the risk of cheapening grace every time we tell the backslider that  "there is forgiveness with God", we nevertheless  continue to preach forgiving and  saving grace.

	Therefore, although we may run the risk of being accused of lowering the  sanctify of   marriage in favour of forgiveness of all sins through grace, we must nevertheless run  this risk if we wish to remain true to the Scriptures we profess to uphold.

	iii) The sins of adultery and "remarriage" must not be magnified so as to eclipse all  other sins which are of equal importance. Because the "sin" of divorce and remarriage  are  visible sins we tend to apply stricter rules. Sins of the "flesh", sexual sins have  always attracted more attention and negative responses from the Church than any  other sins. The danger has been that in so doing the Church has negated other sins,  or at the very least, relegated them to a lesser status. However, the NT does not so  classify sins. Sins of the mind such as envy, lust, greed etc receive equal emphasis  and will attract an equal degree of divine wrath.

	 Jesus highlighted the importance of the sins of the mind to a level that was  comparable to the external sins when He said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You  shall not commit adultery'. But I shall to you, everyone who looks as a woman lustfully  has already committed adultery with her in his heart" ( Matt 5:27-28). Which one of us  has not committed this sin? If this is the case, we are all guilty of "adultery/fornication".  Does this sin, then, remain unforgivable? Shall we not come to the Lord's table  because we have committed adultery in the mind? Should the Church refuse us a role  of activity in the Church? Of course not. Why? Because we have been forgiven. 

	But, if we are guilty of such sins of the heart, surely the Church should discipline us?  The fact is, of course, no one but ourselves know that these sins has been committed.  The are secret sins. But should secret sins be treated any more lightly than external  sins? Or, is it more proper to say that as secret sins can and are forgiven by God, we  can extend the same forgiveness to others who commit such sins externally? 

c)	 I am not advocating a loose and careless attitude towards marriage. It is important,  for the sake of families, the Church and the wider society that the sanctity of marriage  is maintained. It would be dangerous for us to set aside the rules of scripture which are  established for our benefit. Whilst we may say that all sins can be forgiven and that the  "sins" which surround marriage must be treated with the same degree of kindness, yet  scripture  does pose certain boundaries, beyond which we must not transgress.  However, those boundaries must be scripturally based, arising from a sound  exergesis,  and not from a personal, cultural or pragmatic source. 

© Copyright Richard Lee 9 August 1997his document may be downloaded and used for distrubituion but it is not for resale.