1990
Sep. 8
Colin
Jones
Churches
of Christ
Minister
Dear Colin,
I read
your article DIVORCE
and REMARRIAGE:
A BIBLICAL VIEW. I appreciate your "full hearted desire for the
truth".
(p. 1) I agree with most of what you wrote but am not convinced in
everything.
You told
me that if
someone of your congregation
went ahead with divorce on grounds of adultery such a person: "would
have
to go somewhere else." Such potential disruption to another's life is
only
justified if your conclusions are the "Biblical View" without there
being
any possible doubt. I believe that you would not deliberately impose
any
rules that interfere with anyone's "freedom in Christ".
A BRIEF
REVIEW
In your
article you quoted
Malachi 2:16:
"For I hate divorce, says the Lord." Also Mark 10:11-12 "Whosoever
divorces
his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she
divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
You showed
that marriage
is meant to mirror
the relationship of Christ with his Church and you asked: "Would Christ
ever divorce his bride?" You defined marriage as: "a one flesh union
between
a man and a woman, designed to reflect the union of Christ and His
Church
and dissolved only by death…"
You also
countered the
apparent "Exception
Clauses":
"But I
say to you that
everyone who divorces
his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress;
and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
"And I say
to you: whoever
divorces his wife,
except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." (Matthew
5:32 and 19:9)
A
PRINCIPLE
Almost
every major
Christian reference that
I consulted took the "exception clauses" as expressing an exception:
A Commentary On The
Bible Matthew
Poole
New
Dictionary Of
Theology Ferguson
& Wright (Eds)
Encyclopedia
Of
Biblical And Christian
Ethics R K Harrison (General Editor)
Unger's
Bible Dictionary
The
Wycliffe Bible
Commentary contrasted
with the others:
"if
fornication…referred
here to unchastity
by the bride during betrothal…then Christ allowed no grounds whatsoever
for divorce of married persons." (p. 963)
This
"if" statement is
a minority view
and has rarely been enforced among Protestants.
A
principle I wish to
affirm is this:
"Anyone who opposes the almost unanimous conclusion of Bible scholars
must
have very decisive evidence before expecting others to change; if there
is any uncertainty then it is the one man who must hold his peace and
not
the majority who must change."
Without
this principle
Christians risk being
"tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine." (Ephesians 4:14)
MATTHEW 5:
32
In Matthew
5:32 the word
"except" translates
the Greek word "parektos". This word occurs only 3 times in the New
Testament – in
Matthew 5:32, Acts 26:29, 2 Corinthians 11:28.
Everyone
of about 20 Bible
translations I
consulted translates parektos as "except" including:
- Holy
Bible (G.
Lamsa)
- The
Amplified New Testament
- Concordant
Literal New Testament
- The
Emphasized
Bible (J B Rotherham)
- American
Standard Bible
- The
Englishman's Greek New Testament
- The
Jerusalem Bible
- Young's
Literal Translation
- The
Moffat Translation
- The
New Testament In Modern Speech (R
F Weymouth)
According
to A Pocket
Lexicon To The Greek
New Testament (1916, A Souter) and Analytical Lexicon (1971)
"parektos" used as a preposition means "apart from" or "except".
Vine's
Expository
Dictionary of The Old
and New Testament Words states: "Parektos…is used…as a
preposition
signifying ‘except;' in Matt. 5:32, ‘saving;' in Acts 26:29…"
It seems
Jesus permitted
divorce for "unchastity".
We can't decide from Matthew 5 whether this entails permission to
remarry.
Ordinarily when there is no Bible command for or against something a
Christian
is free to make his own choice.
MATTHEW
19:9
The
Exception Clause of
Matthew 19:9 is either
me
epi
porneia =
except for fornication
or
ei me
epi
porneia = if not for
fornication
depending
on which of
the Greek manuscripts
is accepted.
Extracts
from three
Interlinear (between
the lines) Bibles showing the English and Greek are reproduced below.
[The
reproductions are here omitted]
The phrase
"ei me" occurs
about 90 times
in the New Testament. A full list can be consulted in the Englishman's
Greek Concordance of The New Testament (G V Wigram) p. 186.
It means
"but" "save" or
"except".
The Analytical
Greek
Lexicon (p. 116)
gives the meaning as "unless" or "except".
The 20
Bibles mentioned
earlier are unanimous
in rendering the English – whether the Greek is "me epi" or "ei me epi"
– as "except for" or phrases of same meaning.
Your
article Divorce
And Remarriage: A
BIBLICAL VIEW suggests that "epi" sometimes means "for the purpose
of".
This is
true in rare
instances. To translate
"epi" in this way in Matthew 19:9 doesn't assist your argument very
much
since it amounts to Jesus saying: "And I say to you: whoever divorces
his
wife, except for the purpose of unchastity, and marries another,
commits
adultery."
This
merely gives Jesus'
statement a double
meaning since it could be taken to say that divorce is O.K. provided
your
purpose is to be unchaste. I therefore suggest it's best to leave "epi"
with its usual meaning – which all prominent translators have done.
The
disciples responded to
Jesus: "If such
is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."
(19:10)
Evidently the disciples wanted further "exception clauses" than just
one.
After all, they were still Jews and accepted Deuteronomy 24:1 which
verse
implies a wide range of legitimate grounds for divorce.
The
passage in Mark and
Luke that corresponds
to Matthew 19:9 omits the exception clause. New Bible Dictionary suggests:
"The
reason for the
omission of the exceptive
clause in Mark and Luke could be that no Jew, Roman or Greek ever
doubted
that adultery constitutes grounds for divorce, and the Evangelists took
it for granted. Similarly Paul in Rom. 7:1-3, referring to Jewish and
Roman
law, ignores the possibility of divorce for adultery which both these
laws
provide." (p. 745)
ONE FLESH
"Marriage is
a one flesh
union of a man and
a woman, designed to reflect the union of Christ and His Church."
Since neither
Christ nor "His
Church" will die,
the "reflection" ends when either partner of a marriage dies. The
surviving
partner is then free to remarry and establish another "reflection". The
reflection, however, also ends when the "one flesh union of a man and a
woman" multiplies via fornication, homosexuality, adultery, bestiality
or prostitution!
God's
relationship to
Israel is compared
to the relationship of a husband and a wife. (Jeremiah 3:1-8) When
Israel
proved "unfaithful" by worshipping other Gods – the spiritual
equivalent
of adultery and/or fornication – God: "sent her away with a decree of
divorce."
By analogy
a human husband
could rightfully
do the same if his wife committed adultery.
Malachi
2:16 "I hate
divorce" is not a command
to reject divorce as an option in every possible circumstance. There
are
even examples in the Old Testament of divorce being insisted on. (See
Ezra
9-10; Nehemiah 13:23-31) In these cases the marriages had been such
that,
"We have broken faith with our God." (Ezra 10:2)
Another
consideration is
the Bible passages
where God expresses his desire for our health and physical well-being.
If God also opposed divorce for adultery, homosexuality and
prostitution
then such passages expressing desire for our well-being would be
inconsistent
with other passages where adultery, homosexuality and prostitution are
associated with disease and sickness. To force an innocent partner to
submit
to risk of disease hardly "reflects the union of Christ and his church."
I suggest,
therefore, that
your definition
of marriage "a one flesh union of a man and a woman designed to reflect
the union of Christ and His Church" is in harmony with there being an
"exception
clause".
CONCLUSIONS
The
"exception clause" is
translated correctly
in all major Bible translations. Scholars who prepared Bible
Commentaries
and/or Dictionaries are almost unanimous in their agreement.
An
ordinary reading of the
Bible by a layman
therefore gives the Christian statement on divorce, simply, without
need
to enter Greek grammar.
Colin, I'm
writing on
behalf of Investigator
Magazine. Their aim is to investigate disagreements and claims in
religion,
the supernatural and the paranormal and try to find the answer that is
right.
Even if Investigator's
analysis of
a topic turned out to be wrong the public is still thereby served and
benefited
because by refuting our error the other position is made firmer and
more
certain. After all, if something has not been tested then how could we
know that it is strong? (Proverbs 18:17; 20:25; 24:6)
Yours
faithfully,
|