DIVORCE THE BIG PICTURE

Transcription

1 DIVORCE THE BIG PICTURE by (Rev) P. Bloomfield, B.Ec., B.D. Hons, Dip.Ed. Published in 1995 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland. ISBN Contents Part 1 (pages 2-9) Deuteronomy 24:1-4 Moses Part 2 (pages 10-13) Matthew 5:27-32 Jesus Part 3 (pages 14-21) 1 Corinthians 7:10-17 Paul Appendix (pages 22-23) Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18

2 2 Divorce Part 1 A. Our basic temperament. Beware of being entirely negative about divorce, having nothing but condemnation for divorce and divorced persons! We must grapple with the fact that God is a divorced person! He says, for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I sent her away and gave her a certificate of divorce (Jer 3:8). Almighty God has sued for divorce and put asunder a former unity. From this we can observe: 1. Divorce is not necessarily evil in itself. Can God do evil? 2. There is a distinction between an undesirable thing and an evil thing. Divorce is undesirable even in Jeremiah 3:8, but it is more desirable than the alternatives. Our God does some things that give Him no pleasure and yet He is right and holy to do so. Thus, we in the church can expect involvement in the same ethical issues as we try to apply the mind of God in Scripture to sin-ridden humanity. 3. We must distinguish divorce (always undesirable but not always evil) from the human behaviour that caused it (evil). Another example is found in Ezra 10:10 ff where the divorce of foreign wives was clearly the will of God. Hence our basic temperament must be biblical realism. It is too easy to become unbalanced and emotional and to think that Malachi 2:14 is the last word on divorce ("I hate divorce says the Lord). Even where a very wrong divorce occurs we must not regard it as unforgivable sin and shun the person responsible as a leper. We regard marriage as a sacred covenant bond meant for life, therefore we reject liberal views on divorce. However, we realise even God is divorced, so we cannot sweep the topic aside with one simplistic quote of a text!

3 3 B. Our basic text (Deut 24:1-4) New International Version 1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. King James Version 1 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 her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. Three questions will help clarify the meaning of this text: 1. What s the meaning? 2. What s the problem? 3. What s the defilement? 1. What s the meaning? Here we are dealing with a translation issue. So far as grammar goes, we have a twopart statement. First, a when / if part, and, secondly, a then part. The idea is as follows: when (or if) a man takes a wife and certain things happen then something else also is to apply. It makes a big difference how much we put in the when / if section and how much in the then section. Where do we put the then? The K.J.V. puts it half way through the first verse, and all the rest is part of the then section. On this basis the divorce is not merely permitted but commanded, required, and prescribed. Clearly the K.J.V. is incorrect for several reasons.

4 4 a) This would put Deuteronomy 24 right out of harmony with the rest of Scripture. Nowhere is divorce required, even in the case of proven adultery. Reconciliation is always preferable. b) The Pharisees tried this translation on Jesus long before 1611 when they asked why then did Moses command (Greek GXPGVGKNCVQ) to give a certificate and divorce her? (Mtt. 19:7). Jesus answered because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted (Greek GXRGVTG[GP) you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way. Therefore nearly every other translation (New King James included) has the first three verses as the when / if section and verse 4 is in the then section. Now we can see the meaning. Moses is not requiring or even permitting divorce. He is simply facing an existing situation where divorces were going on. Far from condoning it, Moses here legislates to remove one of its many abuses, namely, the original couple remarrying after the divorced wife had been in a second marriage. Moses is not permitting divorce, but placing an obstacle before hasty actions by making it impossible to have a divorced wife back after she has remarried. In effect Moses is saying, you d better think twice before divorcing her because she will naturally need a new husband to support and protect her and once she does that you can never have her back, even if you regret with tears the original divorce. The aim is to stop godless and trifling views of marriage and divorce. However, Moses is not saying I hereby declare your divorces permissible. As Jesus said, Moses was simply dealing with the sins of hard hearts. He was just facing the fact that divorce was rife. 2. What s the problem? What is the meaning of she becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her? The exact phrase translated indecency is in the Hebrew the nakedness of a thing, (UE'WZU!D), a deliberately vague and unspecified term. The following facts show that it certainly does not imply any sexual indecency: a) In the only other place in Scripture where the exact term is used (Deut 23:14), it refers to the hygienic disposal of human waste. That obviously does not apply here. b) It cannot be adultery, for the Law required death for that (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22). Whatever Deuteronomy 24 refers to, it leads to divorce, not death. c) It cannot refer to suspected but unproven adultery either: the law also provided specifically for that (Num 5:11-31). d) Nor can it refer to sexual impurity, as when a man discovers after marriage that his wife was not a virgin. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 deals with that. If he is right she was to be executed. If he cannot prove his case she shall remain his wife: he cannot divorce her all his days (22:19). Nor can it refer to cases of rape since Deuteronomy 22:25-27 deals with that. Only the man is put to death, but the woman is treated as guiltless.

5 5 The proper conclusion is that this husband's complaint is indefinite, vague, unspecified, impossible to define or pin down, and that is exactly the point. It covers a whole range of possibilities: anything that these husbands found displeasing in their wives is included in the phrase some indecency or something unseemly. Whether major or minor, it made her no longer attractive to him. Perhaps he discovered that she was not a hygienic woman. Maybe she had bad breath, or was untidy in her habits or not well groomed. The one thing scholars agree on is that we cannot specify exactly what it was. This explains the three main schools of interpretation in Israel: 1) Shamai says of Deuteronomy 24 that a man may only divorce his wife if he has found her unfaithful. This is a stricter view, a higher view of marriage. 2) Hillel says He may divorce her if she only spoiled a dish for him, because it was said uncleanness / unseemliness is anything. 3) Akiba says: he may divorce her if he found another that is more beautiful than his wife, because it was said if it come to pass that she finds no favour in his eyes. So there were strict and liberal views about Deuteronomy 24. It is clear that the liberal view of divorce is what Moses was combating. Men were trifling with marriages, treating them as mere trial runs. If you didn t like your wife (for any reason) just get rid of her! The indecency / unseemliness was trivial. How do we know that? Because if we exaggerate the indecency, regarding it as some gross and major thing, we take away the whole point of the text. Why would any divorcing husband ever want a wife back if he was relieved to get rid of a repulsive and gross indecency? Moses would not need to make a law preventing him having her back. However, if it was some trivial thing, some minor matter that caused a hasty divorce, it makes good sense. The husband may realise that she wasn t so bad after all, and, wanting her back, he may pay her new husband to divorce her so he can have her back. The trifling with something so vital as marriage is what Deuteronomy 24 is talking about. This is confirmed by the way Jesus was asked is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all? (Matthew 19:3), a question reflecting the liberal views on divorce. Jesus denied their opinions emphatically, forbidding all reasons for divorce except one: sexual immorality (Greek RQTPGKC^). 3. What s the defilement? Her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife since she has been defiled: for that is an abomination before the Lord. Several observations are in order: 1) The original husband cannot take her again as wife because she has been defiled. This is past/completed action (Hebrew perfect tense). So, whatever this defilement is, it already exists before he takes her back. If he does remarry her now, that is not her defilement. Rather, that is the abomination of remarrying an already defiled woman.

6 6 2) The verb is passive in form ( she has been defiled ) not active ( she defiled herself or she is defiled ). Thus, she is a v ictim of defilement: it is something that has been put upon her. This seems to be especially stressed here because the passive verb form used is an exceptionally rare Hebrew form (known as Hothpa al ). The point is that this woman has been wrongfully divorced, shamefully and cheaply treated. Her husband had taken wrong action against her. She is not regarded as guilty. Her crime may have been no more than that of spoiling the dinner or of being less attractive than another woman. She herself may have a high and Godly view of marriage (presumably she did not want the divorce). So the rare passive verb draws attention to this. She has been forced into a condition called defiled though she may well be a pure and chaste woman. The word defiled then does not r efer to her character, but to her involuntary status, how other people will think about her. 3) The defilement does not automatically arise from the first divorce, (sinful though it was). If she was defiled as soon as she was divorced then the first husband could never have remarried her, regardless of her staying single or not after the divorce. But clearly, after the divorce, reconciliation and remarriage was possible, even desirable. In that case there would have been no defilement or abomination involved. 4) Nor is the defilement due to a second divorce (from her second husband), because even if she is freed from him by his death, she still cannot remarry the first husband (Deut 24:3). 5) We should note that this divorced woman is not prevented from marrying a third husband in the event that the second husband dies or divorces her. The defilement only enters in when remarriage to her first husband is contemplated after she has remarried. 6) After her first divorce, her marriage to the second man is not described as defiled. This is significant! Remarriage after divorce (even unlawful divorce) is not described as adulterous, nor is the woman regarded as an adulteress under Mosaic Law. The woman and her second husband were not put to death as the Pentateuch required in cases of adultery. 7) Not withstanding all this, it is plain that her defilement has some connection with her second marriage. If she had not remarried then she would have been free to return to her former husband and remarry him. SUMMARY What do we conclude from all these observations? I heartily agree with Professor John Murray on this point 1. The divorce was a legal way for the first husband to commit adultery (in principle) without doing it technically. If he simply joined himself to another woman while still married to his first wife, he is clearly guilty of adultery, and could be punished under Old Testament law. So, to enjoy the same sin without risk of penalty, he simply gets rid of his wife by divorce for some trivial reason (any reason will do!) and then marries the newcomer all legal and above board. If he was allowed later on to have his first wife back again, the analogy with 1 Divorce, by John Murray (Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia, 1976).

7 7 adultery is completed. She lives with man number one, then with man number two, and then with number one again. That is why her return to the first man is an abomination, because it shows (in full circle) the same light and trivial regard for marriage as adultery does. Divorce, when so easy to get, is merely a legal form of committing adultery. In his book Marriage and Divorce 2, Dr. B. Ward-Powers makes the same point, saying that Deuteronomy 24 grants protection for the divorced woman by clarifying her position, protecting her second marriage, and distinguishing it from adultery. She was in a precarious position. Her status depended upon the caprice of her husband who might arbitrarily toss her out and later, just as arbitrarily, want her back. How would she know if her being sent away was permanent (divorce) or temporary? If she remarried, he could deny that he ever divorced her, and she would be regarded as an adulteress. Or he might put pressure on the second husband (by bribe and threats) to release her back to him again. Moses puts a stop to this. Even if the second husband dies (legitimately ending the marriage) the first husband cannot have her back again. Thus a significant step was taken to protect women and to curb the trifling views of marriage. So in effect, God is saying in Deuteronomy 24, I am well aware of the cynical and evil way you Jewish men are playing with marriage. You do not want to be seen as breakers of the 7th commandment (adulterers) and yet you want to satisfy your lust for any woman you see. You want the fruit of adultery without its penalty. So you use a legal loophole: you use the law to evade the law. You flippantly send her away with a certificate of divorce saying she is no longer legally yours! You fulfil the lusts of your flesh, and yet you may find a renewed desire for her and want her back. This is now forbidden as an abomination (after she has remarried). So the defilement is the unfortunate status she is made to carry by a man who is essentially adulterous at heart. If he took her back before she remarried, his adulterous attitudes are not so obvious. But once she has remarried, her return to him would complete the full picture of adultery (though she is not the guilty party). It is interesting to compare 1 Samuel 25:44 & 2 Samuel 3:14. This shows by a concrete example that the defilement is not con nected with a second marriage in itself, but with a second marriage after an unlawful divorce. Michal, (daughter of Saul) was David s wife. Yet Saul then gave her as wife to another man, Palti, son of Laish. David took her back and this was not regarded as an abomination and Michal was not considered defiled. She had not been divorced by David, but fraudulently taken from him. Conclusions 1. In the Old Testament there were no legitimate grounds for divorce among God s people, not even adultery! Divorc e was simply a fact of life and tolerated (like polygamy). No Law of Moses authorised divorce. Rather, it prevented some of the abuses (Deuteronomy 24). 2 Marriage and Divorce, by B. Ward -Powers (Family Life Movement, Sydney, 1987).

8 8 2. We must be quite clear that the divorces mentioned in this text, though sinful, are still real divorces. They really do end the marriages (though wrongly so). The parties are no longer husband and wife. It is not correct to say (as so many do say) that wrongly divorced couples are still married in God s eyes, and the divorce did not change the facts as God sees them but only changes what man sees. It should be noted that in Deuteronomy 24, the divorced woman is called another man s wife, the second man is called the latter husband, the first man who divorced her is called her former husband and he is forbidden to take her again to be his wife. This is meaningless if she is in fact still his wife and married to him in the sight of God! When we turn to the teachings of Christ, we will see how perfectly these observations about Deuteronomy 24 harmonise, especially regarding the use of passive verbs and the fact that remarriage after divorce is not forbidden. Our basic text is Deuteronomy 24, but we must move on now to deal with Matthew chapters 5 and 19, and 1 Corinthians 7. May God grant us wisdom.

9 9 Divorce Part 2 Divorce and the three passive verbs (Matthew 5:27-32) You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. The traditional Protestant opinion is that Jesus allows only one reason for divorce, namely adultery, and if any man divorces his wife for other reasons he causes her to commit adultery, and that remarriage after divorce is in itself adultery ( whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery ). That opinion is open to very serious challenge based on a more precise exegesis of what Christ actually did say in Matthew 5. Observe in the first place, that the one reason for which Jesus allows divorce is NOT adultery, (Greek OQKEGKC). The word Jesus used is the Greek porneia (RQTPGKC), from which we get our word pornography. Our English versions translate it in various ways: fornication (KJV), unchastity (NASV), marital unfaithfulness (NIV), sexual immorality (NKJV). The word porneia is wider in meaning than adultery. Adultery is only one of a number of ways of committing porneia. Other forms of it are bestiality, homosexuality, prostitution, paedophilia, and a variety of other degraded sexual acts. Let us be very clear: adultery is NOT the only reason for divorce allowed by Christ. This is vital in counselling. Observe in the second place a serious fallacy in the traditional view. In trying to answer the questions how is it that if a man divorces his wife on other grounds (not porneia), he causes her to commit adultery? and how can the next person who marries her be described as also committing adultery? the traditional view argues that the woman who was wrongfully divorced, though not made an adulteress by that divorce, will eventually become one when, as is likely, she marries another man for security, comfort, and shelter. The moment she does that she is an adulteress because (it is argued) the first marriage is still in force (at least in the eyes of God). The sinful divorce did not end it. She is still morally married to the first man so that she and the second man, in their sexual union, are both actual, literal adulterers!

10 10 Not only is this thoroughly inconsistent with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (where the divorces for trivial reasons were nonetheless real divorces), but consider the consequences! Firstly, we must forbid all remarriages of divorcees (except for porneia), and never allow our church ministers to perform such marriages. Secondly, we must regard all children from such unions as illegitimate. Thirdly, our counsel must be for such people to abandon such marriages and return to their true spo use. But the real problem is demonstrated in the following dialogue. Consider Mavis speaking to her Presbyterian Minister on the phone. Mavis: Could you marry my fiancé and me? We re both divorcees. Minister: Were the divorces lawful?(i.e. on account of immorality) Mavis: Goodness me, no sir! Nothing as gross and terrible as that! Minister: Then the answer is no. I cannot marry you for that would constitute adultery. If your divorce had been on account of adultery, then it would be possible to remarry. But since it was for some lesser reason, you are not really divorced at all, and as a consistent Protestant, I cannot remarry you. That is an ethic that is not only absurd, but it also contradicts the whole gospel. It is saying (in effect) the greater the sin the greater the liberty that results: the smaller the sin the harsher the penalty. Those who commit open adultery can legitimately divorce and remarry, but those divorcees who never committed such perversion and violation of marriage cannot remarry. Are we prepared to rationally defend that? Do we give adulterers permission to remarry, but sentence those who have been wronged by divorce for some trifling reason (as in Deuteronomy 24) to a life of solitary confinement? Mavis would have been better off if she had committed actual adultery! She would now be free to remarry. But, having done no such thing, (indeed she may be the innocent party), she is forced to stay single. To highlight this problem further, let us suppose that Mavis does go and remarry. According to the traditional view this is adultery. Well then, having committed adultery, she now has lawful means for divorce from her first husband, so if the divorce was not legitimate before her second (adulterous) marriage, it is legitimate now, and she is now free to remarry, and since she has already done that then all s well that ends well. If the reason against a certain thing (remarriage) becomes the very support for it, we have ultimate absurdity, and since nothing in the gospel is absurd (it is all the wisdom of God) then we must ask if the traditional view is correct after all. The thesis defended here is based on a careful re-examination of the Greek text in Matthew 5:32. It will be argued that three verbs have been incorrectly translated in the active voice when they are in fact passive and that the verse should read as follows: I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality makes her to suffer adultery, and whoever marries a woman who has suffered that sort of divorce, suffers adultery with her. The wrongful divorce has caused great suffering to this woman. She now bears the reputation of an immoral woman (though she is not).

11 11 People will assume that, since she was divorced, she must have been playing around though she has not. But the reputation and stigma sticks. Since she is in no position to defend her name, she has to wear it when people look down on her and assume the worst. Likewise, anyone who may marry her has to live with that stigma. That reputation of immorality now casts its mantle over him too in that he supposedly marries a woman of adultery. If this thesis is correct, then Jesus is not forbidding her remarriage after a wrongful divorce, and he is not branding it as adultery. Indeed he is not blaming her or her new husband with any sin. Christ s words point out how wrongful divorce causes atrocious injury to the character and reputation of two innocent parties. Those who look defiled are really not defiled. He that looks innocent (the husband who divorced her for no good reason) is in fact adulterous through and through. He is doing exactly what the men in Deuteronomy 24 were doing, using the law to get around the law, wanting the fruits of lust and adultery without the penalty or reputation of it. THE FIRST PASSIVE VERB: (OQKEGWSJPCK) Unfortunately, it is usually translated to commit adultery whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. This is quite an incorrect translation, because the verb is not in the active voice but the passive. It does not describe something she actively does (commits adultery) but something in which she is passive, something done to her by the husband who wrongfully divorced her. He has caused her to suffer injury, the injury that is associated with adultery. Everyone knows the verb is passive: there is no question about that. So what explains the wrong translation? Why do our English Bibles trample over the significant distinction between active and passive verbs, ignoring the grammar? I suspect that it is due to the limitations of English language. So far as human adultery is concerned, English has only an active form of the verb: you either commit adultery or you don t! But Greek has no suc h deficiency or limitation. It has both an active and a passive form of the verb for adultery. The paradigm is fully developed; the verb endings and spellings are quite different and unmistakable to any Greek reader. The differences in meaning between the active and passive are no less vivid than in the English examples for verbs like... SHOOT: HIT: he shot the man (active) he was shot (passive) he hit the bus (active) he was hit by the bus (passive) The upshot is that we must not impose limitations on the Greek text and what it actually says simply because of limitations in our language. Therefore, to accurately capture the meaning of Christ s words, we need to add some English words to highlight the passive verb he uses, such as, to suffer adu ltery or to be thought of as adulterous or to be branded and stigmatised as adulterous or to gain the reputation of an adulteress. A good attempt to honour the text is made by the Lutheran scholar, R.C.H. Lenski in his commentary on Matthew. He translates 5:32 as... But I say to you that every man releasing his wife without cause of fornication brings about that she is stigmatised as adulterous: and he who shall marry her that has been released is stigmatised as adulterous.

12 12 So, what Jesus is really teaching is this: everyone who divorces his wife for reasons other than her pornographic behaviour is committing a serious injury against her. Other people will brand her as immoral. She will bear the stigma and reputation of an adulteress. People will assume she was divorced for immorality, but she wasn t. Her reputation is ruined. How can she even begin to defend herself and clear her name? If it is asked how the passive verb to suffer adultery can make sense, we can sum it up in two ways. First, as above, she suffers the reputation of immorality, as if she actively did commit adultery, though she didn t. Second, she suffers the same consequences as a real adulteress, namely, divorce. Her marriage is finished just as surely as if real adultery had occurred. So Jesus may also mean that she suffers the rejection of divorce as if she were an adulterous woman. Above all, we must come to the correct view of Christ s words. He is in fact defending this woman by going in to bat for her. She has suffered gri evously from being wed to a man whose views on marriage are low and trivial, and essentially adulterous. He regards the marriage bond as of no sacred significance and so he ends it and violates it in the same way that someone committing actual adultery does. We have here precisely the same evil that Moses dealt with in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus is not laying blame upon this wrongly divorced woman. The passive verb announces and safeguards her innocence in this respect. This woman is not guilty of adultery, nor is her next husband. They are left picking up the broken pieces and suffering the consequences of someone else s sin. Jesus quite expects this poor woman to remarry. She needs the shelter and protection of a husband. Her pain is already bad enough. The Lord of grace does not now increase it greatly by forbidding her ever to marry again! There is absolutely nothing wrong with her remarriage, not if we pay attention to the precise grammar and context of our Lord s words. Because we believe in the full verbal inspiration of Scripture, we must do exactly that. One more observation about this first passive verb: it is not future in tense. It does not mean that the divorcing husband has forced her to commit or suffer adultery in the future. No! The verb is the Greek Aorist, which is commonly associated with past action. It means that by the very act of wrongfully divorcing her, the husband has once and for all caused her to suffer the reputation of an adulteress. So the well-nigh universal idea that the adultery is found in some future second marriage, is wrong. Whether she marries again or stays single forever, the text suggests that she has already once and for all been caused to suffer adultery. (It is true that the adultery verb occurs in the Active Voice regarding divorce in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. This presents no disharmony for the above exegesis. (See the Appendix on pages for exegetical comments). THE SECOND PASSIVE VERB: (CXRQNGNWOGPJP) This is translated in the NASV as a divorc ed woman, and in the NKJV as a woman who is divorced. Such translations are very unhelpful at this point because they leave open a question that is not left open in the Greek. As to what sort of divorced woman she is, the English does not tell you. As to how she got into this state, the English does not say. But the Greek does indicate these things! The verb means she that has suffered divorce, namely, she that has been wrongly treated and

13 13 injured in the type of divorce just described, sinful divorce, divorce NOT on the grounds of pornography. It is interesting that the NIV (in the 1978 edition) at least makes some attempt to convey all this by translating it as a woman so divorced, that is, a woman divorced under these wrong circumstances. Thus, Jesus is not talking about divorced women in general, any divorced woman, or all divorced women. The text does not say whoever marries a divorced woman. Rather, it refers to whoever marries a woman who has been wrongfully divorced, and who has therefore suffered a smeared reputation. That man will have to suffer along with her. It seems the traditional Protestant translation and interpretation has taken us quite a long way from what Jesus actually said. He is not forbidding remarriage after divorce (even wrongful divorce). He is not branding such remarriages as adulterous or accusing the second husband of committing adultery in marrying this divorced woman. Our Lord is still pointing the finger of guilt at the first husband while he defends the poor woman and whoever might come along and marry her. In defending them, He enters into their plight by sympathising with them. He feels for them. He knows the hurt done to their reputations in the eyes of many people. He knows there is no way they can prove her innocence. It can be hard enough to prove adultery when it occurs, but at least there is one eye-witness (the other guilty party). But how on earth can you prove that there was no adultery? By definition, there is no witness! THE THIRD PASSIVE VERB: OQKECVCK. It refers to the actions of the second husband who marries this poor woman. The verb is usually (wrongly) translated commits adultery. That gives the impression he should not have married her and that doing so is immoral. But that is not the case. If you consult a Greek lexicon (dictionary) you will find this verb parsed as present tense, middle voice, indicative mood. If you accept that it is middle voice then you will accept the active translation usually given ( commits adultery ), because in Greek, a middle verb is closer in meaning to the active than the passive. But what your dictionary will not tell you is that the passive form of this verb is exactly the same as the middle form. The two are spelled identically, pronounced identically, and written identically. So the grammatical dilemma we must all face is: Should the verb to be taken as he commits adultery (present middle indicative), or is it he suffers adultery (present passive indicative)? There is a world of difference! The only thing that can decide it is the context. Since the first two verbs are most certainly passives, giving rise to the interpretation defended above, we must conclude that this third verb is also passive. If the divorced woman herself did not commit adultery in the act of remarrying, how on earth can her new husband be regarded as an active adulterer in marrying her? It just does not fit! Therefore it should read he suffers adultery with her, meaning the stigma and shadow of her wrongfully smeared reputation now becomes intimately associated with him, the new partner of one who is regarded as immoral. One final grammatical observation is now in order. Jesus has already, in this sermon, twice used the ACTIVE form of the verb for adultery (see verses 27-28). The fact that He now three times uses the PASSIVE form in one sentence is not insignificant. Not

14 14 only does it tie in with the very clear (rare) passive form we saw in Deuteronomy 24:4 (sshe has been defiled ) but it shows how the real active adulterer who lusts after other women in his heart is the divorcing husband. Like the sinners in the day of Moses, he is essentially adulterous in his regard for marriage, but he is shrewd enough to first get rid of his wife before shacking up with another woman. He u ses the law to get around the law. The fact that this view harmonises perfectly with Deuteronomy 24 (Jesus and Moses agree), and the fact that it avoids the ethical absurdities of the traditional view, and pays attention to the exact grammar of the text, is strong support for the thesis. Conclusions 1. The remarriage of divorced persons is not forbidden by our Lord. 2. Divorce, except for pornographic behaviour, is here condemned. 3. Even condemned divorce is real divorce. It finishes a marriage. 4. The new marriage is a true marriage. It is not adultery. 5. Any children from this remarriage are legitimate. 6. There is such a thing as the innocent party in some divorces, not meaning innocent of all sin, but innocent in the sense of not the cause of this divorce. 7. A Christian minister should feel a Biblical liberty to marry divorcees so long as the same conditions are met as are required for all other marriages. QUESTION: Where does this thesis leave us if we have subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith? ANSWER: The Westminster Confession allows only two reasons for lawful divorce, namely, adultery and irremediable desertion. As we have seen, the first reason should read pornographic behaviour, of which adultery is only one example. To that extent the Confession is inaccurate and should be amended to line up with Scripture. Beyond that we have no problems with chapter 24. It wisely refrains from dealing with unlawful divorces and the question of remarriage after such. It doesn t even deal with remarriages after a lawful divorce except to grant liberty of remarriage to the innocent party in the case of adultery leading to divorce (24:5). This blemish in the Confession should in no way alarm us. Even translations of the Bible need correcting. Does admitting that make us heretical? The church has never said the Westminster documents are perfect. Also, the Westminster Confession itself sends us on the exercise we have just done, going back to the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures and appealing finally unt o them (1:8). The Confession does not acknowledge itself as our supreme authority: rather it is Scripture. How well it is stated: The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. While it would be good to see the Confession changed as indicated, it is not something to agitate for. Given the present theological climate, it has to be asked where we would finish up if we began to revise our subordinate standard. Would it be as good as it is now? I think not.

15 15 Divorce (3) APOSTOLIC TEACHING ON DIVORCE (1 Cor 7:10-17) To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. (NIV). The Pauline teaching here deals with two different categories. First, he deals with marriages where both partners are Christians, then he considers marriages where one party is a Christian and the other not. To accurately consider each case we must observe three things THE SPEAKER is not merely Paul 2. THE SUBJECT is not merely separation 3. THE SEQUEL it is not merely finished 1) THE SPEAKER... is not merely Paul Sadly, misguided people have sought to drive a wedge between the words of Christ on divorce and the words of Paul. The words of Paul are made to seem inferior or even contradictory because of a misunderstanding of To t he married I give this command (not I but the Lord) in verse 10, and To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord) in verse 12. The contrast is not between Paul s human -fallible advice and Christ s divine - infallible advice. Rather, it is between what Jesus has personally already taught in His public ministry, over against what He has not said but which Paul now says for the first time. Where it says not I but the Lord, we are to read here I do have a command from the Lord: here I m only telling you what Ch rist has already said. And where it says I, not the Lord, we are to read, the instructions I now give are new in the sense that Christ did not specifically talk about these things in His public ministry. How do we know this? What reasons support it? Notice how Paul goes on to speak about virgins in verse 25: Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, meaning I have no recorded statement of Jesus on this: our Lord did not explicitly

16 16 speak on this issue in His earthly ministry. Nevertheless, Paul in no way tolerates the view that his own teaching on this matter is inferior to anything Christ would say, for he immediately adds but I give a judgement as one who by the Lord s mercy is trustworthy. Then, even more strongly in verse 40, he claims that what he says is quite consistent with the Holy Spirit: and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. That is why Paul s words here are not mere opinions about marriage and divorce. It is not advice you can take or leave, as you prefer. His words are directions and instructions for the church, rules of ethics, to be universally received in the Christian community: This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. It would be impossible for Paul to exalt his words to that high status unless they carried the full authority of the only head of the church, Christ Jesus. Later in the same letter Paul is again giving instructions to the church on a matter that was never an issue in Christ s ministry, and which He does not seem to have addressed, namely tongue speaking. Yet Paul again insists that his directions are the equivalent of divine utterance: If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored, (1 Cor 14:37-38). It is a disastrous thing to drive a wedge between Paul and Christ. The consequence is abandonment of the doctrine of inspiration, and the acceptance of an unreliable, culturally bound Bible of no great authority. The speaker is not merely Paul. It is God. 2) THE SUBJECT... is not merely separation Let s restrict ourselves to verses where Paul is speaking about couples where both parties belong to the church (both are professing Christians). What is Paul telling us here? What is the subject or issue? What is he forbidding when he says (NASV) the wife should not leave her husband... and the husband should not send his wife away? When you read most English translations, you might conclude that he is talking about separation (forbidding separation between Christian married partners). But the subject is divorce, not separation. The verb leave ( EYTK\Y), in this context means, leave by divorce. Why is this? It is because the word unmarried describes this separation. In verse 11 Paul faces up to the possibility that, in sheer disobedience, some Christians might ignore his prohibition and leave their spouse anyway, so he says but if she does (leave) she must remain unmarried. Now a person who simpl y separates from their spouse is not thereby unmarried. On the contrary, they are married and should be living a normal married life. So Paul begins in verse 10 speaking to married couples ( to the married I give this command ) namely they are not to d o that thing which results in them becoming unmarried. Clearly he is forbidding more than mere separation. It is that separation which severs the marriage bond, the separation of divorce. Someone will try to avoid this by saying that unmarried here m eans unmarried in practice though still married in law (i.e. not physically living together). But this makes Paul s words foolish. He would then be saying, Don t leave! Don t become practically unmarried! But if you do become practically unmarried then either remain

17 17 unmarried or be reconciled. Become practically married again. Obviously when someone leaves, they only have two options. Either they stay away or come back. What an inane thing for Paul to say if any of you Christians separate from your spouse, you must either stay separated or come back. Anything making such nonsense of Scripture must be wrong. So the subject is not merely separation. Notice that Paul balances what he says to the wife with a parallel statement to the husband, but he uses a different word that the N.I.V. rightly translates as divorce : and the husband must not divorce his wife, (he must not send her away in an unmarried state). 3) THE SEQUEL... it is not merely finished. Suppose a divorce occurs between two Christians. What should happen now? What is the sequel? Surely it is finished (you might say). The marriage is over and neither party has obligations to the other and they are free to go their own ways! No. There are still obligations for the one who initiated divorce and for the one who suffered it, (obligations for both the guilty and innocent parties). For the guilty party (the woman in this case) she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. Why? Because a believer who divorces her Christian spouse (except for porneia) is sinning, and must leave room for repentance and restitution. She has sinned against her husband by suing divorce and must stay single to allow repentance and reconciliation. If she marries another man she pushes her sin one step further and gets herself into the irreconcilable position of Deuteronomy 24:4 where she cannot remarry her first husband again. So she must remain as she is, an unmarried divorcee, not as a penalty but as a way of leaving the door open to reconciliation. Here is an interesting advance on what we have seen earlier about divorce. Whereas divorcees in general are free to remarry, that is not automatically the case where Christians are involved. Christians live under greater grace and privilege and therefore have greater obligations and responsibilities. They must be reconciled or else remain unmarried (though not ad-infinitum as we shall see below). For the innocent party the same applies to him. It is no good her remaining single to facilitate reconciliation if he shuts the door by remarrying. The innocent party should do everything to assist his spouse to meet her Biblical obligations and, in addition, impose no stumbling blocks in her way that would hinder the chance of reconciliation. Of course if the guilty partner does go and remarry someone else, the innocent party is then free to seek another spouse also. QUESTION: What if neither of them remarries, and the innocent party makes genuine efforts for reconciliation, but she is not interested? Is he now to hope and pray forever? Is he now to suffer solitary confinement because of her two hurtful sins of wrongful divorce and refusal to be reconciled? The answer is a definite NO! He has Biblical remedies and obligations and he must pursue them, namely the duty to seek reconciliation in terms of Matthew 18. Conflicts between professing Christians are not to be left unresolved. If his private efforts at talking with his ex-wife fail, and his taking several witnesses with him also fails, then he is to tel l it to the church (the governing body of Elders). At this point the official

18 18 steps of discipline begin. She is counselled by the Elders and shown her sin and urged to turn back in repentance. If she refuses to listen even to the church she is acting like a hard-nosed non-christian and she is to be treated as such: let them be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. The church must then pronounce that person to be not a genuine Christian because she refuses the God given steps for reconciliation and forgiveness. She refuses the ministry of Christ Himself who promises to be present in exactly this small group of people attempting the difficult work of reconciliation. Having done this, the divorced husband is no longer in the category of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (divorced from a believer). Rather, he is in the category of 1 Corinthians 7:15, separated by divorce from an unbeliever, and a believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances. He is free to remarry with a clear conscience (though possibly with a sad heart also). So the church clearly has obligations and cannot just sit back and witness divorces between its own members while failing to pursue the remedies in Matthew 18. It must either achieve reconciliation, or, expose contumacy and grant relief to innocent parties by excommunicating the guilty. Divorce among the unequally yoked (v 12-16) The likely scenario is that as the church grew rapidly, more and more mixed marriages would arise as one partner was converted to Christ leaving him/her unequally yoked to an unbeliever. We need to be sensitive to the pressure placed upon these new converts. If they took seriously their new holy status in Christ, and also took seriously the intimate bond of marriage, then momentous problems rose up in their minds. Should the yoke continue with two very unequal sets of values? Given the deep-seated cleavage between children of light and children of darkness, should the marriage be dissolved? Will the Christian be compromised and contaminated by such intimate involvement with a child of wrath? And what of the children? Will they be defiled by the non-christian parent? Am I dishonouring my Lord in continuing this marriage? Paul is not the only one who deals with this problem: Peter also deals with it in 1 Peter 3. He tells the Christian wife married to an unbelieving husband that, far from giving reasons for her opting out of the marriage with all its obligations, affections, and loyalties, her faith actually intensifies her obligations to be a good wife. She becomes God s full - time missionary to that man so that as he observes her chaste and respectful behaviour, he may be won without a word. Peter urges her do what is right without being frightened by any fear. She is not to fear any bad consequences of being submissive to a non-christian spouse. Paul s advice is consistent but more detailed. It will help us to categorise it three ways: 1. Something to be continued 2. Something to be considered 3. Something to be complied with

19 19 1. Something to be continued (v 12-13) Namely, the marriage is to be continued. The conversion of one partner is not in itself grounds for divorce. However we should notice that the command in mixed marriages is not the same as that in the case of two believers. In the case of two Christians the command for no divorce is unconditional: a wife must not separate from her husband... and a husband must not divorce his wife. But in the case of mixed yoking, the marriage is to continue only if the unbeliever is willing to continue it: if any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. Of course there will be new strains on the marriage because of spiritual differences that didn t exist before, but the Apostolic teaching is clear: if the non-christian partner is willing to make a go of it, Christians cannot make their allegiance to Christ an excuse for divorce. Entrance into covenant with the Lord is no reason for exit out of covenant with the spouse. The marriage should continue. Two warnings are appropriate here. First a warning against legalism. Let s not restrict the conditional clause (willingness of the unbeliever to live with the Christian) to a Pharisaic literalism, namely, he is willing to live in the same house, and is unwilling to pack up and go, and will tolerate the Christian staying under the same roof. Paul s concept of live with her/him means, in context, live in the normal married relationship where each party intends to carry out their normal obligations to the other. In other words the desertion that constitutes grounds for divorce does not have to be physicalgeographical desertion. Very often the worst forms of unwillingness or desertion happen under the one roof! He may be willing for her to stay so long as she tolerates abuse from him right across the board. There will be no loyalty, no affection, verbal abuse before the children, undermining her authority and dignity, financial deprivation, no loving companionship, and a regular punching. Paul is not settling for the barest legal minimum in marriage. It is true that he has not thrown her out of the house, but he has not thrown the dog out either! I shudder at the Pharisaic Pastor who counsels her you cannot leave him because he is willing for you to stay. Paul does not expect him to live with his wife as a believing husband would (because he s not a believer) but he does expect him to live with her as a husband, as he always did prior to her conversion. Second a warning against liberalism. As soon as we say that the desertion here is not necessarily literal, someone will liberalise it as an escape clause for divorce. To illustrate, a Christian wife might say of her unbelieving husband, he won t come to church with me, won t let me use our home for Bible study meetings, won t give a tithe of our money to the church, won t lead family devotions, won t keep Sabbath but does the mowing and painting and holiday travel on Sundays. We need to ask, What else do you expect from a non -Christian? These are grounds for prayer, not grounds for divorce. None of these things prevent him being a conscientious husband (as he was before her conversion).

20 20 2. Something to be considered (v14, 16) Paul gives three very encouraging reasons for the believer to promote the continuation of the marriage. First, the unbeliever is sanctified through the believer. Second, the children are also sanctified. Third, the believer becomes the missionary through whom God may well be pleased to save the spouse. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? This is clear enough, but what do the first two things mean? The word sanctified here does not have the redemptive sense of definitive sanctification (i.e. saved from sin, given eternal life). Marriage is neither a sacrament nor a saving grace. It must be the sanctification of privilege, connection, and relationship. While it does not save them, yet it must not be treated lightly for it places the children and the unbelieving spouse in the channel where grace flows, thus in a position of closeness to gospel grace, a position of great spiritual advantage. The believer has every reason to give himself/herself fully to the enjoyment of the marriage union. The children are not to be seen mainly as the children of an unbeliever, but as a holy seed, children of a believer. Being raised in a home where God s grace is at work in a saved person, and where the gospel can be both seen and heard, means they will inherit many blessings. They come under a godly influence. They are prayed for and instructed in God s ways (at least by one parent). That is no slight thing. They belong to a holy society in a way not true for others. So this is something to be considered by Christians in mixed marriages. 3. Something to be complied with (v. 15) But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing ma n or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. The Christian is not to stand in the way of an unbelieving spouse who is determined to end the marriage. Assuming reasonable efforts have been made to deter his leaving, if he insists, she is not to feel guilty if a divorce follows. Indeed, it is stronger than that. She is to comply with the desire of the unbeliever to separate by divorce. That does not mean she desires the divorce, but having tried earnestly to avoid it, she is not now to place any obstacles before it. Paul uses the imperative verb EYTK\GUSY (present middle) let him separate by divorce, or let him be gone, or let him have his way. Here is the only place in the Bible where divorce is commanded, and it is commanded only in the negative or passive sense of let him go, do not hinder him, comply with his wishes! This does not mean that the unbeliever has the right to divorce her at will. The text gives no comment on that. The rest of Scripture makes it plain that he should not do so except for porneia. However, Paul is simply facing facts in a fallen world. Husbands will sometimes divorce wives wrongfully and in this case the believing wife is to let him proceed if he is determined to leave her. There are two further things to note. First, the believer who suffers this divorce is not bound in such circumstances meaning not bound in marriage and free to remarry as if he were dead. So too is the unbeliever who filed the divorce. The divorce, though not desirable, is still divorce. It severs the previous bond. Moreover,

21 21 the believer is not bound to remain unmarried in order to seek reconciliation (as was the case where both parties were believers). Why? Because then you would have a believer deliberately seeking marriage with an unbeliever, which Paul forbids in verse 39. A Christian is free to marry only another Christian. Only if her unbelieving exhusband has since been converted could she remarry him. Notice also the over-riding principle Paul appeals to: God has called us to live in peace. I can do no better than conclude here with the excellent comments of Dr. J. E. Adams from pages of his book Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage 3. The reason appended to the command is God has called you to peace. This important consideration has been overlooked by a number of commentators. We must not do so, since it reaches to the bottom of the problem that Paul has in view. God doesn t want any loose ends dangling about a Christian s marriage; He wants problems in marriage resolved. He wants peace. Either there is to be a marriage or there isn t; God will not settle for something inbetween. That simply will not do. The matter must be set to rest one way or the other so that there will be peace. Too often Christians, on bad advice, have settled for the in-between. Let me describe it. Believing (wrongly) that she must remain married to her unbelieving husband, no matter what, a Christian woman holds on even when her husband wants to end their marriage. He, then, may begin running around with other women (if he hasn t been doing so already) and at length may even desert her. Yet, urged on by bad counsel, she will not agree to a divorce. He may stay away from home for six month periods at a time, occasionally showing up for a week or two. This upsets the kids and the life of the home (hopes are aroused and shattered). His wife may get pregnant (if married, she must agree to sex if he seeks it), and so it goes on and on. She is always hoping against hope, yet there is no evidence at all of a desire on his part to consent to a marriage. She may hang on for years; for life! There is nothing peaceful about that! Everything is constantly being upset; nothing is settled. There is nothing but loose ends. God wants the matter to be concluded so that (in one way or the other) there will be peace---the resolution of the matter. This is an important principle. Today s view of separation-rather-than-divorce is patently unbiblical because it violates this principle. It settles nothing, but keeps everything up in the air, and militates against true peace. This wicked substitute for the biblical solution (peace by reconciliation or divorce) fights against true peace. All is held in limbo. It deceives by 3 Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage by J. E. Adams (Presbyterian and Reformed, New Jersey, 1980).

22 its temporary sense of relief, (often mistaken for peace). But nothing is settled (made truly peaceful) by it. 22

23 23 APPENDIX It might be argued that this exegesis is open to question by the two places where Jesus does use the active form of the adultery verb in connection wi th divorce, namely Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. However, the following observations show that these texts harmonise well with the present thesis. Mark 10:11-12 And He said to them, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. MCKNGIGKCWXVQKL_1LCPCXRQNWUJ^VJPIWPCKMCCWXVQWMCKICOJUJ^CNNJP OQKECVCKGXR8CWXVJP>MCKGXCPCWXVJCXRQNWUCUCVQPCPFTCCWXVJLICOJUJ^ CNNQPOQKECVCK Even if the verb OQKECVCK is taken as Present Middle, and therefore translated virtually as an active voice (e.g. commits adultery, perpetrates adultery acts adulterously ), it is clearly not her that is guilty! This is made obvious by the directional phrase GXR8CWXVJP. Adultery is still something this poor woman suffers. It is a sin done upon her or against her (the former wife). She is the passive sufferer who had no choice in the matter. She has been put away for no legitimate reason, and therefore was made to suffer adultery. She has been divorced illegitimately (for reasons other than RQTPGKC). This is perfectly consistent with Matthew 5:32. Verse 12 simply reverses the guilty parties to cover those cases where the husband is the innocent party who must suffer the consequences of a wife with an adulterous mind set, who puts him away for no good reason. The second OQKECVCK must be understood in terms of the implied GXR8CWXVJQP because both verses are obviously dealing with the same sin. Luke 16:18 Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. 2CLQBCXRQNWYPVJPIWPCKMCCWXVQWMCKICOYPGBVGTCPOQKEGWGKMCKQB CXRQNGNWOGPJPCXRQCXPFTQLICOYPOQKEGWGK Though the form of this statement is a hyperbolic, seemingly a universal statement about divorce and remarriage from which there are no exceptions, it is abundantly obvious that Jesus does not want it taken that way. He himself grants the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage on the grounds of RQTPGKC (Matt 5:32, 19:9). We have noticed also that Paul teaches that irremediable desertion (refusal to continue married life) is grounds for divorce. So everyone must interpret this text in harmony with all other texts. We cannot put Jesus against Jesus or Paul against Jesus. So keeping these other exception clauses in mind, how do we understand Luke 16:18?

24 24 The grammatical clue lies with the construction involving the two participles CXRQNWYP and ICOYP with the main verb OQKEGWGK All three are Present Tense. The general rule for Koine Greek is that when participles are Present Tense, they denote action coincident with that of the main verb. So our Lord is speaking of the action of divorcing which is in fact adulterous because it is deliberately done in order to marry another. The three actions are linked together in the present tense. Though the remarriage would have to come later in time than the divorce, it does not come later so far as motives and intentions go. The guilty person here is adulterous from the very start of the divorce proceedings. Though there may not have been any literal adultery committed (it is, after all, an audience of Pharisees) Jesus is exposing exactly the same sin as He did in the Sermon on the Mount. Adultery includes lust in the heart. So that explains the inflexible form of this speech. Thus understood, it is a universal truth with no exceptions. It is not just any sort of divorce Jesus is talking about (which may or may not lead to a second marriage). Rather it refers to every divorce that was driven by lust for another woman from the very outset. It is the same old Pharisaic sin we have noted repeatedly, trying to use the law (divorce) in order to avoid the law (adultery). Our Lord is certainly not talking here about divorces on legitimate grounds, divorces enacted in order to bring relief to some horrendous and immoral situations. The topic is divorce as a legal cover for a lustful heart. Jesus condemns it as nothing less than a disguised form of adultery. Obviously the Passive form of the verb would be inappropriate here. The second part of the sentence looks at the same sin from the other perspective. Here is a man who wants a woman for himself, but she is married. Rather than commit literal adultery in an affair, a divorce is obtained by one means or another. Then he marries her. Again, Jesus is revealing the essentially adulterous nature of this arrangement, concealed by a veneer of legality. The present thesis remains harmonious with all the Biblical data.