Divorce and Malicious Desertion. 923 Divorce and Malicious Desertion. II. No Divorce, Except It Be for Fornication. Is there anything besides death that severs the marriage bond? In the opinion of the Pharisees there were quite a number of reasons for which a man might put away his wife. In answer to Ohrist's apodictic statement they ask: "Why did Moses, then, command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?"5) How dare you, they mean to say, put yourself in opposition to Moses? Are you more than Moses? Ohrist answers: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so," Matt. 19,8. "Who was right? Did Moses command, or did he merely suffer, permit? As always, Jesus is correct, as a glance at Dent, 24,1--4, the Scripturo-passage referred to, will show. Unfortunately neither the Authorized Version nor Luther offers an accurate translation. The LXX and the great majority of commentaries agree that vv.l--4 fmm only one sentence, vv. 1-3 being the protasis, v. 4 the apodosis, thus: If a man hath taken a wife, etc., and given her a bill of divorcement; and (v. 2) if she hath departed out of his house and hath become another man's wife; and (v. 3) if the latter husband hate her, then (v. 4) her former husband, etc. Oonsequently Moses did not hore establish or command divorce nor perhaps even the issuing of letters of divorce. Evidently divorces were not uncommon among the Israelites, the loose morals of Egypt having served to undermine the sanctity of the marriage bond. The issuing .0£ letters of divorce was a restraint which either law or custom or both had imposed. It is difficult to state just what is the exact meaning of the phrase "some uncleanness," v. 1. Adultery is out of the question, since that was a capital crime, Deut. 22, 20-22. It must have been some other grounds sanctioned by custom or pre:Mosaic or perhaps :Mosaic law. Moses legislates here with a view of still further curbing the evil of divorce by forbidding the return of the woman to her :first husband if, after having been divorced by him, she had married another. The second marriage is expressly said to have defiled tho woman, hence is clearly denoted as displeasing to God, who still regarded the :first marriage as valid. The woman was 5) The varying accounts of Matthew and Mark may well be harmonized if we assume that after the question of the Pharisees, Matt. 19, 3; Mark 10,2, Christ puts a counter-question: Mark 10, 3. The Pharisees answer: nIark 10, 4; Jesus responds: Matt. 19,5.6. Again they voice their objection: Matt. 19, 7. First they had pointed to the fact that Moses pM'mitted divorce, then, in order to put Christ in opposition to }loses, they go so far as to claim that Moses commanded it. Of course, if He commanded it, then He permitteel it. Hence no contradiction between J\iark 10, 4 and Matt. 19, 7. 924 Divorce and Malicious Desertion. not permitted to return to her first husband after she had been married to another. She was not to be regarded a chattel, to be handed back and forth from one man to the other. According to Jewish custom the unmarried divorcee was permitted and even encouraged to return to her husband. Far therefore from commanding divorce, Moses rather frowns upon it. Why, then, does he permit it at all? Jesus answers: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so," Matt. 19, 8. The blame rests not on Moses, but solely on the Jews who were so hard-hearted. We must bear in mind that Moses was not merely the spiritual leader of the spiritual people of God, but also the civic legislator of a nation composed partly of believing children of God and partly of hardhearted, disobedient unbelievers, who, however, by circumcision had outwardly become citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. Because of their hardness of heart, in order to avoid still greater evil, murder, adultery, etc., he permitted the existing custom of obtaining a divorce for some uncleanness to continue, seeking, however, to discourage and curb this wicked, pernicious practise as much as possible under existing circumstances. Not Moses, but the hard-heartedness of the Jews was responsible for the existence and permission of divorce laws in Israel. Note that Jesus used the second person, your hearts, suffered you, your wives. He does this not only because they were members of a nation in which so many had been hard-hearted, but chiefly because they themselves were just as stubborn as their fathers in the days of Moses. Else they would not have sanctioned the ever-increasing laxity with regard to divorce, much less have encouraged it by their extremely lax interpretation of Deut.24; nor would they have sought to hide behind Moses in their endeavor to justify their practise. Rather would they as spiritual leaders have endeavored to curb the divorce evil and to teach the people that, while in civic legislation divorce was permitted because of the hard-heartedness of godless citizens, yet "from the beginning it was not so," and that believing children of God should not disobey the divine ordinance given in the beginning of creation. There is no doubt that pious Israelites did not make use of the liberty granted them by the civic legislation of Moses. Far from retracting or changing His opinion, the Lord simply reiterates His position, that from the beginning there was no provision made for divorce, that the rule still obtaining in the kingdom of God is the old rule laid down at the institution of marriage in Paradise, that the bond of wedlock be indissoluble: "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder." From these words of Ohrist we learn several lessons of importance. The State may grant a divorce not permitted according to God's will. Divorce and Malicious Desertion. 925 While in the kingdom of God marriage is indissoluble except by' death (fornication and malicious desertion ought not to occur among Ohristians), in the State, because of the hard-heartedness of natural man, God suffers divorce to be issued even in such cases where He has not dissolved the marriage. These divorces, however, though acknowledged by other States, are null and void before the forum of the Ohurch, wllich is ruled, not by civic, but by divine Law. Since the underlying cause for obtaining a divorce against God's will is the hardness of the heart, no Ohristian will seek to obtain such a divorce, and if he does so, he must be disciplined and, if impenitent, excommunicated, and before he can regain membership, he must do all in his power to reestablish the first marriage. For in the sight of God this marriage was not dissolved, and his second "marriage" is in fact adultery, as we shall see. -Oivic authorities and all good citizens should bAud every effort toward curbing the divorce evil by adopting marriage and divorce laws as strict as possible under existing conditions. -A Ohristian may, as citizen of the State, advocate, and vote for, and in his actions as a civic officer be ruled by, divorce laws which are far removed from the ideal prescribed in the Word of God. A judge having in his capacity as a civic officer divorced a couple may as a member of a Ohristian congregation be obliged to discipline them and vote for their excommunication; for the Ohurch is not the State and the State not the Ohurch. Now Jesus lays down for all times the rule which is to be observed in His kingdom, His Ohurch, on earth: "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," Matt. 19, 9. This is not the only record of these words nor the only time that Jesus laid down this rule. vVe have a parallel account in Mark 10, 11. 12.6) The same lesson was taught in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5, 31. 32, and to the Pharisees on another occasion, Luke 16, 18. The fact that these four passages do not record the same wording of Ohrist's rule will not surprise us if we bear in mind that, if our second harmonization of 6) According to Matthew, Christ still seems to be addressing the Pharisees; according to Mark He spoke these words in the house to His disciples, who again asked Him regarding the same matter, Mark 10, 10. This difficulty may be solved by assuming either that Matthew simply does not mention that He no longer was speaking to the Pharisees or that He spoke these words twice, first to the Pharisees, to whom also another passage is addressed, Luke 16, 18, and when His disciples asked Him again of the same matter, which seemed strange and harsh to them (cp. Matt. 19,10 ff.), He simply repeated and empllasized what He had previously told them. That is a method adopted by Jesus on other occasions. Cpo Matt. 26, 21. 23; John 3, 3.5; 4,10.13.14; 7,33.34; 8,14.21, etc. 926 Divorce and Malicious Desertion. Matt. 19,9 and Mark 10, 11 is adopted, it may be assumed that they were spoken on four different occasions. The following compilation will serve to bring out clearly the additions and omissions in every passage:-A. Matt. 5, 32: Whosoever shall put away his wife, 19, 9: Whosoever shall put away his wife, Mark 10, 11: Whosoever shalf put away his wife, Luke 16, 18: Whosoever putteth a way his wife D. Matt. 5 causeth her to commit adultery Matt.19 ....... . Mark 10 L)lke 16 Matt. 5 Matt. 19 E. committetb adultery commlttetb adultery B. c. saving for the cause of fornication, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, F. commltteth adultery against hel'. H. and marry another and marrleth another G. and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. and whoso marrieth her which is put away, commHteth adultery. and whosoever marrleth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Mark 10, 12: And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committetb adultery. Luke 16 The complete rule comprising all teachings of Jesus on this subject would read: Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery (and) against her; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Omitting for the time being the exception, which is evidently in the form of a parenthesis, let us consider Christ's rule on divorce for any other reason than fornication. His purpose very evidently is to bring out the wickedness of divorce in itself and in its consequences, which are truly horrifying, as we shall see. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery," ft0t7Jir:at, constitutes himself an adulterer. The question has been asked, Does Christ brand only him as an adulterer who actually marries another wife after having divorced the first wife, or may both the divorce and the remarriage on the strength of this passage be designated as adultery? The answer depends entirely on the sense in which "adultery" is taken. In its narrower sense ft0tlEla means the actual extra-Divorce and J','Ialicions Desertion. 927 connubial carnal intercourse o£ two people either or both of whom are married to another. Naturally in this sense divorce is not adnl-· tery, and according to our passage the divorcing person becomes an adulterer only upon marriage to another wife. Of course, the wickedness of divorce is in no wise affected by this interpretation. Divorce is and remains an infraction of the divine ordinance, as the Lord had so clearly brought out. If we adopt the narrower sense, we cannot use this passage to prove that divorce is called adultery by Christ. The narrower sense of /hOtXda is rendered seemingly plausible by the addition of "marrieth another" in the three passages. Y Gt we must bear in mind that the entire context stresses divorce. So v. 3 and again vv. '7 and 8. While v.9 the remal'1'iage is mentioned, yet even here divorce is in the foreground of the Lord's thoughts, of course, as we shall see, a divorce permitting a second marriage, yet not the second mal'1'iage, but the divorce is also hero the chief subject in the mind of Jesus. He is still answering the main question, v.3, and the objection, v.7. After having described divorce as an infraction of the ordinance given on the last day of creation, He now shows that it is adultery. Hence it is preferable to take /hotxci'r;at in the wider sense, especially also sinco Christ here clearly refers to the Sixth Commandment, 0" /WIX8VOSlQ. In fact, in one of the parallel passages, Matt. 5, He had in v. 27 quoted this commandment and cleared a way the coarse misunderstanding of the Jews of His day. So evidently in the other passages He refers to the Sixth Commandment as a well-known expression of the will of God. The specific sin designated by this term is taken in the Sixth Oommandment as a type of every possible violation of marriage in and out of wedlock by thought, word, and deed, just as killing and stealing are types of other sins forbidden in the Fifth and in the Seventh Co=andment. Taking adultery in this wider sense, both the divorce and the remarriage are here stamped as adultery, an infraction of that commandment given by God to protect His own institution and here acknowledged by the Lord as binding for all times in His kingdom. The train of thought in this entire passage, then, is this: Divorce is an infraction of God's ordinance, of the 8inaitic commanoment forbidding adultery, of Christ's rule for His Church. What an abomination, then, is divorce in the sight of God! The sin of divorce leads its unfortunate victim still deeper into the mire of iniquity and wickedness. "Das ist del' Fluck del' boesen Tat, dass sie fortzeugend Boeses muss geoael'en;' this word of the great poet may be applied to divorce also. Not only does such a man "commit adultery," Luke 16, 18, he also constitutes himself an adulterer, ftolxiiTat, Matt. 19, 9. "In the active voice the subject is merely acting, in the middle the subject is acting in relation to himself somehow." (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek N. T., 1st ed.,. 928 Divorce and Malicious Desertion. p.804.) Hence he constitutes himself, or causes himself to be, an adulterer. Moreover, by marrying and having carnal intercourse with another woman, while he is still bound by God to hi;; :first wife, he commits a second adultery, Luke 16, 18; IV[att. 19, 9. Furthermore, by divorcing his :first wife and marrying another, he commits adultery by each one of these acts against her, [t0txiirat h,;' a v r ~ v , Mark 10,lI. (Some exegetes refer this phrase to the second wife; by far the greater number, however, regard it as referring to the :first wife.) He violates the marriage institution to her harm. Having promised to remain faithful to her, to become one flesh with her alone in a union separable only by death, he ruthlessly dismisses her and takes unto himself another woman. What an insult to discard her as one would discard an old and worn-out piece of furniture! What an outrage in addition to this insult calmly to marry another to take her place! What a shameful Retting aside and trampling upon her God-given claims and privileges! And still deeper does he become mired in sin and shame. Says Ohrist, Matt. 5, 32: He causes her, his wife, to commit adultery, :nOtS, aVTllv [tOIXii(J{}at, to constitute herself an adulteress. Again I see no reason to restrict "adultery" to its narrower sense, that she commits adultery only by marrying another. Here also adultery in its wider sense is meant. Sexual desire, natural in itself, its grati:fication sanctioned in wedlock by God Himself, Gen. 3, 16 ; 1 001'. 7,2. 3, becomes adultery as soon as it is centered upon a person prohibited to you by law, Matt. 5,28. In the case of a divorced woman the only one toward whom the desire would be lawful, her husband, has divoTced he 1', thereby cutting off eveTY possibility of propCTly gratifying her sexual desires. These very desiTes, being directed to otheT men, are adulteries, as the LOl'd calls them, Matt. 15,19, whetheT they aTe entertained with a view to marriage 01' not. EveTY gratification of these desiTes, whether the man be married or unmarried, is not simply fornication, but adultery, since she is still the wife of anotheT. Every marriage, whetheT with an unmarried or a divOTced person, is on her part an adulterous marriage in its every phase and action, as long as it exists. Note the infinitive present, denoting continuity, /-lOlxiia{}al. While she will have to answer for her own guilt, yet her former husband is in a great measure responsible and will be so held befoTe the tribunal of God on that great day of reckoning. Several manuscripts offer flOIXSV{}ij"OI for po'Xii(J{}at. That may be either a case of the passive's being used for the middle (cf. Robertson, Grammar> p.334, 'where quite a number of examples of this usage are cited), or it may be a pure passive, and we would translate: He causes her to be seduced to adultery. In either case the sense is not -changed. And still the dread consequences of the divorce continue. "Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery," Divorce and Malieious Desertion. 929 ~ f a t t . 19, 9. He marries one who before God is the lawful wife of another; his entire marriage is in fact a continuous adultery; it is the marriage to an adulteress by a man who by this very marriage becomes an adulterer. And all in consequence of the first divorce. What a mire of sin and shame in which the husband obtaining a divorce immerges himself and others! And what is said of the man applies with equal force to the woman. "And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery," Mark 10, 12. Again we see that the Bible knows no double standard. What is wrong for the man is wrong for the woman. Bruce, in Expositor's Greek Testament on Mark 10,12, states that Mark has added a gloss so as to make Ohrist's teaching a guide for his Gentile readers. Jewish women, he says, could not divorce their husbands. He overlooks the faet that, although sueh divorces were not permitted by law, they nevertheless occurred. J oBephu6 tells us that Salome, the sister of Herod I, "sent her husband Oostobar a 'YQaflfluuov, a letter of divorce, thus herself severing the marriage in a manner not in accord with the Jewish laws." (Ant., XV, 7, 10.) Though not in accord with Jewish custom, evidently divorces were being obtained by women. According to the Talmud the woman could force a divorce in the following cases: if her husband were afllicted with an ulcer or a polypus, immaterial whether this developed before or after marriage or was engaged in a dirty trade, such as that of a coppersmith or a tanner (Chetuboth, VII, 10), and if her husband denied to her the marital duty (Y.7). While the Talmud was reduced to writing much later, it frequently records old traditions. Hence already at Ohrist's time it may have been customary for women to divorce their husbands, ,md this custom seems the more plausible if we consider the laxity of divorce laws for men. While it may have been contrary to the letter of the Jewish law for a woman to obtain a letter of divorce, yet there may have been ways and means open for her to "force her husband to divorce her," as the Talmud puts it. She practically did what the Savior calls dnOA!!"". Hence there is no reason why Jesus could not have spoken these ,,·ords. Even if the obtaining of divorces by women had not been customary at Hiil time, He knew the customs of the heathen world and its evil iniluence on the Ohurch of the future. However, the rule laid down by Ohrist and which affirms the indissolubility of the matrimonial bond states one exception, "except it be for fornication," ]'I'l:att. 19, 9, or as we read Matt. 5,32, "saving for the cause of fornication." This exception is recorded only in the Gospel of St. Matthew. But in both instances the words are clearly indicated as Ohrist's own words, the whole sentence of which this forms a part being introduced in both instances by the phrase "I say unto you." Hence the suggestion that the Savior did not speak these 59 930 DiYorce and Malicious Desertion. words, that they are an explanatory gloss due to the evangelist or to the tradition he followed (De Wette, Weiss, Holtzmann, and seemingly favored by Bruce in Exp. Gr. Test.), is altogether out of question. There can be no doubt that }\!(atthew, writing as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, presents these words as the words of the Savior. Just what do these words mean? The Expositor's Greek Testament (on JYIatt. 5,32) calls this "a most important exception, which has given rise to much controversy that will probably last till the world's end." Chemnitz, in his Examen, states the reason for such difference of opinion and suggests the proper course for the removal of all doubt. He writes: "If human prejudices and preconceived presumptions are set aside and the question is decided from the very words of Ohrist, the matteI' is altogether plain and clear." The wOTds present no grammatical difficulty. For loyoq Thayer prefers the translation case, except in a case of fornication, since 26yol", in the sense of cause, reason, is not used with the genitive. However, the sense is not changed in the least whether we adopt the translation case or cause. In Matt. 19, 9 some MSS. offer :n;ae8X1:(Jc; loyov :n;oe!'siaq, some el '''7, w]lile all the uncials simply read 1"1, Again the variant readings do not affect the sense. ~ W e ask, ~ W h a t is :n;oeveia ~ Does it mean only fornication, carnal intercourse, or does it cover other forms of unchastity? If we have counted correctly, the word occurs twenty-three times in the New Testament. Besides our passages, Matt. 5, 32; 19, 9, we find it in the apostolic decree, Acts 15, 20. 29; 21, 25, and in several catalogs of sins, Matt. 15, 19; Mark 7, 21; Rom. 1, 29; Rev. 9, 21, which do not describe the exact nature of the sin. In a number of passages it is used in a manner which permits it to be taken only in the sense of fornication, actual carnal intercourse. John 8,41: "We be not born of fornication"; 1 Cor. 5, 1: "such fornication ... that one should have his father's wife"; 1 Oor. 6, 13: "The body is not for fornication"; v. 18: "Flee fornication." Fornication is a sin against one's own body. Compare vv. 15. 16, which show that the apostle has in mind a sin wherebiY one is joined to a harlot. Ohap. 7, 2: "To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife." In other passages :n;oevda is distinguished from other forms of ill1mOl'ality. 2 001'. 12, 21 and Gal. 5, 19 it is distinguished from axa{}aQo[a, uncleanness, and aoiAyEta, licentiousness, lasciviousness, unchaste handling of males and females (Thayer); Eph. 5, 3, from "all uncleanness"; 001. 3,5, from uncleanness, :n;o:&oq, ungovernable desire, passion, representing the passive side of the vice, and S:n;dJvI"{a xa;o), the active side, more comprehensive than :n;6.{}Oq, lust; 1 Thess. 4, 3: "Abstain from fornication"; therefOl'e, v. 4, "possess his vessel," procure a wife for himself. Evidently carnal intercourse is here the only possible meaning, since unchastity is forbidden also in matrimony. In the remaining Divorce and Malicious Desertion. 931 six passages, all of them in Revelation, it is used of spiritual fornication, idolatry, Rev. 2, 21; 14,8; 1'7,2.4; 18,3; 19,2. The underlying idea here also is that of actual carnal intercourse (cp. 2, 22: