II. BODY
The Bible is
clear that God intends marriage to be a permanent union between a man and a
woman. In Genesis 2:24, we can read the
first union created by God as implied in the term “one flesh”. Also, in Malachi 2:6, the prophet said that
God hates divorce. Moreover, Matthew
19:6 and Mark 10:9 explicitly state the principle of inviolability and
integrity of marriage that man should not separate what God has joined
together.
The God who
desires to maintain the integrity and unity of marriage is the same God who
provided for extreme cases wherein Divorce and Remarriage may be opted for by
the innocent party.
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4
This passage is part of the bigger laws which can be found in
Chapter 19:1-25:19 that governs Israel’s community life.[1] In Chapter 19:1-25:19, we can see that this
unit focuses on personal and community relationships as found on the second
half of the Ten Commandments.[2]
A perusal of
this passage shows that divorce has been practiced by the people of the
land. As such, scholars claim that this
passage does not command or condone divorce, but merely regulates such
pre-existing practice.[3] Some commentators would deem this passage as
a means of preventing divorce in the land.[4]
Further, the passage itself forms part of the casuistic law
of the land, wherein certain conditions were set forth before the law can be
made applicable.[5] We can see that verses 1 to 3 sets for the
conditions, while verse 4 provides for the command when the conditions are met.[6] J. Carl Laney clarifies that the intent of
this passage is not about the regulation of divorce but the prohibition of
remarriage between a former husband and wife wherein the latter had intervening
marriage with another man.[7]
Verse 1
states the condition wherein the wife can be sent away from the conjugal
dwelling, namely, that the husband “finds no favor in his eyes” because he sees in her
a “nakedness thing” ( (עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔רThis phrase has been understood
or translated differently by scholars.
This has been translated in the New American Standard Version and the
New International Version as “indecency”.
D.L. Christensen notes that most scholars agree that this phrase denotes
a “sexually indecent behavior” which is less
than the sin of adultery. [8] He adds that this phrase expresses the idea
that the woman is publicly exposing her genitals/pudenda.[9] Then, the man is to write a certificate of
divorce and hand it over to the woman.
The certificate of
divorce (סֵפֶר
כְּרִיתֻת ) , which literally means letter of cutting
off, is then placed in the hands of the woman as a public symbol that the
relationship has already been severed.[10] D. Christensen notes that the idea behind the
certificate of divorce is based on the Ancient Mesopotamia’s practice of
cutting the woman’s hem or garment which, to them, serves as a ceremonial act
of divorce.[11] The words of the certificate is reflected in
the Mishnah, where is states, “Behold, you are free to marry any man.”[12] The certificate itself likewise serves as a
protection for the woman against further actions by the man when the
relationship has already been severed.[13]
Consequently, the sending away “from his house” carries with it economic and
social lost for the woman.[14]
When the certificate is
already handed over to the woman, verses 3 to 4, then, contemplates another
marriage bond created when the woman marries another man. It further shows another pitiful reality of
the woman, who was previously divorced, being divorced anew by her second
husband or has later become a widow.
However, verse 4 does not specifically state what the ground was for
divorce in the second marriage, unlike in verse 1 wherein the ground has been
provided. The second divorce implies
that divorce is rampant during Ancient Israel’s time, hence, the need for
regulation.[15]
Further, verse 4 says that her first husband cannot re-marry her because “she has been defiled.” Some
suggests that the defilement refers to the adultery because the woman’s
cohabitation with her second husband is akin to adultery, wherein she has moved
from one man to another.[16] To allow such scenario would then be
tolerating a softer form of adultery in the land.[17] Thus, it will be an abomination before the
Lord for the first husband to take her again because she is an adulteress.
In
sum, this passage is about the prohibition against the first husband from
re-marrying his divorced wife, and is not about the actual legalization of
divorce. The practice of divorce is
presumed in the passage, and the passage simply provides for a scenario when
the husband divorces the wife for indecent exposure. Clearly, the passage does not state that
Divorce is a divine mandate. Hence,
arguments for divorce cannot be held solely on the basis of the passage.
Matthew
5:32 and Matthew 19:9
Deuteronomy
24:1-4 became the basis for subsequent teachings on the issue of Divorce.[18] The Jewish leaders echoed the concept of the
certificate of divorce in the Torah, when they tested Jesus on the matter. In the Synoptic Gospels, we can read that
only Matthew provided for an exception clause which then serves as ground for
divorce. However, these passages do not
provide for the general rule, but only as a concession when the exception
arises. We can see in the passages,
where the exception clauses can be found, that Jesus puts a high premium in the
unity and indissolubility of marriage.
The introductory statement in
Matthew 5:31 is not an exact quotation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but a popular
understanding of how the said passage was understood by the people during
Jesus’ time.[19] It reminisces what is stated in Deuteronomy
24:1-4, albeit in its truncated form, when the certificate of divorce was
mentioned. The certificate of divorce serves as the woman’s protection so that
after she has been driven out of the conjugal dwelling, and remarried another
man, the previous husband cannot file any actions against her because the
certificate of divorce releases her from her first marriage.[20] Further, Matthew 5:32 states that “everyone
who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her
commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
According to Craig Keener, Jesus’ statements in verses 31-32 are actually
hyperbolical ways of forbidding divorce, except when the other party has
already broken the marital bond.[21]
During the time of Jesus, Jewish men can divorce their wives for any reason.[22] However, verse 32 limits the ground for
divorce to unchastity or πορνείας (porneia).
Moreover, D.A. Carson states that the exception clause should be taken
to mean that divorce is wrong because it generates adultery except when it is
on the ground of fornication.[23]
The
same exception clause is again found in Matthew 19: 3-9. When Jesus reached “the region of Judea
beyond the Jordan” (verse 1), a group of Pharisees came and tested Jesus. They asked Jesus whether it is lawful for a
man to divorce his wife for any reason at all. In reply, Jesus recounted the
original divine purpose for marriage that it is indissoluble (verses 4-6). He added that Moses permitted divorce because
of the hardness of man’s heart, and that divorce is not part of the divine plan
for marriage (verse 8). Nevertheless,
Jesus again stated the exception clause in verse 9 where he said “whoever
divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits
adultery”. Again, we see the same
principle that Jesus enunciated in Matthew 5:32 that divorce is only permitted
in cases of unchastity/immorality.
During
Jesus’ time, two differing views on marriage were held by the Jews, namely, the
school of Shammai and Hillel.[24] Shammai’s school of thought believes that
gross indecency is the only ground for divorce, while Hillel’s school of
thought believes that divorce can be held for any ground.[25]
Anent the issue of remarriage, the school of Shammai only allowed remarriage
when the divorce was done not in accordance with its rules of conduct.[26]
However, we can see that Jesus cannot be categorized in any of these schools of
thought because he only permits divorce and remarriage in cases of “porneia”.
The
point of contention in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is the definition of unchastity/
immorality/porneia (πορνείᾳ). According
to Mark Geldard, the word (πορνείᾳ)/porneia
should be interpreted as pre-marital sexual intercourse.[27] However, R.H. Stein claims that the term
should be construed as any illicit
sexual activity, and that Matthew’s audience interpreted it as “sexual
immorality” which included “not only adultery, incest, premarital infidelity,
but also homosexuality, bestiality, and any other sexual conduct condemned in
the OT.”[28] As to the issue of re-marriage, R.T. France
claims that a divorce without the right to re-marry is not a genuine divorce
because, on the contrary, the certificate of divorce capacitates both parties
to re-marry.[29]
As to
the question as to why Mark and Luke did not provide the exception clause, R.T.
France explains that Jesus forbade divorce in both gospels and did not provide
the exception clause because Jesus was referring to a scenario of voluntary
breaking of an existing marriage bond, while Matthew speaks of a scenario
wherein the marriage bond has already been severed by porneia.[30]
From
the foregoing, we can see that Jesus does not command divorce because the form
for the word divorce (ἀπολύσῃ) is not in the imperative. Just like Moses, Jesus is simply laying down
the only instance when divorce may be allowed.
We see this by his use of the conditional aspect of the word (ἀπολύσῃ). In short, Divorce in both
Matthew 5 and 19 is not mandatory, but only permitted.[31]
1 Corinthians 7:15
Another
contentious ground for divorce and remarriage is the ground of abandonment by
the erring spouse as mentioned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:15. In 1 Corinthians 7:15, the Apostle Paul seeks
to address the believers of Gentile origin who were confronted with the issue
of divorce.[32] Paul asserts in this verse that the divorce
must not be initiated by the Christian, and that the divorce must have been
forced upon them.[33]
In
verse 15, he stated that “Yet if the unbelieving one
leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases,
but God has called us to peace”. We can
see from this verse that the Apostle Paul exhorts the believing spouse to live
in peace by allowing the unbelieving/unrepentant spouse to leave (χωρίζω). According to David Instone-Brewer, the term χωρίζεται , which
comes from the lexical form χωρίζω , is a
synonymous term for divorce as used in the Graeco-Roman Law. Thus, the Apostle
Paul has the concept of divorce in verse 15. This process of divorce is
initiated and completed by the return of the dowry and separation of the
spouses.[34] Moreover, the Apostle Paul assumes the right of the innocent spouse to
remarry by the use of the term “οὐ δεδούλωται”, meaning “not bound.” In this
case, we can see that the innocent spouse is no longer bound by the marriage
bond just like a slave that has been freed.[35]
[1]
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart. How
to Read the Bible Book by Book (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), p. 61.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Eugene H. Merill, Deuteronomy, The New American Commentary
(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), p. 314.
[4]
Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12, Word Biblical
Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 2002), p. 563.
[5]
J. Carl Laney, “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Issue of Divorce”, Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (January 1992): 4.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Ibid., p.5.
[8]
Christensen, WBC, p. 566.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Merill, NAC, p. 318.
[11]
Christensen, WBC, 567.
[12]
Laney, Bibliotheca Sacra, p.
6.
[13]
Peter C. Craigie. The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co, 1976), p. 305.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Craigie, NICOT, p. 305.
[16]
Ibid.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew,
New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans,
2007), p. 206
[19]
R.T. France, Matthew: An
Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Downer
Grove, Il: IVP, 1985), p. 126.
[20]
Leon Morris, The Gospel According
to Matthew, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans,
1992), p. 120.
[21]
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible
Background Commentary: New Testatment (Quezon City, Philippines: CGM,
2010), 59.
[22]
Craig S. Keener, “Adultery,Divorce”, in Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
1998), CD-ROM.
[23]
D.A. Carson, Matthew,
Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), p. 153..
[24]
Ibid., p. 411.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
Mark Geldard, “Jesus Teaching on Divorce”, Churchman 92 (1978): 140.
[28]
R.H. Stein, “Divorce”, in Dictionary
of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1992), p. 195.
[29]
R.T. France, NICNT, 212.
[30]
Ibid., 211.
[31]
Andrew Cornes, Divorce and
Remarriage (WS Bookwell, Finland: Christian Forcus, 1993), p.204.
[32]
David Instone-Brewer, “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman
Marriage and Divorce Papyri”, Tyndale
Bulletin 52.1 (2001): 115
[33]
Ibid., 112
[34]
Instone-Brewer, “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage
and Divorce Papyri”, p. 116.
[35]
David Instone-Brewer, “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Jewish Greek
and Aramaic Marriage and Divorce Papyri”, Tyndale
Bulletin 52.1 (2001): 241-242.
No comments:
Post a Comment