There is evidence that cases of divorce and remarriage continue to cause difficulties within ecclesias, and occasionally between ecclesias Situations are being created where the highest standard of brotherly conduct as well as of sincere devotion to the Scripture are essential There are two areas where differences of opinion are common
1. The first concerns the permanence of the marriage bond some take the words, “What God hath joined, let not man put asunder” to imply that, apart from the death of one partner, neither adultery nor anything else can break the bond The effect of a rigid adherence to this view is that, even where divorce has taken place, before baptism or after, remarriage becomes impossible even for the ‘ innocent” partner, because it is regarded as adultery, the first marriage being technically still in existence There is a body of evidence here which is not often used the comments which God makes through His prophets upon His own relations with Israel, His unfaithful wife The following are examples
Isa 50 1 – “Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whereth I hate put her away?Behold, for your transgressions was your mother put way
Jer 3 8_______ I saw when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery I had pat her away, and
given her a bill of diorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot “
Jer 31 31—”I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord “
In Ezekiel 16 is God s prolonged indictment of Judah as an unfaithful wife “I spread my skirt over thee I swear unto thee and entered into a covenant with thee, said the Lord God, and thou becamest mine (v 8) But thou playedst the harlot, and pouredst out thy fornication’s on every one that passed by (v 15) Thou has committed fornication with the Egyptians (v 26) Thou hast played the harlot also with the Assyrians (v 28) A wife that committeth adultery’ that taketh strangers instead of her husband (v 32) Wherefore, 0 harlot, hear the word of the Lord (v 35) I will judge thee, as women that bleak wedlock and shed blood are judged (v 38) For thus saith the Lord God, I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant “
In these four passages from three different prophets there is a common teaching the covenant relationship of Israel with God was like the marriage relationship between a wife and her husband Israel had proved an unfaithful wife, she had committed adultery with the surrounding nations and their gods So, because Israel had ‘ broken her (marriage) covenant” with God, like women that break wedlock,” He had ‘given her a bill of divorcement’ and had “put her away” Israel had by her unfaithfulness ceased to be the wife of the Lord, as He said quite clearly through Hosea ‘Plead with your mother, plead, for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband” (2:2)
The plain implication of these passages is that in the sight of God adultery breaks the marriage bond, which no longer exists And could it be otherwise? For the adulterous partner has already destroyed the spiritual union which should exist with his wife (or her husband), the physical act of unfaithfulness is but the logical conclusion
It must be remembered, however, that in all these passages from the prophets God shows Himself willing, nay eager, to take Israel back again as His wife, if only she will repent of her ways, but the return to her Husband is not because the old bond still exists, but because God is prepaid to behoth he; again afresh to Himself When Israel says, “I will go and return to my first husband,” then God’s response is I will betroth thee unto me for ever, ‘ in a new covenant (Hos 2:7,19, Jer 31:31)
These examples are taken from the Old Testament, but they are not cases where God is tolerating a lower standard in others they are cases where He is expressing His own principle that the marriage bond is broken by unfaithfulness
The conclusion to be drawn seems to be this it is not a legitimate argument against the remarriage of a divorced person to point to the fact that the first partner is still alive According to God’s own principle, the original bond is broken by unfaithfulness
2. The second area of disagreement surrounds the receptive clause “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, (Matt 5 32, similarly Matt 19 9) The clear implication of th(see passages is that, according to the law of Christ, for ‘fornication” a wife may be ‘put away” The question is what does porneia” (fornication) mean?
Again there would seem to be a source of information available in the Old Testament, for surely Jesus was not using a term which his hearers did not understand For him and for them “porneia” must have had a very definite context And since it is a Greek term, where better to go for our information than to the Greek version of the Old Testament—the Septuagint Version — which was widely known among the Jews at the time of Jesus’ ministry, and by the members of the early church in the days of the apostles?
So how is “porneia” (fornication) used in the Greek Old Testament?
In the divine judgments pronounced upon her for unfaithfulness to God, Israel is frequently portrayed as “a wife that committeth adultery that taketh strangers instead of her husband” (Ezek. 16:32). She was to be judged as “women that break wedlock” (LXX, with the vengeance of an adulteress) (v. 38). The sisters Oholah and Oholibah (Samaria and Jerusalem) “have committed adultery . . . they are adulteresses” (Ezek. 23:37,45). In many other passages the adultery of Israel in relation to God her Husband is clearly implied, even when the actual word is not used.
The Greek word “porneia” occurs about 40 times in the LXX Old Testament. It is always the translation of some form of the Hebrew root “zanah,” which means “to commit fornication.” Attributed properly and chiefly to a woman, whether married (when it may be rendered, to commit adultery) or unmarried. Very often used figuratively of idolatry (to go a whoring after strange gods), the prophets shadowing forth the relation in which God stood to the people of Israel by the marriage union . . . so that the people worshiping strange gods is compared to an adulterous woman” (Gesenius, Hebrew Lexicon).
In our English versions A.V. and R.V. the translation is almost always “whoredom” or “whoredoms”; the R.S.V. has “harlotry,” and the N.E.B. has “fornication.”
Here are some examples of passages where “porneia” is used as a Greek translation of the Hebrew originals. In the majority of cases where the Hebrew is plural (whoredoms), the Greek rendering is “porneia” (fornication) in the singular.
Hosea 2:2 — “plead with your mother . . . let her put away her whoredom (porneia., . . . and her adulteries (moicheia) (both sing.).
Jer. 2:19,20—”Thou has forsaken the Lord thy God . . . under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot” (LXX, indulge in thy fornication. porneia).
Jer. 3:1,2 — “Return again to me, saith the Lord . . . thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms” (porneia).
v.9 — “Through the lightness of her whoredom (porneia) . . . she defiled the land and committed adultery . . .”
Jer. 13:27—”This is thy lot . . . from me, saith the Lord, because thou hast forgotten me . . . I have seen thine adulteries (moicheia) . . . the lewdness of thy whoredom (porneia) . . .”
Ezekiel 16:8-15 — “I (God) sware unto thee (Israel) and entered into a covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine . . . But thou . . . playedst the harlot . . . and poured out thy fornication’s (porneia) on every one that passed by.”
In the same chapter in the LXX Version “porneia” occurs 6 more times. In every case but one the English has “whoredoms,” and the allusion is always to the promiscuity of the unfaithful wife, Israel.
Ezekiel 23 has the extended parable of the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah (Samaria and Jerusalem), “the daughters of one mother . . . they were mine and they bare sons and daughters . . . Oholah played the harlot when she was mine; she doted on (the Assyrians) and committed her whoredoms (porneia) with them” (v. 1-7).
In this chapter “porneia” is used 13 times in the LXX of the “whoredoms” of these two unfaithful women.
There can be no doubt, then, that “porneia” is used in the Greek Old Testament of the unfaithfulness of a married woman after her marriage; it is so closely associated with adultery (moicheia) that the two words are found in the same verse at Hos. 2:2, Jer. 3:9 and 13:27 (see quotations above), in relation to the same person and the same acts.
Leaving aside for a moment the two “exceptive clauses,” we may ask the question: Is the use of “porneia” in the Greek New Testament consistent with its usage in the Old?
There is no doubt that it is. Sometimes, in “lists” of sins the words fornication and adultery (porneia, moicheia) occur in the same verse, as they do in the passages already cited from the Old Testament; e.g. Matt. 15:19 (Mark 7:21); 1 Cor. 6:9; and Gal. 5:19 (A.V.) There are cases, not lists, where the subject is fornication with no mention of adultery The early church ruled that the “Gentiles who believe ‘ should “abstain from fornication” (porneia) Paul writes to the Corinthians ‘the body is not for fornication (porneia) but for the Lord Flee fornication’ (1 Cor 6:13,18) ‘Abstain from fornication (porneia)” (1 Thess 4 13) Surely it cannot be maintained that the apostle was addressing himself only to the unmarried believers in these passages? He must have included adultery in his thought, but feels no need to mention it because the established 0 T use of ` porneia” already included the idea, as the greater includes the less
We may now come to Christ’s words in Matt 5 and 19 Clearly referring to the provision of Deuteronomy 24, whereby the Jews, ‘for the hardness of their hearts” had been “suffered” to put away a wife for other causes than adultery, he says
“Every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress, and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery” ( 5 31-32)
One preliminary observation may be made here if the wife who has been “put away” only becomes “an adulteress” after she has been put away, then evidently she was not one before; that is, she had not been put away for adultery, but for some “trivial” cause
We may now offer a paraphrase of Christ’s words
“Every one that (wrongly) puts away his wife, (that is, not because of adultery, but for some other reason), makes her an adulteress (if she remarries), and whoso marries a woman so (wrongly) put away, commits adultery”
The passage in Matt 19 carries the same teaching The Pharisees’ question “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (for any cause, R S V , on any and every ground, N E B) provides the basis Jesus replies that the intention of God from the beginning was that a man should not put away his wife at all The Law had not commanded but had only suffered the Jews to put away their wives “because of the hardness of your hearts ‘ ‘But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery and he that marrieth her when she is (so) put away committeth adultery”
If the woman has not been put away for fornication, then she has been put away for one of the “any and every causes” which formed the basis of the Pharisees’ question So the marriage bond still exists and a remarriage is adultery The clear implication of the passage is that the occurrence of fornication can make a difference
The passage in Mark needs to be understood in harmony with those of Matt 5 and not to be set against them Mark 10 1 12 is clearly a shortened version of Matt 19 1-9, and the Pharisees’ question, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ?” must have carried the implication “for any cause” recorded by Matthew Similarly Jesus’ reply Whoso shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her” must have married the implication ‘ wrongly put away, that is not for fornication ” That Jesus was including in his thought the custom of Gentile and Roman society is evident from the fact that he refers to the parallel case of the woman putting away her husband, which could not happen under Jewish law But under Roman law divorce was easily obtained for an reason, by the wife as well as by the husband
Luke 16 18 (it should be noted that the saying is confined to one verse and must therefore be a very compressed allusion) needs similarly to be understood in harmony with the passages in Matthew Jesus’ response was in discussion with the Pharisees, “who were covetous” (v 14) and whose hearts were not right with God (v 15), they may well have agreed with that school of Jewish opinion which tolerated divorce “for any cause ” See Bro John Carter’s treatment of this verse in his “Marriage and Divorce “
3. Of the many other things that could be said, I have space only to insist that divorce is never commended, and the way of reconciliation should always be sought Even when divorce has occurred, it is more consistent with apostolic advice not to remarry (1 Cor 7 11) Nevertheless through the weakness of human nature difficult cases are bound to arise May I personally make three pleas to those who find themselves required to make judgments in particular cases and ho may feel they have differences with their brethren
- That we clearly accept the fact that no one who has made a conscientious study of Scripture is ‘in favor of divorce,” not even those who may have come to a different conclusion from ourselves All are agreed that divorce signifies that a grave falling away from Bible teaching has occurred somewhere
- That therefore we should all refrain from making charges of apostasy against those who differ from us in their understanding, all the more since this subject has been a matter of debate for a very long time
- That where the evidence seems to allow of more than one interpretation, we should be forbearing with one another and not make our own view a test of fellowship, either within the ecclesia or in the relationship of our ecclesia with others
- Our greatest defense against the increase of divorce cases in our community is in the vigorous and frequent upholding amongst us of the divine ideals of marriage, the recognition that the love of Christ for his saints is the true reality of which marriage is the type, and the encouragement of that spirit of love, service and faith between husbands and wives as amongst all, which alone is the effective Armour against the wiles of sin To that end may I plead that we all read again with the utmost care the Magazine Committee s article The Lord Hateth Putting Away which appeared in the April 1972 Issue of The Christadelphian, where the spirit which should prevail in this most intimate of relationships is dealt with at length
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One