• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Matt. 5:32

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

I've been having a discussion regarding the meaning of this passage, specifically the cause of the adultery in the woman (we can assume the exception clause does not apply in this case). She brought up an interesting view and I wanted to run it past the community here and see what the consensus is. Since we've all had to study Scripture for ourselves and already understand the correct definition of na'aph/adultery, I can't think of a better place to present this question. As I see it, there are two ways we could potentially understand the cause of her adultery.

Option 1: The second sentence in this verse assumes the woman has remarried, so the woman is implied to have remarried in the first sentence, and it is this act of remarriage while still having a husband which causes the adultery.

Option 2: The woman commits adultery simply because of the forced separation from her husband, regardless whether she also remarries in the future.

I'm more inclined to go with the first option, as it fits better with all the other Scriptures related to physical adultery. It also leaves the innocent woman blameless, although she still cannot remarry while her husband lives. I'm interested in hearing from those who have studied the Scriptures out themselves, regarding Jesus' words here. Do we understand that she is an adulteress entirely due to the actions of her husband if he should send her away without cause? Or are His words to be understood in the context of unlawful divorce followed by remarriage, as is the case for the husband in Matt. 19:9?

Also, perhaps we might add a new topical area related to the discussion of Scripture verses. I wasn't sure if this belonged in this area or not. Just an idea. All comments welcome!

David
 
djanakes said:
Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

I've been having a discussion regarding the meaning of this passage, specifically the cause of the adultery in the woman (we can assume the exception clause does not apply in this case). She brought up an interesting view and I wanted to run it past the community here and see what the consensus is. Since we've all had to study Scripture for ourselves and already understand the correct definition of na'aph/adultery, I can't think of a better place to present this question. As I see it, there are two ways we could potentially understand the cause of her adultery.

Option 1: The second sentence in this verse assumes the woman has remarried, so the woman is implied to have remarried in the first sentence, and it is this act of remarriage while still having a husband which causes the adultery.

Option 2: The woman commits adultery simply because of the forced separation from her husband, regardless whether she also remarries in the future.

I'm more inclined to go with the first option, as it fits better with all the other Scriptures related to physical adultery. It also leaves the innocent woman blameless, although she still cannot remarry while her husband lives. I'm interested in hearing from those who have studied the Scriptures out themselves, regarding Jesus' words here. Do we understand that she is an adulteress entirely due to the actions of her husband if he should send her away without cause? Or are His words to be understood in the context of unlawful divorce followed by remarriage, as is the case for the husband in Matt. 19:9?

Also, perhaps we might add a new topical area related to the discussion of Scripture verses. I wasn't sure if this belonged in this area or not. Just an idea. All comments welcome!

David
Click to expand...

Hello David,

Not only will we need to consider the context of the Old Testament Law, but we also need consider definitions, like "puts away","matter of whoring", and "adultery". There may be some other options, for example: The first sentence may be a "separation" as opposed actual "written divorce" and therefore, the second sentence would agree with the Law by saying that the man would be making "...her commit adultery", for the Law allowed remarriage for divorce (Deuteronomy 24:2). I am not saying this is the only option, but too many believers do not connect Christ's statement with the entire Bible.
 
Pastor Randy,

My view on this Scripture is Jesus' emphasis on the 'putting away'. The following article really gave me some insight and understanding on it. There is NO CONFLICT with Old Testament law regarding divorce and Matthew 5:32. The key word in Matthew is 'apoluo' or put away...it DOES NOT MEAN DIVORCE!

Reference: http://www.divorcehope.com/godhatesdivorce.htm

We have heard this Scripture: “the Lord God of Israel says that HE HATES DIVORCE” (Malachi 2:16). This is almost always quoted as if God hates all divorces in general. But that’s just not true. We have previously read from the Bible books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Deuteronomy and 1Corinthians that God is not against divorce. Then why all the confusion concerning why God said that “He hates divorce?” The reason for the confusion is because there are TWO “kinds” of marriages and TWO “divorces” being mentioned in the Malachi 2:11-16 passage.

The “divorces” were not official divorces; they didn’t need to be. They were already previously married and “unofficially” married again. The Hebrew word shalach means “putting away”― a separation, as correctly translated in most Bibles. However, the King James and a number of newer versions have incorrectly translated shalach as to mean: divorce. It never meant divorce and it doesn’t mean divorce. The word was most likely translated as “divorce” to fit what was taught in the church. Shalach is just a common word used throughout the Old Testament which means to: go, separate or to send. That’s it!

So why did God angrily say that He “…hated putting away [a separation]?” “…Because you have not kept My ways [concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage] but have SHOWN PARTIALITY IN THE LAW” (Malachi 2:9). The Law specifically stated that when a man got a divorce from his wife that he was to write “…her a CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE, put it in her hand, AND [shalach] send her out [put her away]…” (Deuteronomy 24:1). God also commanded them not to marry anyone who did not serve him ― who served a foreign god (See Nehemiah 13:25-30).

Instead, men separated from their wives without ever giving them a Certificate of Divorce and then illegally married someone else. This is why the Lord said that they were still “their wife by covenant.” The marriage covenant had never been dissolved by the Divorce Certificate.

“The Lord’s holy institution which He loves...the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth ...[and] SHE [STILL] IS YOUR COMPANION AND YOUR WIFE BY COVENANT. For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce [shalach], [separating without a Certificate of Divorce].... He has [illegally] married the daughter of a foreign god. May the Lord cut off ...the man who does this being awake and aware” (Malachi 2:11,12a,14b,c,16a).

Because these men had remarried illegally ― separated from their wives without giving them a Certificate of Divorce, they were in adultery as Jesus stated: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever PUTS AWAY [separates from {apoluo}] his wife, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE. But I say to you that whoever PUTS AWAY [separates and remarries without being divorced from] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery: and whoever marries a woman who is PUT AWAY [separated without being divorced {apoluo}] commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32). (The Lord never forgot about the Malachi incident when He came to earth to redeem lost man).

The Old Testament Hebrew word shalach and the New Testament Greek word apoluo (as in Matthew 5:32) ARE EQUIVALENT.

Because these disobedient men still had “un-divorced” wives, the Lord did not command them to give their illegal wives a Certificate of Divorce, rather, they simply had to “separate, put them away, [shalach].” SO DID GOD HATE DIVORCE? NO! RATHER, GOD HATED THAT THE HUSBANDS WERE SEPARATING FROM THEIR WIVES WITHOUT GIVING THEM A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE WHICH WOULD ENABLE THEM TO GET REMARRIED. THIS IS WHAT GOD HATES!

The men of Israel were SEPARATING from their wives for self-gratifying reasons. God Himself was a “witness” at their original marriage ceremony which was still in effect. The marriage covenant was never dissolved by a Certificate of Divorce. The men remarried outside their own culture (race) and tribe. God considered the children they bore unholy because of the mixed marriages bringing curses into their families (See Ezra 9:1,2, Nehemiah 13:26-30).

Because of these unauthorized marriages, the Word of God came to Ezra and Nehemiah to have the men and women of Israel who had done this thing, to separate from their spouse and even from their children (See Ezra 9:1, 11-12, 10:3, Nehemiah 13:23-27). In this situation, God’s command was to “put them away, separate yourselves from them!” This was NOT the kind of marriage to which God was saying, “I hate divorce!” He was saying loudly, “Get out of these wrong marriages!”

DIVORCE IS A METHOD TO SEPARATE THE ONE, AND MAKE THEM INTO TWO just as a surgeon’s knife is used to separate the cancerous flesh from the healthy flesh. Both operations are good. Divorce can be used to kill a righteous marriage, just as a surgeon’s knife can be used to kill a healthy person.
 
docburkhart said:
My view on this Scripture is Jesus' emphasis on the 'putting away'. The following article really gave me some insight and understanding on it. There is NO CONFLICT with Old Testament law regarding divorce and Matthew 5:32. The key word in Matthew is 'apoluo' or put away...it DOES NOT MEAN DIVORCE!

Reference: http://www.divorcehope.com/godhatesdivorce.htm
Click to expand...

I've seen this argument brought up several times but it really doesn't hold water when examined. In reality, no word in Hebrew means divorce. The word "divorce" doesn't exist anywhere in Scripture, just like the word "adultery" doesn't exist in Scripture. In the Hebrew, there are two terms we need to understand:

keriythuwth (#3748): cutting off from marriage (from the root karath (#3772), meaning to cut off, to behead, to destroy, to permit to perish)

shalach (#7971): putting away, sending away

Just as the closest word for na'aph in English is "adultery", so also is the closest word for keriythuwth in English is "divorcement", but the Hebrew term isn't the same as how it is commonly used today in our culture.

Deut. 24:1-4: "When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a certificate of KERIYTHUWTH (cutting off from marriage), and put it in her hand, and SHALACH (send away) her out of his house, and if she left his house and went and became another man’s wife, and the latter husband shall hate her and write her a certificate of KERIYTHUWTH (cutting off from marriage), and put it in her hand, and SHALACH (send away) her out of his house, or when the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who SHALACH (sent away) her is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that would be an abomination before Yahweh. And do not bring sin on the land which Yahweh your Elohim is giving you as an inheritance."

The clear understanding of this passage, setting aside the uncoveredness clause for the moment, is that the husband writes his wife a certificate of cutting off, gives it to her, and then sends her out of his home. The certificate is his intention to release her from her covenant contract to him. Remember, the wife is bound to the husband like a branch is bound to a vine. The husband is already permitted to marry another, so this certificate of cutting off is the wife's proof of the husband's termination of the marriage covenant, allowing her to remarry once cut off. A wife couldn't write herself a certificate of cutting off, nor could she write him a certificate of cutting herself off from him.

Mal. 2:14-16: "And you said, "Why?" Because Yahweh has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have acted treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant. And did He not make one? And He had the remnant of the Spirit? And what is the one alone? He seeks a seed of Elohim. So you shall guard your spirit, and let none act treacherously against the wife of his youth. "For I hate SHALACH (sending away)," said Yahweh Elohim of Yisra’el, "and the one who covers his garment with cruelty," said Yahweh of hosts. "So you shall guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously."

It seems clear that it is the acting treacherously against the wife of one's youth that is the subject of objection here. God says He hates "shalach" here in Mal. 2:16, yet it is the same word He uses in Jer. 3:8 when He Himself "shalach"'s Israel. The difference is not merely a certificate of cutting off, but rather the treacherous act the husband is committing against her without cause. When the husband SHALACH (sends away) his wife, it is supposed to be a punishment; a necessary consequence of marital unfaithfulness on the part of the wife. Without the required "matter of uncoveredness", the SHALACH (sending away) is unwarranted, despite any certificate of KERIYTHUWTH (cutting off from marriage).

This was precisely why the Pharisees asked Jesus the question about whether it was lawful to "put away" one's wife for any reason, and His response was that, outside the "matter of whoring", to do so would be adultery. I do agree, however, that there is no conflict between OT law and Jesus' words. Both Deut. 24:1 and Matt. 5:32 say the same thing regarding the exception clause.
 
I see what you are saying. Makes sense, and follows the Scripture. I never thought of the 'sending away' as punishment for the sin of adultery, but that would be in the character of God.

Blessings,

Doc Burkhart
 
Hello David,

Just as the closest word for na'aph in English is "adultery", so also is the closest word for keriythuwth in English is "divorcement", but the Hebrew term isn't the same as how it is commonly used today in our culture.

Deut. 24:1-4: "When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a certificate of KERIYTHUWTH (cutting off from marriage), and put it in her hand, and SHALACH (send away) her out of his house, and if she left his house and went and became another man’s wife, and the latter husband shall hate her and write her a certificate of KERIYTHUWTH (cutting off from marriage), and put it in her hand, and SHALACH (send away) her out of his house, or when the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who SHALACH (sent away) her is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that would be an abomination before Yahweh. And do not bring sin on the land which Yahweh your Elohim is giving you as an inheritance."

The clear understanding of this passage, setting aside the uncoveredness clause for the moment, is that the husband writes his wife a certificate of cutting off, gives it to her, and then sends her out of his home. The certificate is his intention to release her from her covenant contract to him. Remember, the wife is bound to the husband like a branch is bound to a vine. The husband is already permitted to marry another, so this certificate of cutting off is the wife's proof of the husband's termination of the marriage covenant, allowing her to remarry once cut off. A wife couldn't write herself a certificate of cutting off, nor could she write him a certificate of cutting herself off from him.
Click to expand...

Concerning the wife not writing herself a certificate of cutting off, this is true, however, it should be mentioned that she could legally leave on grounds of neglect (Exodus 21:10-11). Thereby, implying that a system was set up for her to be able to move on and be remarried. We do know from the Code of Hammurabi (Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, pp. 209-210) that women in the Near East could initiate divorce on these very grounds. We also know from ancient Jewish records that women had the right to divorce as stipulated in some ancient Jewish marriage certificates (E. Lipinski, "The Wife's Right to Divorce in the Light of an Ancient Near Eatern Tradition," in The Jewish Law Annual, ed. B.S. Jackson, vol. 4, esp. pp. 14-17).

In the Code of Hammurabi #142 and #143, the only difference between a husband merely handing over a Certificate of Divorce, was that a wife's divorce was decided by appearing before a court made up of a city council (James Pritchard, ed., "Code of Hammurabi," Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 171). From a pure Scriptural frame of reference, we can only say that women were allowed to divorce on grounds of neglect, but we do not have any information on how this process worked.

I would like to discuss in detail the Hebrew words later. Don't have time right now.
 
Pastor Randy,

Do you think that our church culture of today imprints their own interpretation on Matthew 5:32?

Doc Burkhart
 
Doc,

I think we all have this tendency. It is known as the "Anachronistic Fallacy".
 
Matt. 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the matter of whoring, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery."

Most seem to view this as whoring after marriage, where when I read it I am reminded of Moses relaying Yahweh's commands in this matter, where he said that a man may put away his wife if he finds a matter of uncleaness in her.
In other words, if she was sleeping around after marriage, this putting away was unecessary because her and the man she slept with were to be stoned. But if she was a whore in her father's house, but portrayed herself as a chaste woman, then the husband later figured it out, he was allowed to put her away, even without a divorcement. A kind man, however, would have given her a writting of divorcement to allow her to remarry, but he wasn't required. All other seperation was required to give a writing of divorcement (otherwise known as a 'get') so she could legally and morally remarry, otherwise she was still married and would be an adultress if she married another. And whoever married her joined her in the adultery.
It was no sin to divorce a woman, although it would have repercussions. From the beginning it wasn't so, divorcing or putting away, but one is allowed, the other only in certain circumstances.
 
The hardness of heart is what was not so from the beginning.

The invention of family by God was for the overall good of man. When the wife beccomes rebellious then the husband has a right to cut her off.
When the husband does not protect and provide for his wife, then God says she is to go free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top