What Jesus Really Said: Putting Away the Mistranslations About Divorce By Dan Knight Overland Park, KS May

12, 2009 Part One - Review of the asic !hristian Positions The question o divor!e and re"arriage !an #e rightly !alled an e!u"eni!al !on!ern$ %t has #een studied and de#ated ro" di erent &hristian 'ositions #y a huge variety o s!holars, tea!hers, 'rea!hers, and lay leaders (ith an astonishingly divergent set o results$ So"e have !on!luded that the 'ertinent te)ts *o (hi!h there are very e(+ are so en"eshed in the !ulture o the irst !entury that they are irrelevant to any "odern dis!ussion o the issue$ Others have rea!hed the !on!lusion that divor!e or any reason is tanta"ount to entering into a 'er'etual " !ondition o adultery *(hether the divor!ed 'erson re"arries or not+, and that the divor!ed !ou'le have sa!ri i!ed their eternal salvation #y their de!ision to end their "arriage$ Most &hristian leaders all so"e(here #et(een those t(o e)tre"es in their understanding$ , valua#le 'resentation o the di eren!es o o'inion on this issue !an #e ound in the #ook, Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, 'u#lished #y %nter-.arsity 'ress$ % share here a su""ary o those our #asi!, &hristian vie(s on divor!e and re"arriage, using the (ords o the authors the"selves$ # The irst author, /$ &arl 0aney, 'resents the !ase or 12o Divor!e and 2o 3e"arriage$4 5is !on!lusion !ontains these eight 'oints6
On the basis of our survey of the major scriptural passages on marriage, divorce and remarriage, we can conclude the following: 1. the original creative intention and desired will of God is that marriage be permanent until death; 2. neither God himself nor God through oses commanded divorce; !. the e"planation the #ew $estament gives for allowing divorce in the Old $estament is the hardness of the people%s hearts & hearts unsubmitted 'sic( to the restraints of a high and holy God; ). *aul asserts that the fundamental teachings of +esus must be followed precisely, that the wife should not leave her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife; ,. remarriage is permissible without sin for a widow or widower, if the marriage is to another believer; -. remarriage following divorce, by either the husband or wife, constitutes an act of adultery; .. marriage to a divorced person constitutes an act of adultery; /. when a divorce does occur, the only two scriptural options for the divorced person are reconciliation or the single life.$

0aney o#viously !onsiders divor!e itsel a sin, or any !ause, and logi!ally enough eels that re"arriage a ter divor!e only !o"'ounds the sin that has taken *or is taking+ 'la!e$ % The se!ond vie(, 1Divor!e, But 2o 3e"arriage,4 (as (ritten #y 7illia" 5eth, and his !on!lusion #ased on his study o the s!ri'tures is the ollo(ing6
0 am sometimes as1ed, 23here does God%s grace enter the picture of your no4remarriage position5 6o you e"pect divorc7es to remain single the rest of their lives58 $o which 0 reply, 26oes God give grace to 9hristians to sin58 0 cannot thin1 of any instance in :cripture where God gives grace to do that which is contrary to his will. 0n fact, *aul e"presses horror at the thought: 2:hall we go on sinning so that grace may increase5 ;y no means< 3e died to sin; how can we live in it any longer58 =>om. -:142 #0?@. $hus if the :criptures teach that marriage is only dissolved when one of the covenant 1inship partners dies, then remarriage prior to the death of one of the partners involves the grave sin of adultry 'sic(. :o the Auestion 23here does God%s grace enter into your no4remarriage view58 is really framed on the assumption of a view of the marriage relationship other than the one 0 find portrayed throughout the :criptures. God%s grace is indeed magnified in my no4remarriage understanding of this subject because God%s grace is abundantly
1

Carroll Osburn puts to rest any possible use of the present indicative in Matthew 19:9 to suggest that one enters into a status of perpetual adultery. Restoration Quarterly, ol !", # ", 19$1.
2

%ayne &ouse, the editor of Divorce and Remarriage, did an outstanding favor to the Christian Church in putting together these basic stances on the controversial issue. ' heartily reco((end the boo) to anyone who is concerned with the biblical basis and the viability of each position. *t the conclusion of each section, the author also presents a hypothetical situation with reco((endations for resolving the scenario. +i)ewise, following each author,s argu(ent are responses fro( the other three writers.
3 4

p. "$ -his position also represents the traditional .o(an Catholic position on the indissolubility of (arriage.

bestowed on those disciples who desire to be faithful to their Bord%s teachings, no matter how difficult they seem to be. 0n our wea1ness, God infuses us with the strength of his grace. $he church, too, as an instrument of redemption, must be ready when necessary to financially support or help in any way possible the separated or divorced as they see1 to honor 9hrist by obeying him.5

5e then !o"es to the !on!lusion that there are valid reasons or divor!e, #ut inds no s'e!i i!, #i#li!al #asis or allo(ing so"eone to re"arry, not even i the 'artner !o""itted adultery$ & Tho"as 3$ 8dgar 'resented 1Divor!e and 3e"arriage or ,dultery or Desertion$4 5e starts his !ha'ter #y stating, 1The o'inion that the Bi#le allo(s divor!e or adultery or desertion (ith the su#sequent right to re"arry is so"eti"es re erred to as the standard Protestant vie($4 7 8dgar9s !on!lusion is 'resented in a straight or(ard "anner, also$
$he ;ible specifically states that God intended for marriage to be maintained. +ust as specifically, +esus states that there is only one valid reason for which a person may properly divorce the other and subseAuently marry someone else & adultery on the part of the spouse. $his is clear and specific. $here is no valid basis on which to reject this teaching. Cirst 9orinthians .:1,, since it does not specifically mention remarriage, is not as clear. Dowever, the most probable meaning is that if the spouse initiates the separation, the deserted spouse may divorce and remarry. 8

This vie( re'resents the "ost 1o'en-"inded4 stan!e so ar a"ong the three 'resented$ 8dgar (ould still argue that divor!e or anything less than adultery or desertion does not allo( either 'arty to re"arry and still #e right (ith :od$ *, "odi ied version o this vie( in!ludes addi!tion 'ro#le"s and a#use as a!!e'ta#le !auses alongside adultery and a#andon"ent$+ The inal !ha'ter o Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views is #y 0arry 3i!hards, a 'roli i! &hristian (riter on a variety o su#;e!ts, #ut 'erha's less s!holarly in his a''roa!h than the other three$ *5is !ha'ter !ontained t(o endnotes< 7illia"s 5eth9s !ha'ter in!luded 10=>+ 3i!hards9 !ha'ter (as titled, 1Divor!e and 3e"arriage ?nder a .ariety o &ir!u"stan!es$4 5is !on!lusion !onsisted o si) 'ro'ositions *a#ridged #elo(+ or !onsidering the issue6
*rinciples Guiding 6ivorce and >emarriage God%s goal in marriage is a lifelong union, within which two people love one another and enrich one another%s lives. . . . ;ecause human beings are marred by sin, it will not always be possible for a marriage to achieve this ideal. . . Dard4heartedness may be displayed in a variety of ways, including mental and physical abuse, se"ual abuse, repeated adulteries, and emotional and spiritual abandonment of the relationship, even when two persons live in the same home. 0n such ways, the marriage covenant may be abandoned by one or both parties, whether or not a legal divorce ta1es place. 0t is the sole responsibility of the husband andEor wife to determine whether or not the marriage is really over and it is time to divorce. . . . *ersons who divorce for any reason do have the right to remarry. . . . *ersons who have divorced and are remarried have the right to be fully involved in the life of the local church, without prejudice. . . . 9

3i!hards9 'osition (ould undou#tedly "ake a lot o &hristian leaders un!o" orta#le$ %t "ust #e noted, ho(ever, that "any !hur!hes o i!ially and do!trinally !onne!t (ith one the irst three 'ositions, #ut 'rag"ati!ally they ollo(, deli#erately or #y de ault, the 'attern outlined #y 3i!hards$ The (eakness in su!h an a''roa!h, o !ourse, is that (e are in essen!e saying, 18ven though (e are a(are o (hat the Bi#le tea!hes, (e !an9t see" to re!on!ile that tea!hing (ith a realisti! a''roa!h to the hu"an !ir!u"stan!e$ There ore, (e (ill @(ink9 at S!ri'ture, and "ove on$4 &an this #e an a!!e'ta#le a''roa!hA The "otivation or the 'resent study !o"es ro" "y !onvi!tion that (e have got to deal (ith the te)t$ % our dealing (ith the te)t is illogi!al or unreasona#le then (e need to look at the te)t again$ Or i our a''roa!h to the te)t is un aith ul or hereti!al, then (e need to a''roa!h the te)t another ti"e$ Thus, (e turn to Part T(o (ith the ho'e that (hat (e 'resent (ill have the ring o truth to those (ith an o'en heart and "ind$
5 6

p. 11/.

'nterestingly, %illia( &eth has since changed his position. 0ee Remarriage and Divorce in Todays Church: 3 Views, 12rand .apids M': 3ondervan, !4456, p. /9.
7

7. 1/1. -his standard 7rotestant view is the view that ' have (ost often encountered in churches of Christ, and su(s up, roughly, the position taught by *. Ca(pbell in the Millennial Harbinger 8or details of Ca(pbell,s view, see by 0tephen %olfgang.
8 9

7p. 191919!. 7p. !"!9!":.

Part 'wo - 'he Apoluo ()*lanation +y*othesis: .olu"es have #een (ritten dis!ussing the question o "arriage and divor!e *and re"arriage+$ ,nyone (ho de!lares that the s!ri'tures are easily understood on this su#;e!t is un a"iliar (ith the literature$ ,s (e have seen, (ell-intentioned &hristian (riters have e)'ressed a variety o o'inions, usually !on!luding that there is one valid inter'retation$ % (ould like to o er here a di erent hy'othesis addressing the "eaning o one (ord, apoluo, as used in Matthe( 196B-9$ *The 'ri"ary "eaning o the :reek (ord apoluo is set free, release, pardon< se!ondarily it !an "ean let go, send away, dismiss. ?nder this se!ondary "eaning, Bauer, ,rndt and :ingri!h add the use o the (ord as divorce$ Their e)tra-#i#li!al te)tual e)a"'les are quite (eak, ho(ever, or translating apoluo as divor!e$",+ % the (ord "eans 1divor!e4 *as it has #een !onsistently translated into 8nglish sin!e 19C= ""+ then the te)t 'rohi#its a &hristian ro" divor!ing and su#sequently "arrying so"eone else, unless the divor!e (as !aused #y "arital in idelity$ *This !orres'onds to the third o'inion e)'ressed a#ove #y Tho"as 8dgar+$ % the (ord, apoluo, "eans 1se'arated *#ut still "arried+,4 then other !on!lusions !an #e dra(n$ "# The !on!lusion % 'ro'ose"$ is that apoluo "eans 1send a(ay4 or 1'ut a(ay,4 and that it re ers to the 'ra!ti!e o !ertain /e(s in the irst !entury (ho (ere sending their (ives a(ay (ithout giving the" a !erti i!ate o divor!e$ 0et "e a ir" at this 'oint that % #elieve that divor!e ends a "arriage, even #e ore :od$ %n a!t, divor!e #y de inition is the o''osite o a (edding !ere"ony$ The latter #egins a "arriage, and the or"er ter"inates it$ &learly, divor!e is the result o sin, and !ontrary to the (ill o :od$ 5o(ever, divor!e is not the su#;e!t o Matthe( 19$ Duite the o''osite is the !ase$ /esus does not here !onde"n divor!e< he u'holds the tea!hing o Moses$ 7hat he !onde"ns is the 1sending a(ay4 *as in Mala!hi 2+ (ithout ter"inating one9s irst "arriage, and "arrying another$ 7e (ould !all this #iga"y, (hi!h te!hni!ally is a or" o adultery$ 'he te)t: 5ere is the te)t14 under !onsideration in the ,"eri!an Standard .ersion *!hosen or its !onsistent translation o apoluo15, (hi!h is underlined in the 'assage+$
Matthew 19: *nd there ca(e unto hi( 7harisees, trying hi(, and saying, 's it lawful !or a man to put away his wife for every cause; " *nd he answered and said, &ave you not read, that he who (ade them fro( the beginning (ade the( (ale and fe(ale, /and said, 8or this cause shall a (an leave his father and (other, and shall cleave to his wife< and the two shall beco(e one flesh; 50o that they are no (ore two, but one flesh. %hat therefore 2od has =oined together, let not (an put asunder. >-hey say unto hi(, %hy then did Moses co((and to give a bill of divorce(ent, and to put her away; $&e said unto the(, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but fro( the beginning it has not been so. 9*nd ' say unto you, %hosoever shall put away his wife, e?cept for fornication, and shall (arry another, co((its adultery: and he that (arries her when she is put away co((its adultery.

%n 1un'a!king4 this te)t, "y irst 'oint is that the 'ur'ose o the Pharisees (as to tra' /esus (ith their question$ The nature o the questions asked in this te)t (as intended to 'it the 3o"an legal syste" against traditional /e(ish and 3a##ini!al tea!hings$ *%t is es'e!ially signi i!ant that at the #eginning o the !ha'ter, /esus !rosses the /ordan into the area ruled #y 5erod ,nti'as$ This is the 5erod (ho, #e!ause o his o(n ego"ania!al nature and his !onsort9s !onstant 'rodding, ended /ohn9s li e$ 7hat (as /ohn9s !ri"eA 5e re"onstrated 5erod or #eing 1"arried4 to his #rother, Phili'9s, (i e$ 5erodias is never re erred to as the one (ho was Phili'9s (i e and, in a!t, she 'ro#a#ly did not se'arate ro" hi" (ith a !erti i!ate o divor!e$+
10

*rndt, %illia( 8. and 2ingrich, 8. %ilbur, " #ree$%&nglish 'e(icon o! the )ew Testament and *ther &arly Christian 'iterature, @niversity of Chicago 7ress, 19/!.
11

'nterestingly, the earliest Anglish translation that ' have found in which the word a+oluo is represented by the word divorce is The 'iving *racles. -his is a Bew -esta(ent published in 1$!5 by *le?ander Ca(pbell. 0ubseCuently, the Bew -esta(ent of The Rotherham Version, also )nown as The &m+hasised Version, was published by Doseph Eryant .otherha( in 1$>!. -he A is very literal. 'n 1$/" .otherha( beca(e an evangelist for the Churches of Christ, having previously been a Methodist. -he A also translated the word a+oluo as divorce. *nother lesser )nown translation was published by &elen Earrett Montgo(ery in 19!" and was called The Centenary Translation o! the )ew Testament. *lso )nown as the Montgomery )ew Testament, this Eaptist revision of the *0 of 1941 was published to (ar) the centenary of the *(erican Eaptist 7ublication 0ociety. -his revision changed the reading of the *0 in Matthew 19< put away beca(e divorced. 12 *ccording to %enha( and &eth, ,esus and Divorce, this translation of a+oluo was the view of the early church, p. /!. %enha( confir(s this in Remarriage "!ter Divorce: 3 Views, p. :".
13

One other conclusion, which ' re=ect, is called the non%dissolution a++roach. -his interpretation suggests that Desus is saying a (an cannot separate fro( his wife, the divorce notwithstanding, and therefore, no divorced person has a right to re(arry. Eecause he is reacting to this interpretation, 2uy Futy, in Divorce and Remarriage- highhandedly re=ects the possibility that a+oluo could (ean separation in the conte?t of Matthew 19. 14 8or the sa)e of readability, ' have altered the archaic verb endings, and archaic pronouns.
15

7erhaps it should be noted here that the word a+oluo appears in the B- ": ti(es. -hirty9three of those ": ti(es 1>>G6 it is translated as dis(iss, send away, release or other synony(s. -he other ten ti(es 1in Matthew / H 19, Mar) 14 and +u)e 156 translators generally use the word divorce, with the notable e?ception of Matthew 19:> where the 2ree) word for divorce actually appears and translations li)e the B' use send her away for a+oluo.

.erse B 'resents a very i"'ortant ele"ent or understanding /esus9 state"ent$ The Pharisees "& !o"e (ith a tri!k question or this ne( tea!her$ Matthe(9s 'i!ture o the Pharisees is al(ays negative$ 5e "entions the" #y na"e a#out thirty ti"es$ They are introdu!ed as snakes #y /ohn the Ba'tist *!ha'ter B+, they are e)!oriated #y /esus *!ha'ter 2B+, they are 'art o the 'lot to destroy hi" *!ha'ter 12+, and they are 'art o the 'lan to dis!redit the resurre!tion *!ha'ter 2E+$ The e"'hasis in Matthe( 196B !on ir"s that the Pharisees o ten !a"e to test hi" (ith questions, and that their ai" (as to dis!redit /esus as a tea!her$ *8ven the (ord Matthe( uses to des!ri#e their ne arious s!he"e * peirazo+ is the sa"e (ord used to des!ri#e Satan9s a!tivity in Matthe( C$+ This is seen in !ha'ters 1= and 22, as (ell as here$ ,s in the question a#out 'aying ta)es to &aesar, they ho'e to ask a question (ith no 1!orre!t4 ans(er$ %n a!t, there is eviden!e that the question a#out 'aying ta)es is very si"ilar in its !onte)tual situation to the question a#out 'utting a(ay one9s (i e, #e!ause o the i"'li!ations !on!erning the 3o"an overlords$ % /esus had said they !ould not 'ay ta)es, he (ould have #een in trou#le (ith the 3o"ans< i he had said they should 'ay ta)es, he (ould have #een in trou#le (ith the !onservative /e(ish leaders, es'e!ially the Fealot a!tion$ Si"ilarly, i he re;e!ted the validity o si"'ly 'utting a(ay one9s (i e, (ithout a divor!e, he (as !hallenging !urrent 3o"an 'ra!ti!e$ On the other hand, a ir"ing a "an9s right to send a(ay his (i e (ith no !erti i!ate o divor!e (ould ind /esus o''osing the 0a( o Moses$ My se!ond 'oint is this6 The question that the Pharisees asked /esus in verse three 'ertained to sending a (i e a(ay (ithout a divor!e !erti i!ate$ %t (as not, as "any assu"e, a question ro" the heated de#ate #et(een the s!hools o Sha""ai and 5illel$ S!hna!ken#erg su''orts this 'oint6 1The Pharisees9 question, (hi!h 'resu''oses a kno(ledge o /esus9 'osition on the "ater, is #roadened #y the addition over against Mark o @ or any !ause$9 This is usually understood as a question as to (hether one "ight adhere to the li#eral inter'retation o 3a##i 5illel *an @o ensive "atter9 !ould si"'ly #e dis'leasure (ith one9s (i e+ or "ust ollo( the stri!ter dire!tion o Sha""ai *only "oral transgressions are to #e settled through divor!e+$ But (hy should this #e a tra' or /esusA4 "- %ndeed, i /esus took the side o the Pharisees *(ho allegedly ollo(ed 5illel+ or o the Sha""aiites *(ith (ho" the Sadu!!ees see"ed to avor+, it (ould only 'ut hi" in one /e(ish !a"' or the other$ Besides, as (e9ll see #elo(, the real thrust o his state"ent is a#out re"arriage a ter se'aration G not divor!e G (hi!h (as not a question or 5illel or Sha""ai$ The so!ial *and 'oliti!al+ !onte)t o the Pharisee9s question in verse B has generated "u!h resear!h and "ore s'e!ulation$ %nstone-Bre(er does a thorough ;o# in dis!ussing the !onte)t ro" a variety o vie('oints$ 18 Most i"'ortant to our dis!ussion are the 'oints (here %nstone-Bre(er hints at the !on!lusion (e have rea!hed, #ut or so"e reason he does not deal at any 'la!e (ith a 'ossi#le alternative translation or apoluo$ &onsider the ollo(ing !o""ents ro" %nstone-Bre(er$ *% 'resent ive o his state"ents here as a re'resentative e)a"'le o (hat "u!h evangeli!al s!holarshi' has (ritten on this su#;e!t$ %n #ra!kets are "y res'onses to his state"ents$+

1. -he divorce certificate was therefore both a disincentive to divorce as well as a benefit to a divorced wo(an. %ithout the law of
the certificate of divorce a (an could si(ply dis(iss his wife fro( the house and then change his (ind on a future occasion. -he certificate (ade this dis(issal a (ore significant event and gave the wo(an legal rights. 19 ICo((ent: 8or this reason the writing and giving of the divorce certificate was a crucial issue for the first century Dews. -he .o(ans, rulers at the ti(e over Dudea, did not reCuire a certificate of divorce. -he word, a+oluo, ca(e to (ean divorce20 for the(, because all a (an had to do to be divorced was send his wife away.J

16

* sect that see(s to have started after the Dewish e?ile. 'n addition to O- boo)s the 7harisees recogniKed in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. -hey sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of e?ternal rites and by outward for(s of piety, and such as cere(onial washings, fastings, prayers, and al(s giving< and, co(paratively negligent of genuine piety, they prided the(selves on their fancied good wor)s. -hey held strenuously to a belief in the e?istence of good and evil angels, and to the e?pectation of a Messiah< and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preli(inary e?perience either of reward or of penalty in &ades, would be recalled to life by hi(, and be reCuited each according to his individual deeds. 'n opposition to the usurped do(inion of the &erods and the rule of the .o(ans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their countryLs cause, and possessed great influence with the co((on people. *ccording to Dosephus they nu(bered (ore than 5444. -hey were bitter ene(ies of Desus and his cause< and were in turn severely rebu)ed by hi( for their avarice, a(bition, hollow reliance on outward wor)s, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity. 1 .ible /or$s0
17 18 19 20

7. 1$:. 'nstone9Erewer, Favid. Divorce and Remarriage in the .ible. 2rand .apids, M': Aerd(ans, !44!. 1bid - p. ::

'n an e9(ail ' received fro( Fr. Carroll Osburn, he observed: -he 2ree) ter( can (ean either Mput awayM or Mdivorce.M -he answer will not co(e fro( 2ree) le?icography, but fro( the ancient culture using the ter(. 'n .o(an culture, one did not have to have official approval to (arry or to divorce. 'f he Mwal)ed outM 1a+oluo6 or sent her out 1a+oluo6, all that was involved was Mseparation,M but that culture viewed it as divorce and re(arriage could ta)e place. -hey =ust did not have the sa(e cultural approach to either that we do. 'n Matt 19, 1 Cor >, etc., a+oluo (eans Mto leaveM, and for the(, that was Mdivorce.M

2. -he (any changes in divorce law during the 'ntertesta(ental period added up to greater rights for wo(en but also greater
instability of (arriage. Fivorce beca(e (ore co((on, and both (en and wo(en started to be able to de(and a divorce. -he refor(s of 0i(eon ben 0hetah tried to discourage divorce a(ong Dews, but they also resulted in greater financial security for divorced wo(en, and so divorce was no longer perceived as cala(itous or cruel. *ll these changes for( the bac)ground for the debate in Dudais( concerning the grounds for divorce. 21 ICo((ent: *gain, we see that the central (otive of the tric) Cuestion brought to Desus was the financial aspect of divorce N the repay(ent of the dowry and the )etubah N and perhaps this is why +u)e places the discussion in the conte?t of Desus, teachings about unrighteous riches. 'f a (an did not present his wife with a certificate of divorce, he did not have to pay her the (oney that was her due. *lso, she had no legal recourse for de(anding the (oney sans her certificate.J

!. -herefore, Iaccording to the Dewish leadersJ a wo(an who had re(arried and whose divorce was discovered to have been
invalid could not continue to be (arried to either husband, and any children she had by the( since the ti(e of the adultery were considered as illegiti(ate.22 ICo((ent: *lthough the author is applying this issue of an invalid divorce to other situations, it stands to reason that a divorce .o(an style of =ust sending one,s wife away, would be conde(ned as an invalid divorce, also. -his then is gist of Desus, co((ent and sides with neither 0ha((ai or &illel. -hey were concerned with grounds for a valid divorce or, put another way, grounds that validated a divorce and re(arriage. Desus distinguishes apoluo as a separation that cannot be =ustified as a divorce by either ca(p.J

). Or does it suggest that the 'sraelites were stubbornly de(anding that Moses allow the( to divorce, or that they were stubbornly
refusing to give divorce certificates to their for(er wives; -he only one of these for which there is any evidence is the last. 23 Moses stopped the 'sraelite (en fro( abandoning their wives without giving the( a certificate of divorce, and thereby he allowed the( to re(arry.24 ICo((ent: 'nstone9Erewer builds a strong case that the conflict Moses dealt with in the Feuterono(y !" te?t was concerning the divorce certificate< this fully supports the idea that Desus was dealing with the sa(e conflict, since that is the te?t to which he and the 7harisees refer. Aven in the ti(e of Moses, wo(en were being treated un=ustly by their covenant (ates, and such in=ustice 2od does not tolerate. 'n this sa(e light, Malachi ! (ust be read because the conte?t of that " th century prophet concerned the (en of 'srael dis(issing the wives of their youth, without benefit of a divorce certificate.J

,. 'n contrast, accounts of the &illelite90ha((aite debate o(it a (atter that is e(phasiKed in the 2ospels. 't is not (entioned in
any version of that debate that 0ha((aites allowed remarriage even after a &illelite any (atter divorce. -hey decided that if a legal court had granted a divorce, they would not counter(and the court,s decision even though it was counter to what they could have decided. Desus, however, refused to recogniKe the validity of this type of divorce. 25 ICo((ent: More accurately, Desus refused to recogniKe this behavior of sending one,s wife away as a valid divorce. -he easiest and (ost obvious way to understand Desus teaching is to re(ove hi( fro( the divorce debate and let hi( spea) clearly: 'f you are not legally divorced, you cannot re(arry. Aven non9believers recogniKe that factOJ

One thing that %nstone-Bre(er "akes !lear in his study o /esus9 setting (hen the Pharisees 'osed their question (as the di eren!e #et(een the ra##ini!al s!hools o 5illel and Sha""ai$ The or"er avored divor!e on the #asis o any !ause< the latter li"ited it to a e( !ir!u"stan!es a''roved o in the 0a( o Moses$ %t #e!o"es o#vious, then, that the tri!k question !ould not have #een a#out the legality o divor!e$ Both s!hools o thought agreed that divor!e (as la( ul$ %t (as 'utting or sending a(ay one9s (i e (ithout a #ill o divor!e"ent *a 'osition that neither 3a##i 5illel nor Sha""ai (ould su''ort+ that (as the 'oint o !ontention$ #& The Pharisees (anted to kno(6 &ould a "an
21 22 23 24 25 26

*+ cit , p. $". 1bid , p. 1!9. 1bid , p. 1"". 1bid , p. !/$. 1bid , p. 15>.

-his conclusion is also validated by the absence in Mar),s account of this conversation of the phrase, for any cause. Mar) 14:! *nd so(e 7harisees ca(e up to &i(, testing &i(, and began to Cuestion &i( whether it was lawful for a (an to a+oluo a wife. B*0E *s B- scholar Favid Poung writes in &(treme Disci+leshi+: 2ollowing ,esus !rom the #os+el o! Mar$ 11556 -he B' paraphrases the Cuestion the 7harisees raise, for the 7harisees actually do not as) about divorce, but about putting away 1which is how the Qing Da(es and *(erican 0tandard ersions rightly translate the 2ree) ter( a+oluein6. 't is possible that the 7harisees are not as)ing about whether one could divorce his wife 1which the +aw clearly per(itted< cf., Feut. !":19"< AKra 146, but about whether one could abandon his wife without divorcing her. 'n other words, the Cuestion (ay involve a (an who doesn,t want to divorce his wife legally, but (erely wants to abandon her 1re(e(ber that divorce was e?pensive in antiCuity, too6.

send a(ay his (i e (ithout the !erti i!ate, and #e ree to re"arryA ,s Keener 'uts it, 1 If the divorce is valid, so is the remarriage< /esus !alls re"arriage a ter an invalid divor!e adulterous only #e!ause the divor!e (as invalid, due to insu i!ient grounds$ 8arly /e(ish la( also ;udged the validity o the re"arriage entirely on the validity o the divor!e$4#2o( (e !an understand the tri!kiness inherent in the question o the Pharisees in verse three, and the line o thought is !onsistent (ith the rest o the !onversation$ They ask /esus a#out the legality o 'utting a(ay one9s (i e$ They e)'e!t hi" to ans(er as he does$ 7hen he 'oints out the theology o !reation, they 'oun!e$ 2oti!e that u' to verse seven, divor!e is not a!tually "entioned$28 But the Pharisees !a'italiFe on Moses9 0a( a#out divor!e #y saying that therein is a !o""and to 'ut a(ay one9s (i e$ My third 'oint is that /esus inally res'onds to the PhariseeIs true question *lurking #ehind their voi!ed question+ in verse nine$ Signi i!antly, /esus does not use the (ord 1divor!e4 in verse nine, so he is a!tually ans(ering the Pharisees9 original question ro" verse three$ Jirst, ho(ever, let "e !o""ent on a !onundru" en!ountered in /esus9 ans(er$ % (e are !orre!t that the tra' they (ere laying (as that /esus "ight !onde"n 3o"an divor!e *apoluo or 1send a(ay (ithout a !erti i!ate4+ and thus end u' in the sa"e inaus'i!ious !ir!u"stan!e o /ohn the Ba'tist, then /esus, (ith this state"ent ell right into their tra'>> 7hat (as he thinkingA Jortunately, Mark9s gos'el !lari ies this issue$
3hen they were in the house again, the disciples as1ed +esus about this. De answered, 2Fnyone who sends away his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. Fnd if she sends away her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.8 = ar1 1G:1G & 12 $#0?@

Those dia#oli!al Pharisees (ere not 'rivy to this !onversation$ 7e !an no( turn to the 9th verse o Matthe( 19 in (hi!h /esus "akes the a"ous state"ent (ith the nearly in a"ous 1e)!e'tion4 !lause$
H

Fnd 0 say unto you, 3hosoever shall send away his wife, e"cept for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and he that marries her when she is sent away commits adultery.

One inter'retive 'ro#le" that this verse has generated !on!erns the (ord 1 orni!ation$4 Many versions no( read 1"arital un aith ulness,4 1se)ual i""orality,4 or 1adultery$4 The last one is hard to ;usti y sin!e /esus uses the (ord or 1adultery4 a e( (ords later$ *One author has suggested that /esus ;ust didn9t (ant to re'eat hi"sel >+ 1Se)ual i""orality4 is a (eakness o the 2%. translation, #ut it (as !hosen to suggest that the (ord "eaning 1 orni!ation4 !an #e a''lied to a variety o se)ual sins$ The (eakness is in the a!t that other te)t (hi!h "ight read 1 orni!ation4 read 1se)ual i""orality4 and "y e)'erien!e has #een that "odern !ou'les (ho are slee'ing together (ithout #ene it o "arriage dis"iss su!h 'assages #e!ause they are not doing anything i""oral$ The :reek or 1 orni!ation4, porneia, de initely !an #e translated a variety o (ays< o ten it is de ined as a !ategory that in!ludes "ost illi!it se)ual #ehavior$ 5o(ever, a general rule o translation is to go (ith the "ore !o""on "eaning *(hi!h is (hat %9" 'ro'osing regarding apoluo as (ell+ (hen the !onte)t 'er"its$ %n the ,"eri!an Standard .ersion, the thirty ti"es porneia a''ears it is al(ays translated 1 orni!ation$4 The 'ro#le" this (ord see"s to !ause in /esus9 state"ent is that he is talking a#out a "arried 'erson, se'arating ro" his "ate, #e!ause o a se)ual sin and usually (hen a "arried 'erson is involved the ter" used is adultery$ 7hy did /esus "ake an e)!e'tion G an e)!e'tion that 'er"its sending a(ay (ithout a divor!e G or orni!ationA Deuterono"y 22 holds the ans(er$ The !onte)t is a series o "is!ellaneous la(s$ Belo( are verses 1B-21 in the 2e( ,"eri!an Standard Bi#le$
'1!( I0f any man ta1es a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, '1)( and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, J0 too1 this woman, but when 0 came near her, 0 did not find her a virgin,J '1,( then the girlJs father and her mother shall ta1e and bring out the evidence of the girlJs virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. '1-( IFnd the girlJs father shall say to the elders, J0 gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; '1.( and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, I0 did not find your daughter a virgin.I ;ut this is the evidence of my daughterJs virginity.J Fnd they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. '1/( I:o the elders of that city shall ta1e the man and chastise him, '1H( and they shall fine him a hundred she1els of silver and give it to the girlJs father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of 0srael. Fnd she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. '2G( I;ut if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, '21( then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her fatherJs house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in 0srael, by playing the harlot in her fatherJs house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.8

27 28

Craig Qeener, "nd Marries "nother, p. "".

't is certainly worth noting that (ost versions translate the word a+oluo in verse seven as send away. %hy; Eecause the word a+ostasian, which (eans divorce is used in that verse. -he B' is e?tre(ely redundant in this regard in Matthew /::!.

7hat is ha''ening in the in!ident des!ri#ed is that a hus#and is a!!using his (i e o orni!ation$ 5e !lai"s that she is guilty o 're"arital se)ual a!tivity$ %nterestingly, i he is 'roven (rong #y her 'arents, he or eits his right to divor!e *that is, send a(ay G 5e#re( shalach+ his (i e orever$ % he is right, she is to #e stoned$ By the irst !entury, ho(ever, the /e(s had !eased to 'ra!ti!e stoning as a general rule or su!h an o ense$ *%n 'art, this "ay have #een #e!ause under 3o"an do"ination they did not have the right to i"'ose !a'ital 'unish"ent$ 8ven #i#li!al e)a"'les o stoning during this 'eriod re'resent a "o# rea!tion, and not a legal 'ro!ess o'en to the"$+ ,n intriguing question is (hether /esus (as a(are o a situation in (hi!h a "an had a right to have his (i e, or his #etrothed, turned over to the la( or stoning and did not e)er!ise that rightA O !ourse, one !o"es to "ind that "ust have had great signi i!an!e or the 0ord$ That in!ident !ul"inates in one verse$
Fnd +oseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly. atthew 1:1H

% "ust hasten to add that this is Matthe(9s irst use o the (ord apoluo$ ,lthough "any, #ut not all translations render the (ord 1divor!e4 in this verse, it doesn9t "ake a (hole lot o sense to do so$ They are not "arried$ /ose'h had the right 1to send her a(ay4 (ithout a divor!e !erti i!ate$ %n the sa"e (ay, ho(ever, had they already gotten "arried, a!!ording to (hat /esus (as saying in Matthe( 1969, /ose'h had the right to send her a(ay (ithout a (rit o divor!e$ 7hyA Jorni!ation$ The 'roo A She (as 'regnant$ %t is interesting that in the evolution o the "istranslation o the (ord apoluo to "ean 1divor!e,4 Matthe( 1619 (as a#out a generation #ehind the !hange in other #i#li!al te)ts$ That is, (hen the (ord 1divor!e4 #egan to a''ear in Matthe( 196B, =, and 9, *and the 'arallel te)ts+, /ose'h9s a!tion (as still re'resented as 1'utting a(ay4 or 1sending a(ay$4 5o(ever, over the years the "yth that, in the irst !entury, #etrothal (as tanta"ount to "arriage and that the #reaking o a #etrothal required a divor!e, !re't into the te)t$ The 'ro!ess (as a su#tle one and !an #est #e understood #y looking at another #i#li!al situation as des!ri#ed #y %nstone-Bre(er$ %n :enesis 2161C (e read, 18arly the ne)t "orning ,#raha" took so"e ood and a skin o (ater and gave the" to 5agar$ 5e set the" on her shoulders and then sent her o (ith the #oy$ She (ent on her (ay and (andered in the Desert o Beershe#a$4 *The 'hrase 1sent her o 4 is the 5e#re( shalach and is rendered in the 0KK, apestello, a synony" o apoluo$+ %nstone-Bre(er !alls this the irst #i#li!al divor!e and e)'lains, 1%n the te)t, ,#raha" si"'ly dis"isses 5agar, #ut later /e(ish tradition says that he also gave her a !erti i!ate o divor!e$ *Lalkut Shi"oni :en$ Se!$ 9H+4#. %n other (ords, ra##ini!al tea!hing at least a thousand years a ter &hrist, (as a''arently un!o" orta#le (ith their an!estor ,#raha" sending o a (o"an (ithout a !erti i!ate *earlier /e(s had a si"ilar dis!o" ort (henever they en!ountered a 'atriar!h "arrying a non-#eliever, and they o ten re(rote that history as (ell, as in the story o oseph and !senath.+$ Jast- or(arding to the "odern ti"es, (e see a si"ilar 'heno"enon taking 'la!e in the story o Mary and /ose'h$ Pro essor Peter Maas !lari ies (hat "ust have ha''ened$
3hile biblical law ma1es no provision for divorce in the case of a bro1en betrothal, rabbinic law famously does. $he ishna, for e"ample, so unselfconsciously assumes that a betrothal constitutes a marriage, so far as divorce is concerned, that contemporary scholars who get the point at all 'Kaas references Leener, ;rown, and 6avies and Fllison here( generally read the rabbinic legal situation bac1 into the biblical one, and conclude that biblical law reAuires a get30 to dissolve a betrothal as well.

Maas urther !o""ents on the (riting o Mi!hael Satlo( in this regard6

>ecently ichael :atlow, in his 2GG1 volume Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, notes that atthew reflects a rabbinic, rather than a biblical view of +ewish law in this matter. :pecifying e"amples from the Debrew ;ible and from the Mlephantine papyri, :atlow concludes that, while financial damages may be assessed when a betrothed woman is acAuired by someone else, the law does not obligate a divorce: Nduring the entire :econd $emple period, =most5@ +ews neither customarily 2betrothed% =in the biblical sense@ nor did they even have a firm understanding of what such a betrothal would mean. $he law does not mandate a divorce to terminate a betrothal, nor is a divorce possible, if we e"tend :atlow%s conclusion to its logical conclusion, when there is no marriage.

%n other (ords, translating the (ord apoluo as 1divor!e4 in Matthe( 1619 is ana!hronisti!$ This !ase o 1 orni!ation4 #rings us #a!k to the te)t o Matthe( 19 and the so-!alled 1e)!e'tion !lause4 o /esus9 state"ent$ /ose'h, even i he had "arried Mary, (ould have #een (ithin the la( o Deuterono"y 22 in sending a(ay his 1(o"an4 (ithout a divor!e !erti i!ate$ 0ike(ise, any "an, a#iding #y the 'er"ission Moses granted in Deuterono"y 22 *e)!e't or the stoning+, "ay send a(ay his (i e and is ree to re"arry #e!ause his irst "arriage

29 30

7. ;; 0i(ply put, a get is a Dewish divorce certificate.

has essentially #een annulled$ This (as the #i#li!al la( in the ti"e o Matthe(, and the ra##ini!al tea!hings o t(o or "ore !enturies later should not in luen!e our understanding o (hat /esus said$ ,#el %saksson rea!hed this sa"e !on!lusion a#out orni!ation$ 10inguisti!ally s'eaking, the "ost 'ro#a#le use o NOPQRSTU (hen used in a state"ent o a legal nature a#out a "arried (o"an9s !ri"e, is undou#tedly 're"arital un!hastity$431 7ith this realiFation, the rest o Matthe( 1969 is ar "ore understanda#le and easily a''lied$ % a "an does not divor!e his (i e *instead ;ust sends her a(ay+, and re"arries another (o"an, he !o""its adultery$ ,lso, the "an9s irst *and only legiti"ate+ (i e is still "arried to hi"$ There ore, "arrying her !onstitutes adultery as (ell$ %saksson goes on to e)'lain (hy the (ord 1divor!e4 is used in this !ase *he is re erring to apoluo, o !ourse+$
$he word divorce is used even when a man divorces his wife because of her premarital unchastity. Fctually he does not divorce his wife but is himself relieved by a court order of the need to fulfil his obligations under the marriage contract, since it has been established that the other party has deceived him. . . .0n reality, however, what was annulled was the marriage contract , which had not been fulfilled by the other party. $#

%saksson #uilds his !ase on his understanding o Deuterono"y 22620 G 21$ 7hat is interesting, also, is that %saksson re;e!ts the hy'othesis o B$ K Dideri!hsen (ho 'ro'oses that the 1ver# a'oluein in this verse "eans only the orsaking o the (i e *(ithout divor!e+ or the sake o ollo(ing /esus and #eing his dis!i'le$ The original intent4 o the saying, a!!ording to Dideri!hsen, 1(as to ore(arn against a#using the status o dis!i'leshi'6 he (ho * or the sake o #eing /esus9 dis!i'le+ leaves his (i e *(ithout divor!ing her+ "ay not "arry another (o"an$4 $$ ,t least Dideri!hsen understood the !orre!t "eaning o apoluo in this te)t, even i his e)'lanation "ay "iss the "ark a #it$ /ose'h JitF"yer also !o""ents on Dideri!hsen9s 'ro'osition !on!erning the 0u!an or" o the saying, and he agrees (ith %saksson that Dideri!hen9s hy'othesis should #e re;e!ted, #ut noti!e ho( JitF"yer 'hrases his o#;e!tion$
$hus B1 1-:1/ would mean nothing more than 2De who would 'for the sa1e of being +esus% disciple( leave his wife 'without divorcing her( and marries another commits adultery.8 0t is then maintained that this sense of the logion was lost in time and that it was subseAuently interpreted as a saying against divorce itself.$%

JitF"yer then gives eviden!e o a do!u"ent ro" the Du"ran s!rolls that 'resents the (ord a'oluein as "eaning 1divor!e$4 5o(ever, in the e)a"'le he !ites it is the sa"e as in Matthe( 19 and else(here in the 2e( Testa"ent G it !ould o#viously go either (ay, "eaning 1send a(ay4 or 1divor!e4 de'ending on one9s 'redile!tion$ There ore the testi"ony o so"e s!holarshi' is that apoluo 'ro#a#ly "eant 1sent a(ay4 35 #ut they 're er to render it 1divor!e4 #e!ause o the testi"ony o the later ra##ini!al (ritings$ ?n ortunately, this translation has #een the #ane o !hur!hes in the "odern era, and s!holarshi' has 'rodu!ed thousands o 'ages trying to e)'lain (hy /esus (ould say that a divor!ed 'erson !annot re"arry$ ,s %nstone-Bre(er !o""ents, 1The "eaning o the ans(er that /esus gave has #een the su#;e!t o "u!h de#ate, "ainly #e!ause it is inherently di i!ult$ V %t a''ears to #e illogi!al #e!ause it !harges a 'erson (ho re"arries (ith the very s'e!i i! !ri"e o 1adultery,4 (hi!h a re"arried 'erson is not guilty o in any kno(n legal syste"$436 This is another interesting 'oint rea!hed #y the author, an a''arent !onundru", (hi!h is ans(ered quite easily #y agreeing that /esus (as not addressing divorce and re"arriage, #ut separation and re"arriage$ %nstone-Bre(er is !orre!t in asserting that one (ho has #een divor!ed in a "anner a!!e'ta#le to his !ulturalWreligious heritage is not a!!used therea ter o adultery or re"arrying$ ,"ong /e(s in /esus9 day, the 'erson (ith the invalid divor!e, or in this !ase, (ith no real divor!e at all, (as not in a 'osition to re"arry$ !onclusion/ Jirst, % e"'hasiFe that reading apoluo as 1sending a(ay4 si"'li ies so "any issues regarding this te)t$ 5istory "akes it !lear that the !hur!h9s inter'retation o Matthe( 19 *and 'arallel te)ts+ as a 'assage a#out divor!e and re"arriage has #een disastrous> The reading that % 'ro'ose here even re"oves the alleged !ontradi!tion #et(een /esus and Paul ound in 1 &orinthians E$ *%n other (ords, (hat Paul has to say a#out divor!e stands alone #e!ause /esus (as not dealing (ith it$+ Se!ond, % e"'hasiFe, lest anyone a!!use "e o "aking the te)t "ore !o"'li!ated (ith a !onvoluted argu"ent, that the !onvolution a''ears (hen one tries to e)'lain the reasons or translating apoluo as 1divor!e4 instead o
31 32 33 34 35

Marriage and Ministry in the )ew Tem+le Copenhagen: +und, 195/, p. 1"4 1bid, pp. 1"4 91"1. 'sa)sson, p. 9". 8itK(yer, -he Matthean Fivorce -e?ts and 0o(e Bew 7alestinian Avidence, p. !1!.

2ordon %enha( (a)es the point that this isalso true even in the early church fathers. I-Jhe early church is free fro( this proble(, for, in that view, when Desus uses the word apolyein, it always (eans Rseparate fro(., Remarriage "!ter Divorce in Todays Church, p. //, note !1. Mar) 0trauss, Aditor. 1%enha(,s section is entitled, Bo .e(arriage *fter Fivorce6
36

1bid , p. 1"$.

1sending a(ay$4 *This e)'lains (hy the "a;ority o versions in translating Matthe( 1619 !hoose not to use the (ord 1divor!e$4 %t takes too "u!h e)'lanation to ;usti y saying that /ose'h divor!ed so"eone to (ho" he (as not "arried$+ Divor!e (ould have to #e treated like other 1issues4 that don9t have this 'arti!ular, 1Thus says the 0ord4 atta!hed to the"$ *Jor e)a"'le, "any think it is (rong or a #eliever to "arry an un#eliever$ But does that #elie !ause anyone to re;e!t the legiti"a!y o so"eone9s "arriageA % have not heard anyone tea!h that$ The !hur!h9s a''roa!h to su!h a situation is de'endent usually on the !ir!u"stan!es involved$+ Third, !hur!h 'oli!y to(ard a divor!ed 'erson is airer and "ore !onsistently a''lied (ith a 'ro'er understanding o Matthe( 1969 and apoluo$ :od9s "a;or !on!ern throughout s!ri'ture *the Deuterono"i! la(s and Mala!hi 2 and B, or e)a"'le+ has #een the air treat"ent o the #roken hearted and do(ntrodden$ May that #e our irst !on!ern, also$ Jourth, !hur!hes (ould also #e !all on to re!ogniFe that ailed "arriages do not "ean ailed &hristians$ % have alluded "ore than on!e to the a!t that 1:od hates divor!e4 is also an inadequate translation o the te)t$ 8ven i it (ere not, the state"ent out o its !onte)t and 'ronoun!ed on the li's o sel -righteous &hristians !o"es a!ross to the 'erson in the 'e( as, 1:od hates "e, #e!ause % got a divor!e$4 2o longer (ill divor!ed 'eo'le have to su er the hu"iliation o #eing treated as se!ond-!lass !itiFens *or (orse+ in the kingdo"$ Ji th, i (e are ree ro" the "istranslation o /esus9 (ords !on!erning 1sending a(ay4 one9s (i e, (e !ould #egin to "inister, in all good !ons!ien!e, to the 'eo'le (ho go through one o li e9s "ost devastating !ir!u"stan!es$ 7hen "y riend, SuFy Bro(n, (ho (rote the #ook Radical Recovery, (ent through her divor!e, she said to "e, 1%t9s like #e!o"ing a (ido(, e)!e't no one sends you any lo(ers$4 Jinally, and "ost i"'ortantly, i (e tea!h that apoluo "eans 1send a(ay4 and not 1divor!e4 (e (ill a!tually #e tea!hing 'eo'le (hat /esus said and taught$ % !lose (ith this thought6 7hen % shared this understanding o Matthe( 1961 G 9, (ith the e)'lanation % have 'resented here (ith Dr$ %nstone-Bre(er, he re'lied, 1% the a!ts (ere on your side, yours (ould #e a very neat solution$4 The #asi! a!ts he re ers to are that translation o apoluo as si"'ly 1'ut a(ay4 rather than 1divor!e4 and that the irst !entury Pharisees (ere (anting to dis"iss their (ives (ithout a divor!e !erti i!ate$ 5o(ever, he gra!iously ad"its this a''roa!h !onstitutes a very neat solution$

Bi#liogra'hy ,da"s, /ay 8d(ard$ "arriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the #i$le$ Philli's#urg, 2/6 Pres#yterian and 3e or"ed Pu#$ &o$< :rand 3a'ids, M%6 Ministry 3esour!es 0i#rary, 19X0$ Bassett, /erry J$ Rethin%ing "arriage, Divorce & Remarriage$ 8ugene, O36 7estern Printers6 / Y MB, 1991$ Bas!h, 2or"a$ Framing !merican Divorce$ Berkeley, &,6 ?niversity o &ali ornia Press, 2001$ Bin ord, 5ugh, Y 5elaina Bin ord$ 'ingle( 'ingle !gain(: ! )and$oo% for *iving+ Belleair, J06 /oshua %$ Ministries, 19X=$ Bontrager, :$ 8d(in$ Divorce and the Faithful Church$ S!ottdale, P,6 5erald Press, 19EX$ Bristo(, /ohn Te"'le$ ,hat -he #i$le Really 'ays !$out *ove, "arriage, !nd Family$ St$ 0ouis, MO6 &hali!e Press, 199C$ Bro(n, SuFy$ Radical Recovery. ,#ilene, TK6 0ea (ood Pu#lishers, 200E$ Bustano#y, ,ndrS$ #ut I Didn.t ,ant ! Divorce: /utting 0our *ife #ac% -ogether$ :rand 3a'ids6 Mondervan, 19EX$ &a"'#ell, Ken M$, editor$ "arriage and Family in the #i$lical ,orld. Do(ners :rove, %06 %.P, 200B$ &ollins, 3ay"ond J$ Divorce in the 1ew -estament$ &ollegeville, M26 0iturgi!al Press, 1992$ &onnally, ,ndre( M$ -he Connally22)ic%s De$ate 3n Divorce !nd Remarriage: ! Four21ight 3ral De$ate )eld In 'pringtown, -e4as, 1ovem$er 562Decem$er 7, 7899$ /ones#oro, ,36 2ational &hristian Press 19E9$ &ornes, ,ndre($ Divorce !nd Remarriage: #i$lical /rinciples !nd /astoral /ractice $ :rand 3a'ids, M%6 7$B$ 8erd"ans, 199B$ Deasley, ,le) 3$ :$ "arriage !nd Divorce In -he #i$le !nd -he Church$ Kansas &ity, MO6 Bea!on 5ill Press o Kansas &ity, 2000$ Do#son, 8d$ ,hat -he #i$le Really 'ays !$out "arriage, Divorce, !nd Remarriage $ Old Ta''an, 2/6 3evell, 19X=$ Duty, :uy$ Divorce & Remarriage$ Minnea'olis6 Bethany Jello(shi', 19=E$ 8 ird, /a"es M$ "arriage !nd Divorce: ,hat -he #i$le 'ays$ 2ashville6 ,#ingdon Press, 19XH$ 8llison, Stanley$ Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. :rand 3a'ids, M%6 Mondervan, 19X0$ 8vans, 7illia"$ -he Right !nd ,rong In Divorce !nd Remarriage$ :rand 3a'ids, M%6 Mondervan 'u#lishing house, 19C=$ 8(ald, :eorge 3$ esus !nd Divorce: ! #i$lical :uide For "inistry -o Divorced /ersons $ 7aterloo, Ont$< S!ottdale, P,6 5erald Press, 1991$ 5eth, 7illia" ,$, Y :ordon /$ 7enha"$ esus !nd Divorce: -he /ro$lem ,ith -he ;vangelical Consensus $ 2ashville, T26 T$ 2elson, 19XH$ 5a"er, &olin$ Divorce and the #i$le. Bloo"ington, %26 ,uthor5ouse, 200=$ 5i!ks, Olan 0$ ,hat -he #i$le 'ays !$out "arriage, Divorce, !nd Remarriage$ /o'lin, MO6 &ollege Press Pu#$ &o$, 19XE$ 5osier, 5elen Kooi"an$ -he 3ther 'ide 3f Divorce$ 2e( Lork6 5a(thorn Books, 19EH< 2ashville6 ,#ingdon, 19EX$ $ 5ouse, 5$ 7ayne, editor$ Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Do(ners :rove, %llinois6 %.P, 1990$ %de, ,rthur Jrederi!k$ "arriage, Divorce, Remarriage, ,oman & -he #i$le$ Jore(ord #y De!herd Turner$ :arland, TK6 Tangel(Zld Press, 199H$ %nstone-Bre(er, David$ Divorce and Remarriage in the #i$le: -he 'ocial and *iterary Conte4t $ :rand 3a'ids, M%6 7"$ B$ 8erd"ans, 2002$ %saksson, ,#el$ "arriage and "inistry in the 1ew -emple: ! 'tudy with 'pecial Reference to "t. 78:<275 and 7. Cor. 77:< = 7>. 8;nar Munksgaard, &o'enhagen6 &$ 7$ K$ :leeru' 0und, 19=H$ Keener, &raig S$ !nd "arries !nother: Divorce !nd Remarriage In -he -eaching 3f -he 1ew -estament $ Pea#ody, M,6 5endri!kson, 1991$ Kysar, Myrna, Y 3o#ert Kysar$ -he !sundered: #i$lical -eachings 3n Divorce !nd Remarriage $ ,tlanta6 /ohn Kno) Press, 19EX$ 0u!k, 7illia" J$ Divorce !nd Remarriage: Recovering -he #i$lical View$ San Jran!is!o6 5ar'er Y 3o(, 19XE$ 0usk, Mauri!e 7$ "arriage, Divorce, !nd Remarriage In -he -eachings 3f esus !nd /aul: ! Collection 3f ;4egetical ;ssays$ ,tlanta, :,6 :uild o S!ri#es, 19X2$

10

Ma!,rthur, /ohn$ :uidelines For 'ingleness !nd "arriage$ &hi!ago6 Moody Press, 19X=$ Ma!,rthur, /ohn$ 3n Divorce$ &hi!ago6 Moody Press, 19XH$ $ Martin, 2or"a, Y Mola 0evitt$ Divorce, ! Christian Dilemma$ S!ottdale, P,6 5erald Press, 19EE$ Ma)ey, ,l$ Down, #ut 1ot 3ut. Balti"ore6 Pu#lish,"eri!a, 200H$ M!:ee, /ohn .ernon$ "arriage & Divorce$ 2ashville6 T$ 2elson, 199X$ M!0uhan, M$ :$ "arriage !nd Divorce: :od.s Call, :od.s Compassion$ 7heaton, %06 Tyndale 5ouse Pu#lishers, 1991$ Monte iore, 5ugh$ Remarriage !nd "i4ed "arriage: ! /lea For Dual Reform$ 0ondon6 S$P$&$K$, 19=E$ Murray, /ohn$ Divorce$ Philadel'hia, P,6 Orthodo) Pres#yterian &hur!h, 19HB$ Olsen, .iggo 2orskov$ -he 1ew -estament *ogia 3n Divorce. ! 'tudy 3f -heir Interpretation From ;rasmus -o "ilton$ TZ#ingen6 Mohr Sie#e!k, 19E1$ Philli's, 3oderi!k$ ?ntying the @not: ! 'hort )istory of Divorce. 2e( Lork, 2L6 &a"#ridge ?niversity Press, 1991$ 3edding, Mary 0ou$ #rea%ing & "ending: Divorce !nd :od.s :race$ 2ashville6 ?''er 3oo" Books, 199X$ 3i!hards, 0arry$ Remarriage: ! )ealing :ift from :od. 7a!o6 7ord, 19X1$ Satlo(, Mi!hael 0$ ewish "arriage in !ntiAuity. Prin!eton, 2/6 Prin!eton ?niversity Press, 2001$ S!hna!ken#urg, 3udol $ -he :ospel of "atthew. Translated #y 3o#ert 3$ Barr$ :rand 3a'ids, M%6 7illia" B$ 8erd"ans Pu#lishing &o"'any$ Shaner, Donald 7$ ! Christian View 3f Divorce. !ccording -o -he -eachings 3f -he 1ew -estament $ 0eiden6 8$ /$ Brill, 19=9$ Shelly, 3u#el$ Divorce & Remarriage: ! Redemptive -heology. ,#ilene6 0ea (ood Pu#lishers, 200E$ Sigal, Philli'$ -he )ala%ah of esus of 1azareth !ccording to the :ospel of "atthew. 0anha", MO6 ?niversity Press o ,"eri!a, 19X=$ S"all, D(ight 5ervey$ -he Right -o Remarry$ Old Ta''an, 2/6 J$ 5$ 3evell &o$, 19EH$ Strauss, Mark, editor$ Remarriage !fter Divorce in -odayBs Church: < Views. :rand 3a'ids, M%6 Mondervan, 200=$ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[$ Remarriage and :odBs Renewing :race$ :rand 3a'ids, M%6 Baker Book 5ouse, 19X=$ Tho"'son, Mervin 8$ 'tarting 3ver 'ingle$ Burnsville, M26 Prin!e o Pea!e Pu#$, 19XH$ 7illia"s, /ohn$ For ;very Cause(: -he Cuestion 3f Divorce$ 8)eter, 8ngland6 Paternoster Press< 2e'tune, 2/6 0oiFeau), 19X2$

11

,''endi) 1$ Reco00ended Policy !oncerning Divorce Dra t 1$2 May 2C, 200C Part 1/ Pro-active in *ro0oting and su**orting successful 0arriages/ 1$ 7e (ill 'ro"ote "arriage e)!lusively #et(een one "an and one (o"an or li e as the ideal relationshi' that :od had in "ind sin!e the &reation$ *5o(ever, (e (ill not send the "essage to the single &hristian that he or she is less than a (hole 'erson$+ 2$ 7e (ill tea!h the i"'ortan!e o honoring the "arriage relationshi' through the 0%2KS, ,BS and 0%J8 :rou's, and (e (ill en!ourage the !oordination o s'e!ial events and se"inars to 'ro"ote healthy "arriages$ B$ 7e (ill develo' a #i#li!al theology o "arriage and a !urri!ulu" that honors "arriage and a"ily, #ased on our !onvi!tion that aith ulness, integrity, and other virtues #egin in the ho"e$ Their develo'"ent on the ho"e ront is the key to #ringing a#out !hange in our !o""unity$ C$ 7e (ill require ea!h !ou'le "arried #y a "e"#er o our leadershi' tea" *elders, dea!ons or "inisters+ to 'arti!i'ate in no less than our sessions o 're"arital 're'aration$ 7e (ill reserve the right to re!o""end urther !ounseling i the situation "erits it$ H$ 7e (ill tea!h se)ual 'urity and en!ourage un"arried !ou'les to 'ra!ti!e se)ual a#stinen!e$ Part 11/ Pro-active on ehalf of 'roubled Marriages/ 1$ 7e (ill en!ourage !ou'les not to #e asha"ed to seek hel' or their "arital di i!ulties$ Sta (ill #e 're'ared to re er !ou'les to 'ro essional !ounselors (hen the need arises$ 2$ 7e (ill en!ourage !ou'les to seek hel', #e ore the situation #e!o"es irre'ara#le, #y #ringing their "arriage to !on!erned !hur!h leaders$ B$ 7e (ill not re!o""end divor!e as a solution, #ut al(ays seek to guide a struggling !ou'le to(ard re!on!iliation$ C$ 7e (ill not re!o""end that a 'erson re"ain in an a#usive situation$ 7e (ill assist anyone !aught in an a#usive situation to seek and ind a sa er environ"ent$ Part 111/ Reactive to the Divorced Person/ 1$ 7e (ill not !onde"n divor!e as the un orgiva#le sin$ 2$ 7e (ill re!ogniFe divor!e as the end o the "arriage$ 8ven though the !ovenant has #een #roken, and this is not :od9s (ill or a "arriage, (e (ill re!ogniFe that so"e "arriages end in divor!e$ B$ 7e (ill re!ogniFe the right o either 'arty, (hen a "arriage is over, to re"arry$ 5o(ever, (e (ill en!ourage a divor!ed 'erson to (ait at least a year #e ore entering into a ne( relationshi'$ C$ 7e (ill not treat divor!ed individuals as se!ond-!lass &hristians$ They (ill #e as eligi#le or tea!hing, leading, serving, et!$ in our !hur!h as anyone else, #ased on their gi tedness and !o""it"ent$ H$ 7e (ill tea!h the truth regarding adultery, that it is a sin$ ,nyone guilty o su!h a sin "ust re'ent and ask orgiveness$ % a "arriage 'artner !o""its adultery, the "arriage is not auto"ati!ally ended$ The one (ho has not !o""itted adultery is not required to divor!e his or her 'artner$ =$ 7e (ill not seek to 'ass ;udg"ent on the 1s!ri'turalness4 o individual divor!es$ 7e (ill not san!tion a "arriage, i either 'artner is still #ound to a 'revious 'artner$ E$ 7e (ill esta#lish and en!ourage divor!e re!overy 'rogra"s to hel' those (ho are struggling (ith the issues resulting ro" a divor!e$

12