THE EXCEPTION CLAUSES ARE ONLY FOR SINGLE COUPLES
To avoid misunderstanding, as is common in discussions on divorce and remarriage, it is helpful to clarify some points: There is a difference between divorce and separation. While the N.T. allows separation in some cases, it does not allow divorcing the lawfully married spouse. Separation means they are still husband and wife but are not together. Divorce means they are no longer husband and wife which is a lie against the truth. According to the New Testament, it is only by the death of the one that the other becomes single again.
Divorce and remarriage are two separate acts. Becoming remarried while the first lawful husband or wife are still alive, according to Jesus, constitutes adultery. Though the man may be charged with causing his wife to commit adultery by divorcing her (which is the reason Jesus gave to show why it is wrong for him to divorce her; Matt. 5:32) he cannot be charged with committing adultery until after he remarries or has a sexual relationship with someone other than his wife.
Most of those who believe in Jesus, erroneously believe that he allows men to divorce their married wives for adultery. This is the result of their having missed the connection between the long established cultural reality of betrothal, and Jesus' "exception clause", which allows a man to divorce his wife for fornication. Those present when Jesus delivered his teaching which allowed husbands to divorce their wives for fornication, understood that the terms "husband" and "wife" and "divorce" or "put away" could equally apply to both the married and unmarried couple. The context in which those terms were used, determined whether they applied to either the unmarried betrothed "husband" and "wife" or to the married husband and wife. Those terms did not have the exclusive distinction which they have today.
If a man today terminates an engagement after discovering that "his wife to be" has fornicated, this would not be looked upon as a man divorcing his wife for fornication as it was in the days of Jesus. At that time, it was known that a betrothed man could "divorce" his unmarried wife for fornication. Because the "divorced" woman in this situation is still single, the word 'adultery' cannot be correctly used to describe her offence. Jesus did not allow adultery as a reason for a man to divorce his wife, he said, "except it be for fornication". See Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9.
The following scriptures prove that the terms "husband" and "wife" and "put away" applied to the unmarried betrothed couple:
Deut. 22:23,24 "... a virgin be betrothed unto an husband ", "his neighbors wife ".
Matt. 1:18-25 "... Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together ...", "Joseph her husband ... was minded to put her away privily." The angel in speaking to Joseph at that time said, "... fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife ..." "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife." Being an untaken virgin wife, Mary was probably still living in her father's house. She was taken by Joseph to live with him. (He married her).
Deut. 20:7 "And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her." They were obviously regarded as husband and wife before getting married.
Seeing that there has already been laid out overwhelming evidence in previous writings which expose that many of the modern Bibles have committed a very grievous heresy by boldly claiming, either by commentary or mistranslation, that Jesus did in fact allow the married man to divorce his wife for adultery, the purpose of this paper is to expose a less severe error. It is the belief that Jesus allows a man to divorce his wife after he marries her for fornication which she committed before he married her. As in the heresy of allowing divorce for adultery, this error also has at its foundation the lack of understanding concerning the reality of how the man and woman acquired the titles of husband and wife before actually becoming married. Both of these errors share the common assumption that since Jesus is speaking of wives and divorce, the exception clause (which is very closely related) must therefore be speaking exclusively in regard to the married state.
This lesser error is based on Deut. 22:13-21 where Moses writes of a man who takes a wife being assured that she is a virgin. But after his first night with her he obtains evidence that she was not a virgin. She has committed fornication (premarital sex). After the evidence has been presented to the elders of the city and the judgment is made that she has in fact fornicated, she is taken out and stoned because "she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house". The principal here of finding her to not be a virgin the first night and immediately terminating the marriage, is assumed to mean what Jesus meant by his exception clause. It is believed that Jesus allows divorce only to a man for these reasons and in this type of situation: ( the man can divorce his wife immediately after the first night).
This idea of what Jesus meant by his exception clause is sometimes referred to as the "found her not a maid" explanation. (Deut. 22:14: "maid" means virgin) By this:
- The correct exclusive definition of fornication, meaning the premarital sin, is allowed to stand firm whereby also the claim that Jesus meant "adultery" when he said "fornication" in Matt.5:32; 19:9 is also correctly rejected
- Divorce altogether has practically been excluded since there are very few or none at all who exercise the custom as is found in the situation which Moses described.
- Jesus' unambiguous statements against divorce and remarriage for any reason, as recorded in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11,12, are allowed to remain intact, (as long as one excuses that initial probationary deciding period at the very beginning of the marriage wherein the husband finds out whether or not his wife is a virgin).
As reasonable as this explanation may seem at first, thefollowing is to show some of its shortcomings. Please note these abbreviations for the two interpretations of the exception clause:
FNM represents the explanation of "found her not a maid".
IBO represents "in betrothal only".
I. After marriage, Jesus said, "Let not man put asunder".
A. FNM says the man may put asunder after marriage for those particular reasons.
B. IBO says, after marriage, "let not man put asunder" for any reason. Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18.
II.
A. IBO agrees that when the woman is brought to the man at the marriage, this is representative of how God brought Eve before Adam. That is where the leaving of father and mother and cleaving to his wife takes place.
B. FNM, in opposition to this, says the husband may have one night in bed with his wife after which he may then determine whether or not he will cleave to her. In the FNM scenario, Jesus' statement, "let not man put asunder" does not apply to the man until after he has sex with his wife which is the means to determine whether or not she is a virgin. If she is found to not be a virgin, (found her not a maid) her husband is allowed, if he so chooses, to divorce his wife. This is a divorce after he has married her and has had sex with her, for fornication which she committed before he married her. If she is found to not be a virgin but he chooses to continue with the marriage and not divorce her, only then is Jesus' statement of "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder", allowed to apply to the marriage. Since when does God's Word wait for a decision from the newly married man on whether or not those words apply to him?
Note: Deut. 24:1-4 is an example of an O.T. ordinance which has been abolished by the N.T., 2 Cor. 3:11-16. It was written for the hardness of their hearts. Some things in the O.T. are found to be no longer current by the overriding authority of the N.T. FNM, which uses Deut. 22:13-21 as a means of explaining the exception clause, stands in opposition to the truth of the N.T., John 1:17. It is unstable to agree with Jesus that Moses' allowance of divorce was written for the hardness of their hearts, and at the same time stand behind what Moses wrote in Deut. 22:13-21 to allow divorce. It should be realized that the provision in Deut. 24:1-4 which allowed a man to divorce his wife if "she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her", does very much apply to the concept of a man divorcing his wife because he found her to not be a virgin; Deut. 22:14. If it is hardness of heart to divorce her after having been married for a while, Deut. 24:1-4, is it any less hardness of heart to divorce her after the first night? The discovery that she is not a virgin is evidence of uncleanness for which the married husband under the Old Testament could have sent "her out of his house" (Deut. 24:1) as an alternative to having her stoned (Deut. 22:21). See also John 18:29-31. Paul's conflict with the believing Jews because of their loyalty to abolished O.T. ordinances, very well describes this conflict between IBO and FNM.
III. The apparent straightforward meaning of the words of those verses containing the exception clauses shows that the woman who is put away for fornication is not being caused to commit adultery. (Matt. 5:32). It also shows that the man who puts away his wife for fornication and then marries afterward does not commit adultery. (Matt. 19:9) The grammatical mechanical operation to prove this in these verses can be illustrated by constructing similar grammatical statements. These would similarly show something done and the causes of what was done. These would also show the effect of an introduced exception clause, upon which circumstances, that which would normally be caused is not caused. The exception of fornication is an "exception to the rule" that:
1) If a man divorces his wife he is causing her to commit adultery: Matt. 5:32, and
2) If a man divorces his wife and marries another he is committing adultery: Matt. 19:9.
A. FNM says the woman who is put away for fornication cannot marry afterwards.
IBO supports the apparent straightforward meaning of Matt. 5:32 which allows her to marry after having been put away for fornication.
B. FNM says she is committing adultery if she marries after having been put away for fornication.
IBO says she has not been caused to commit adultery as the grammar indicates in Matt. 5:32. [This poses no problem for IBO because the husband and wife involved in this type of divorce are still single.]
A. FNM says the man who divorces his wife for fornication cannot marry afterwards.
IBO supports the apparent grammatical allowance for him to marry as Matt. 19:9 indicates.
B. FNM says if he marries he is committing adultery.
IBO says he is not, in agreement with the apparent straightforward meaning of Matt. 19:9. [Again this poses no problem with Jesus' outright prohibition on divorcing the married wife (Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18) because the divorce for fornication (IBO) involves a husband and wife who are both still single.]
IVA. FNM says divorcing your wife in that manner, (which means divorcing her after you marry her) the man is not charged with causing her to commit adultery. [Though the grammatical function of Jesus' words indicates that the man who puts away his wife for fornication does not cause her to commit adultery, the fact that FNM condones a post-marital divorce creates inconsistency with Jesus' teaching which says that after marriage, they are husband and wife for as long as they are both alive. And if she remarries after having been divorced for fornication (FNM), would this not be adultery? And should not the man take some responsibility for causing her to do that since he put her away? But because Jesus' words indicate that the woman put away for fornication is not caused to commit adultery, the proponents of FNM are forced to agree with that. They cannot very easily say that Jesus allowed the married man to divorce his wife and at the same time agree that he is charged with causing her to commit adultery.]
B. IBO says the man who divorces his wife after the manner of FNM is guilty of causing her to commit adultery because FNM is a divorce committed inside marriage and not merely a pre-marital divorce from betrothal.
V. In conclusion:
Christians who endorse FNM as the correct explanation of what Jesus meant by his exception clauses are:
· Justifying the sin of causing the divorced woman in that scenario to commit adultery.
· Opposing the contextual meaning of Jesus' words which allow both the man and the woman involved in a divorce for fornication to afterwards marry. (But this apparent grammatical allowance makes perfect sense if the couple are still single).
· Supporting a doctrine that is unstable. For while in effect stating that a marriage in that scenario is allowed to be put asunder, it is also claimed that if either of them marry afterward, it is adultery as if nothing has been put asunder.
· Defending an obsolete provision made by Moses and are using it to interpret the exception clause in a manner which opposes Jesus' foundational words for not allowing divorce: namely, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." [Because modern Christianity did not understand that the cultural issue of betrothal was the key in understanding the exception clause, they, by allowing a post-marital divorce are in effect making a claim of justification by the law (Moses) instead of by faith in the truthful words of Jesus on this issue. See John 1:17 Gal. 3;11,12: 5:1.]
We know that those who have changed the word fornication into the word adultery in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 have in effect introduced the false doctrine of: "Thou shalt commit adultery sometimes" (remarriage is sometimes allowed). Unknowingly, those who endorse FNM as the correct understanding of Jesus' exception clause, have also introduced a false doctrine. It goes like this: "What God has joined together, man may put asunder sometimes."
The putting away for fornication can only be done while the husband and wife are still single. If it is assumed that the exception of fornication pertains to divorce-for-adultery or for any other post-marital divorce such as for FNM, the criteria which the words of Jesus demand cannot be met. The result is a violation of the context and a contradiction of the straightforward meaning of Jesus' words and principles on this subject.
This article is distributed by a ministry that is making a call for reformation: a return to biblically sound Christianity. Articles that provide correction of other widely accepted incorrect Christian teaching may be obtained from: L. Jones, 6 Ralwin Court, Central, Port Elizabeth, 6001. Rep. of South Africa. (041) 585-1006