Transparency Of Marriage_Mt. 19:9

Transparency Is Needed Among Ministers
And Members Of The Church

Difference between old and later texts of Mt. 19:9

Jesus clarified his changes and improvements of the way people were to live. He made it clear that the law would be fulfilled: “18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mt. 5:18, AKJV)

Now, let's look at the correcting and repeal of the divorce and remarriage law in the “second” giving of the law—Deuteronomy 24:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. (Dt. 24, AKJV)

The Pharisees, tempting the Lord Jesus, referred to the divorce law. Jesus answering, implied that particular giving of the law was not fulfilling God's intention of marital purity and continuity, referring to the previous and historical times written in Genesis: “… from the beginning… ”. (Mt. 19:8, AKJV)

Mt. 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Mt. 19:7-8, AKJV)

Fornication is different concept than adultery

Now, let’s go to Mt. 19:9. A defiled woman of immorality, for instance, Rahab the harlot, who became a woman of faith (Hebrews 11:31), wife of Salmon (Luke 3:32), and progenitor of Boaz (Mt. 1:5), patrilineal Hebrew and great grandfather of King David and ancestor of the lineage of Joseph (Mt. 1:16, Luke 3:23), husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, seemingly was tolerated in the Old Testament in some cases as well as divorcees (Dt. 24:1-3) except if the husband decided it was not a clean relationship (Dt. 23). Nevertheless, a whore and woman of fornication was a valid reason for divorce according to Matthew 19:9.

However, a formerly married woman could not remarry in the second law era without a writing of divorce (divorce papers, Dt. 24: 1-3) or it would be considered adultery, a death-penalty offense. Although later as to New Testament spiritual progression and fulfillment of the law, the reproof of Jesus Christ was more strict as to the concept of adultery and condemned remarriage (another marriage of a woman after leaving a legitimate husband). Perhaps this increased moral fulfillment pertaining to the correction of infidelity in sexual relationships of a future era (the new covenant) is hinted in Malachi 3:1-5.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mt. 19:9, AKJV)

We know that betrothal could be annulled due to female defilement, but the word “fornication” (AKJV) or “immorality” generally is not limited to betrothal. Nevertheless, the first part of the compound predicate, whosoever “… shall put away…” (above in v. 9) or “divorces” his wife, only legally and spiritually stops the current relationship of marital uncleanliness due to the fornication phrase—“… except it be for fornication… ” or in other words, “except for immorality”—the offense (see Eph. 5:5), the lack of morality, divine and pure union structure and holiness (Eph.5:22-33); it is the second part of the compound predicate that reveals the committing of adultery—and “… whoso marrieth her which is put away… ” (AKJV) or in my perception of the meaning of the earlier English language, “marries” a “divorced woman”.

However, there is a great discrepancy here as to Mt. 19:9: some earlier Greek texts do not say a “divorced woman”, but say merely “another woman" (my translation)--“… καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται”.(Black, p. Mt 19:9 ) Both texts, the AKJV and Black, p. Mt 19:9, due to the exception phrase imply a promiscuous woman can’t establish a legitimate and binding marriage. Besides that issue, it seems the AKJV text refers to a marriage with a divorcee, whereas the Black, p. Mt 19:9 text refers to “another” woman, a woman not necessarily a divorcee. See Mark 10:11 in the AKJV. Nevertheless, both texts are generally in agreement as to Mt. 5:32.

A promiscuous woman cannot form a legitimate marriage: the man is not bound

I suppose we can assume the first part of the compound predicate, "divorces" (AKJV), in one sense, implies that it is proper to put away a defiled woman of fornication even as Joseph was thinking about putting away Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mt. 1:19). The one who puts away or divorces would not even be prevented from marrying another.

However, the remedy and exception phrase of a case of betrothal could not be the same as a case wherein a defiled dowry wife (which required female virginity and chastity) who committed lesbianism or other form of sexual defilement. Then, it seems the man who divorces would not be tolerated to marry another due to the expiration of polygamy. (See 1 Cor. 7:27, Mark 10:11.)

On the other hand, however, if fornication were expanded to mean such immorality it would not negate or nullify Jesus' explanation of betrothal marriage concerning divorce and marriage. The former case would have involved the woman in an act of defilement before consummation with the man who put her away, whereas the latter would not have.

Works Cited

Black, Matthew, et al. The Greek New Testament. United Bible Societies, 1997, p. Mt 19:9.