|
Several months ago I found an article that gave an
explanation for the “exception clause” (Mat19:9; 5:32) which, at the
very outset appeared to be worthy of consideration. And, the more I
have tested it the more it appears likely to be the proper
understanding. The problem is it does not agree with popular human
authorities and customary teaching and practice of our day. The
position is basically as follows:
In the teachings of Jesus, “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”, He was not saying, “Whosoever
‘divorces’ his wife...”. And, in the “exception clause”, “except it be
for fornication”, He was not talking about one divorcing his true wife
for committing adultery (or even matters of lesser offense), he was
giving the exception to what the Pharisees were apparently practicing,
for which he rebuked them and silenced them. They were putting away
(sending away) their wives, without providing the legal paper (which
would free them) and were marrying again. Jesus said that such practice
is adultery and the one who
marries the one who was merely put away also commits adultery. The
“exception” to “putting away” and marrying another (resulting in
adultery) was simply a case where the marriage was not legal or
acceptable to God, such as incest or marriages with people of another
race who God had said not to marry (Ezra 9 &10).
After I read and studied the position I’m presently
teaching, I posted an article dealing with words pertaining to divorce
to a list on which there were numerous preachers, including at least
three who have a strong Greek background. I made the same application
as I have done above. Here
is a link to what is basically the contents of that article.
I asked that what I presented be shown to be error if
anyone could so do. Several days went by but no rebuttals. Finally,
after more pleas for criticism, some were finally received. But
strangely enough, the content of one of the first responses (the author
having heavy Greek background) actually said about as much in support
of my article as he did against it. But as time passed, and I continued
to present articles that showed that the “traditional” position cannot
be true and that this “new” position was a reasonable, logical, just
and hermeneutically sound alternative to believing a doctrine with
consequences no Christian can live with, a few have called it
ridiculous etc., and have stepped up their efforts to build prejudice,
cloud the issue and drive the sincere Bible students away. But then one
preacher, who thought he had discovered how to scripturally defeat this
doctrine, came up with an argument, which he promissed would destroy
this “new” position of mine. That argument involved the case of Joseph
and Mary, and we shall deal with his arguments. So, now you know the
background and history, which explains the reason for this article
dealing with the case of Joseph and Mary in detail.
The text from Matthew:
(Mt1:18b NKJB) “After His mother Mary was betrothed to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy
Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to
make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But
while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be
afraid to take to you Mary your wife, …”
[Other passages relating to the issue, to be discussed later:
Luke1:1-7; 39-42]
The text from Mathew gives a brief narrative of the
facts surrounding the pregnancy of Mary, who was engaged to Joseph. It
is only in Mathew’s account that we are told of the action that Joseph
was “minded" to take. After he learned that Mary was pregnant he
evidently determined to put her away. The word “apoluo” is the Greek
word from which “put away” is derived. It has been my contention that
the action of Joseph supports my teaching that “apoluo” is not the same
as “divorce”. I have pointed out that he contemplated putting her away
(send her away, repudiating her), rather then divorcing her, because
they were not married. If it was definite that “apoluo” means divorce,
in such cases (and many are saying it does), then the translators would
be unanimous in translating it “divorce”; but such is far from being
the facts of the case. The text simply does not tell us Joseph intended
to divorce Mary. This
supports my position that “apoluo” does not equal “divorce” because
since they were not married, legally or scripturally, Joseph did not
need to do anything more than separate or end the relationship (which
is what happens when a man put away his wife) – at least according to
Biblical teachings. He was minded to take the action that was correct
in such cases. Had they actually been married and had Joseph determined
to end the relationship, he would have needed to file for divorce (a
"get") and then give it to her before puting her away. To just
"put away" would not have been the way to end a marriage as prescribed
by God (Deut. 24:1-4). Note how Young's
Literal Translation renders the passage: “And Joseph her
husband being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, did
wish privately to send her away.” The phrase, “send her away” doesn’t
sound like a legal divorce, and it isn’t. No legal papers are involved
in sending away a woman to whom you are not legally married. Some
say that was a practice of the Jews. Well, whether it was or not it was
not a biblical practice and therefore not something a godly man would
feel obligated to comply with.
To complicate things, some are contending that Mary and
Joseph were actually married, when the text says they were betrothed, and that an actual
divorce was the action required to dissolve the marriage. But it
is common logic that a marriage could not have existed as long as they
were merely "betrothed". To see the article where I address whether
“espoused” equals “married”, as well as Joseph being referred to as her
husband before they were married, click here:
What some are asserting to be a problem for my teaching:
It is being contended that when Joseph and Mary were on
their way to Bethlehem they were only "betrothed" (engaged). This is
supposed to contradict the idea that she was his wife in the context of
Mt1:24. Therefore, it is charged that my “position requires that their
legal marriage ended and they went back to a state of being unmarried
and merely ‘betrothed’ again...and then some time later after Jesus'
birth they became married AGAIN...”
Also, one brother said, “You have tried to say that
'betrothed' does not describe someone with a legal marriage which would
have required a legal divorce in that society.”
First, I’m not disputing what was the custom or law of
the land regarding engagement; I’m only concerned, in this writing,
with what God’s word teaches. If someone wants to assert that the Bible
says someone was married when it says they were engaged, then I can’t
help it, but I don’t have to believe it. I shall believe what it says,
that they were betrothed, espoused or engaged, and we all know what
that means.
He went on to say, “You have been forced to admit that
shortly after the announcement of Mary's pregnancy they did indeed have
a legal marriage (Mt. 1:24)...but you want to still say that previous
to that, at the time of Joseph's consideration to 'put her away' (Mt.
1:19) he was NOT married but merely betrothed.”
I do not think I ever admitted that there was a legal
marriage “shortly after the announcement of Mary’s pregnancy”. First of
all, the scripture says very little about an “announcement”. Mary told
Elizabeth, who rejoiced; and John, who she was carrying, “leaped”. What
I said was that Joseph was quick to actually go ahead and marry Mary
after the angel appeared to him in the dream. I quoted McGarvey who
made the same comment.
In one post to a list, I wrote in opposition to the
assertions of another and said: “Namely, that the angel appeared to
Joseph in the early part of the pregnancy and that he sought to put her
away privately’ at that time. There simply is no evidence of that.
Luke's accounts covers long spans of time in a few verses. Read the
context to see how he goes from talking about John the Baptist to
briefly mentioning Joseph and Mary and Joseph's intent to comply with
the Law regarding taxes.”
My point was that there is no evidence that the angel
appeared to Joseph in a dream at the early part of the pregnancy, but
it is more logical that the dream came much later, after all other
efforts to completely persuade Joseph failed.
Below is the explanation I gave, which thwarted what was
promised would be an argument that would prove my position wrong:
“Now, realizing that there are no
contradictions in God’s word and that an engagement to be married means
just that…what is the only logical and reasonable conclusion? Here it
is: It was AFTER this (Luke 2:5) that Joseph got cold feet about
marrying someone that was noticeably pregnant (knowing he was not the
father), that he determined to put her away privately. And then AFTER
THAT the angel appeared to him, at which point he determined to marry
her immediately, as acknowledged by McGarvey.”
There is one other explanation that I had not previously
considered until a few minutes ago, as I write this. It may be that the
angel appeared to Joseph before the trip to Bethlehem and that they
married immediately. This possibility has been shown to be contrary to
my position that espoused does not mean married. However, in one of the
commentaries on Luke that is in my library I found the following
comment:
“5. his espoused [wife]. ~Although...wife, is not found
in the best MSS, it is a correct gloss. Joseph had previously taken her
to himself, and hence at this time she was, strictly speaking, his
wife. The perfect participle (mnesteuo) signifies having been espoused,
i.e., she had been but was now married.” (The New Testament
Commentary”, by J.S. Lamar, author of Organon of the Scriptures). It is
superfluous to say that the explanation given by Lamar, if sound, is
the most simple answer to the problem posed to my position (regarding
the meaning of ~apoluo~ versus actual divorce). Perhaps it settles the
matter, or perhaps it does not. Two preachers who have knowledge of the
Greek said Lamar is wrong. Thus, I shall continue to discuss this issue
considering the possibility that Lamar is indeed wrong.
The course of events:
Let us follow the course of events and then discuss if
it is reasonable to conclude that Joseph did not actually marry his
fiancé until after they were on their way to, or actually at,
Bethlehem. It has been asserted that it is not reasonable…and therefore
it proves that my contention that ~apoluo~ does not equal divorce is
false. This is the only “scriptural” argument they have, so the entire
war is won or lost with this one battle.
What I intend to discuss is what the accounts available
actually tell us. I’m not interested in Jewish practice or opinions of
men. I’m interested in what God’s word says and am not inclined to read
between the lines and offer unreasonable conjecture regarding what was
in the mind of Joseph, what was done and when it was done.
We have previously provided (quoted) Matthew’s account.
Here are the pertinent passages from Luke’s account:
(Luke:2:39-40) “And Mary arose in those days,
and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And
entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.” “And
Joseph also went up from Galilee…to the city of David, which is called
Bethlehem, to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being
great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days
were fulfilled that she should be delivered” (Luke 1:1-7).
Mary and Joseph got engaged. She then went to a town in
Judea to stay with kin folks, according to custom (Luke 1:39-42). An
angel appeared to Mary and she was impregnated in a miraculous way of
the Holy Spirit – though still a virgin. Mary told Elizabeth and she
rejoiced. John, who she was carrying “leaped in her womb". After some
number of months Mary returned to Nazareth. Joseph learned of the
pregnancy. Joseph was “minded to put her away”. Joseph “thought about
these things.” Joseph and Mary headed to Bethlehem to register,
according to a decree.* An angel appeared to Joseph. They got married.
The child was born. They returned to Nazareth.
The only thing that is in question, regarding the
sequence of events, is when the angel appeared to Joseph, and this is
the important matter to be discussed only if it can be proven that
Lamar’s exegesis was incorrect.
You simply cannot tell from the scriptures when Joseph
learned that Mary was pregnant, or exactly when the angel appeared to
Joseph. You can assert that you can, as one fellow has done, or say
what you think is probable. But even if you could prove that Joseph
learned Mary was pregnant at 3 ½ months it would not prove the
angel appeared to Joseph in the dream and that they were married before
the trip to Bethlehem. For your convenience I’m quoting Matthew’s
account again:
“After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then
Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a
public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he
thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to
him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take
to you Mary your wife, …” “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as
the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife”
(Mt1:18-24).
When did the angel appear to Joseph?
We do not know when the angel appeared to Joseph. If it
was immediately after he learned of the pregnancy, and we do not know
when that intelligence became available to him; it may be that he
thought about the matter for quite some time. And it is reasonable to
conclude that he would do so, given that he loved Mary and was a just
man. It could have been months. The order of events is that he first
was “minded to put her away”. That would be the first thought when one
learned that his fiancé was pregnant, knowing he had not been
with her. Then the scripture says he “thought about these things”. How
long did he “think”. We don’t know, but what difference does it make?
It was probable that there was a date set for the marriage and that
time had not come, but was probably months away (according to the
traditional length of the engagement). People would talk, regarding her
pregnancy, but that would all be explained later if what Mary (and
probably others) was telling Joseph was actually true. Why would Joseph
not be inclined to believe it the story he was being told? He was a man
of God and probably knew the prophecy. He probably had learned of the
pregnancy of Elizabeth, and of her reaction, when she learned of Mary’s
pregnancy. No doubt Joseph was bewildered by the matter, but being a
just man he was not one who was inclined to jump to a conclusion. The
fact that she was pregnant was not proof that she had sinned. All
Joseph knew was that he didn’t have a part in it. He was engaged to a
woman that had become pregnant, but by another person. Perhaps the
thought occurred to him that she had been raped, and this was just a
story she had made up. More likely, he knew of the prophecy that Jesus
would be born of a virgin and he was considering believing her story,
even before the angel appeared to him in the dream. Remember, the
thought to “put her away” was, according to the sequence of events,
BEFORE he “thought about these things” or at least at the beginning of
his thinking.
Before we go to the next point, note the comments of
Barnes and JFB:
Barnes: “He
thought on these things. He did not act hastily. He did not take the
course which the law would have permitted him to do, if he had been
hasty, violent, or unjust. It was a case deeply affecting his
happiness, his character, and the reputation and character of his
chosen companion.”
JFB: “But while
he thought on these things--Who would not feel for him after receiving
such intelligence, and before receiving any light from above? As he
brooded over the matter alone, in the stillness of the night, his
domestic prospects darkened and his happiness blasted for life, his
mind slowly making itself up to the painful step, yet planning how to
do it in the way least offensive--at the last extremity the Lord
Himself interposes.”
When did Joseph and Mary get married?
Again, we do not know exactly when the divinely chosen
couple got married. We do know that they were referred to as “espoused”
when on the trip to Bethlehem. But, considering the comments of Lamar,
the text (Lu2:5) may have only meant they HAD BEEN engaged, but are now
married.
When did the angel appear to Joseph?
We are not told when the angel appeared to Joseph, other
than that it was when he “thought about these things”. Therefore, the
angel appeared to Joseph at some point in the unknown length of time
that he was thinking about the whole matter, and trying to decide what
to do – end the relationship, continue it as planned, or marry her. It
is very possible that the angel appeared when they were on their way to
Bethlehem (Lu 2:5) “To enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to
him, being great with child” (ASV), which likely did not involve
taxation, but was for the purpose of registering or counting the
people, comparable to our census.
Conclusion:
Mary may have been legally and morally bound to Joseph
(as they were engaged). Such has been a common practice in our culture
as well, but when one finds that his affiance is pregnant his first
thought is going to be “we are through!” Certainly the pregnancy did
not require a legal divorce for a marriage that did not exist – not
according to what one can read in the Bible. Thus, the thought that
first occurred to Joseph, which the scriptures say was to “put her away
secretly”, or “send her away” (YLT) was simply to separate, i.e., end
the relationship.
Brethren, there is no honorable defense for error. Those
who defend error must resort to other means to defend their tradition,
and this is exactly what many of my opponents are doing. One of the
defenders of tradition has charged that I said Joseph didn’t marry Mary
until after the child was born. Of course he made it up, and when
pressed for proof he did not provide any nor did he offer an apology.
And now he charges that I lied about something he defended, which is
detestable. He said he didn’t defend a certain practice but the record
shows that he presented several passages, as he was taking issue with
me, that he endeavored to show supported that which I said was sinful.
The fellow who made the charge is just one of a group of fellows who
amen each other for anything they say against one who they have set out
to ruin, even if there was no point made, or if it was an obvious lie.
The brother who first questioned my teaching, based upon
what he thought he could prove with the case of Mary and Joseph, said
the following at the end of his post:
“Game over...end of story. Your ‘new’ position based on
the idea that ~apoluo~ is not legal divorce is in ruins...as I
promised. The only question is whether you have the integrity to admit
it.”
It may be a great disappoint to the fellow, but my
position is not in ruins. Actually, the case of Joseph and Mary
supports the position that “put away” is something that is done without
papers, rather than being the same as divorce, which requires papers to
be given to the spouse. Jesus’ teaching in Mat19:9, particularly the
"exception clause" (regarding which there is so much controversy,
division, and numberous problems), takes on a whole new and fresh
meaning once we understand and accept what He actually said. We then
can see how Jesus did not contradict the Law, which allowed divorced
persons to marry. (See the Galloway/Waters Debate on this issue at
Religious Debates list.) This means that we do not have to practice
“doctrines of devils” by “forbidding to marry” (1Tim4:1-3), and we can
(as commanded) allow marriage for those who are “unmarried” and have no
marriage (1Cor7:2;8,9;27,28), which is required so they can avoid
fornication.
What I have taught is evidently the truth because it not
only allows Moses, Jesus and Paul to be in harmony, but allows God to
be seen as a just God, instead of unjust by demanding persons innocent
of sin (as when their spouse divorces them unjustly) be required to
live a life of celibacy. The ball is in your end of the court and it is
in your hands. What will you do with it? Which way will you carry it?
It is your choice.
Footnote:
Every one to his own city. It was the Jewish custom to enroll by tribes
and families. Joseph was of the family of David, and would have to be
enrolled where that family had its landed inheritance. (People’s N.T.)
To enroll himself with Mary. Women had to be enrolled also and were
subject to the poll tax. Mary was of the line of David, and hence would
also have to go to Bethlehem. (People’s N.T.)
|
