|
Those who argue that Jesus taught celibacy for the divorced face challenges with the existing Law during Jesus' time. They were "putting away" their wives but not in accordance with the teaching of Moses, which, when followed, dissolved the marriage, enabling the woman to "go and be another man’s wife" (Deut. 24:1,2). Jesus was obligated to follow the law, which He did flawlessly. It is important to note He appealed to the Law regarding the issue at hand when he responded to the Pharisees with the question, "What did Moses command you" (Mark 10:3). Nevertheless, many, in seeking to defend their tradition of breaking up marriages an imposing celibacy on the divorced, make various arguments to force Jesus’ teaching to be contrary to Moses’ teaching. Some go so far as to say Moses was not speaking for God, which shows astonishing ignorance. Others seek to force Moses' teaching to harmonize with their idea of what Jesus taught. They argue that the woman was not allowed to marry because she was considered defiled. However, from a hermeneutical perspective, this interpretation is flawed because of what Moses said regarding the woman who was given the certificate of divorce. Thus, most reject that argument.
Being in dire need to refute Moses' clear teaching, they focus on the word "defiled." They assert that the defiled woman did the same thing they contend that Jesus taught was the only reason whereby a divorce ends marriage and/or frees the parties. There are problems with this notion. First, only men could divorce their wives, and their "reason" for the divorce was not questioned. The woman only needed the certificate as proof that she was unmarried. Thus, there can be no doubt that asserting that the women who were divorced were "defiled" because of something they did is not sound reasoning.
The term "defiled" does not suggest the woman committed adultery. The context makes clear that neither partner in the second marriage is labeled adulterous; rather, the original husband is simply prohibited from remarrying her--she is considered "defiled" only in relation to him.
Matthew Henry seemed to have a grasp of the entire text, particularly pertaining to the word "defile," when he wrote:
"'That if her second husband died, or divorced her, then still she might marry a third, but her first husband should never take her again (Deu._24:3, Deu_24:4), which he might have done if she had not married another; for by that act of her own she had perfectly renounced him forever, and, as to him was looked upon as defiled, though not as to another person. The Jewish writers say that this was to prevent a most vile and wicked practice which the Egyptians had of changing wives; or perhaps it was intended to prevent men's rashness in putting away their wives; for the wife that was divorced would be apt, in revenge, to marry another immediately, and perhaps the husband that divorced her, how much soever he though to better himself by another choice, would find the next worse, and something in her more disagreeable, so that he would wish for his first wife again. "No" (says this law) "you shall not have her, you should have kept her when you had her.'"
Conclusion:
In today's terms, the problem Moses had with the man taking the divorced woman back would be described as "wife swapping," which God condemns. Some argue that Jesus requires divorced individuals to remain celibate, but they make an exception allowing return to a former spouse even if married to another, which contradicts God's teaching. (Such teaching promotes divorce, as does the idea that the one to get to the courthouse first is the only one who has the right to marry.)
It is apparent that these teachers present perspectives that differ from commonly accepted observations. Understanding and accepting that the woman "put away" was not divorced according to God's Law is crucial to grasping the truth of Jesus' teaching. Isn't it more logical that a woman commits adultery if she is not divorced, rather than if she is? The first interpretation is clear, while the second raises significant hermeneutical issues. Many souls have been lost due to a gross misunderstanding of Jesus' teachings. Their teaching, tantamount to "forbidding to marry," is so consequential that Paul categorized it as being a "doctrine of devils." Paul’s words should cause great fear among those who are guilty of that, which he condemns (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Jesus’ teaching regarding causing "a little one to stumble" is even scarier and should cause traditionalists to decide that truth is more important than following tradition, which causes worship to be vain (Luke 17:2; Mark 7:7).
Additional reading is available at: https://www.totalhealth.bz/marriage-divorce-remarriage.htm
|
