Truth Magazine

By William C. Sexton

The permanency of the family relationship is well established scripturally and historically in secular realms. Man needs to recognize that such is for the good of all involved – himself, society, and the community – and is essential to the spiritual well being of people. God demands that we make our contribution toward maintaining that relationship permanently; each person will either make his positive contribution or he will contribute to the destruction of such and to his own ruin, unhappiness, and complete failure.

God has designed the permanency of the home and human needs demand it; but worldly wisdom threatens it. Worldly wisdom is opposed to God’s revelation, appeals to the man who is ignorant of God’s will or is rejecting it openly, and is threatening to undermine the relationship which is so instrumental in the process of equipping man for society, his own state of growth, and his eternal well being!

This article is designed to examine the divine origin of the family, the human needs supplied by it, and some problems associated with it in this, the twentieth century. When you have considered these thoughts, meditate on them; then, if you have some words to support or to offset them, we’d be glad to listen to them.

Divine Wisdom Designed It

God created us male and female, thus, He designed each so as to be a companion and to appreciate the companionship which is appropriate, (Gen. 1:26-27). After pointing to the inadequacy of man (Gen. 2:18 – “it is not good that the man should be alone”), He expressed His will and determination: “I will make him a help meet (suited) for him.” Taken from man’s side, God “brought her to him” so that he might know that he could have her (Gen. 2:22).

Adam recognized that she was “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” (Gen. 2:23). He expressed the need to leave father and mother in order for the two to become “one flesh.” Such was a clear affirmation of God (cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5).

Jesus expressed the heavenly design when He said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). So, it has always been God’s design for this relationship to be permanent! When a marriage ceases, before and without “death,” problems result in various ways, but most importantly with one’s spiritual status. We need to give a lot of attention to the various forces operating today to weaken the ties which hold this relationship together. They are many and to recognize them is the first step in combating them effectively.

Human Needs Demand It

Each person has needs which cannot be satisfied totally and completely in a constructive fashion outside this relationship (a man and a woman in union with God’s approval and blessings)!

Paul pointed to the needs of most people in speaking to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:1-5) that even in troubled times, it was needful for the average person, all who could not conduct themselves purely in the unmarried state, to take a mate in marriage. The woman needed, thus with God’s approval, a husband; likewise, the man needed and, with God’s approval, could have a wife. This bond was to sanction them to have “power” over each other – in that each was to give himself to his mate in the marriage. Neither had the right to withhold themselves from the mate; and when separation was to become necessary, such was to be done with the consent of the other and with the understanding that they were to return and, thus, be available to each other before Satan was to gain victory over them in their “incontinency,” – “lack of self-control.”

This passage, along with other passages on the same subject, points to the fact that there are human needs which cannot be met adequately for the betterment of each person involved outside the family relationship. That is a message that we need to receive, appreciate, and be governed by in all that we say and do. Many deny that affirmation; I would like to see evidence supporting their views. Nevertheless, we are confident that such can never be produced, when the total man and his eternal well being is rightly considered. We challenge each reader, to think on this, be convinced and act accordingly. Believe the message; live the message; teach the message!

Emotional needs of togetherness can be supplied in the family relationship between husband-wife, parents and children. We all have love-needs that can and are met only at home. Sexual needs – satisfaction of the sexual drive can be met productively only when a man and a woman in the sight of God and others commit themselves to each other for life, as husband and wife, declaring to keep themselves for each other and no other! Child rearing can be provided adequately only by a man and woman who have committed themselves to each other for life, who bring forth a child, and who provide for it as Christian parents, putting God first in their life (Mt. 6:33; 10:37-39; 1 Tim. 5:8; Eph. 6:1-4).

The permanency is seen as being essential when we see the nature of supplying those constant needs!

(1) Promiscuity in sexual relations is appealing to some people’s mind; however, such is not desirable for the constructive and stable citizen in the social order of the community. There is a need for love and real concern, which is not present in the out-of-wedlock relationships. Making the other person happy now and in the future, not injuring them or, making them sad is the objective of a real lover. He who is willing to act to satisfy the immediate lust impulse of self without commitment to the well being of another is not a worthy lover. Such a person is contributing to his own destruction and that of others! Beloved examine your motive, your course of action, to see its fruits for you and others, too. Be responsible, reasonable, and productive of good.

(2) Propagation of the members of the human race children – need the care that can be provided only by loving parents committed to contributing to the permanent relationship of the family. Monogamy – one male and one female committed to each other for life provides for harmonious, constructive, happy relations. When there is more than one mate on either side involved, jealousy, deprivation, and lack of support is inevitable. God knew what He was doing when He designed one male and one female for life as the ideal relationship.

Economics make it undesirable for anything other than monogamy; social needs require one-to-one, male and female arrangements. Psychological needs demand one man and one woman for a life of togetherness! Discipline of children and the adjustments of each person can be made adequately in this God-arranged relationship. Beloved, be convinced that God’s way is right and rejoices the heart of all who will understand and commit their lives to live thereby (cf. Psa. 19:8).

Worldly Wisdom Threatens It

Many do not want to admit that there is one way. Especially is this true of something that is handed them; if they can have a part in devising it, then they are more apt to contend for the rightness of it, manifesting something of man’s arrogance, his lack of humility!

God’s way is right, however (Jer. 10:23 1 Cor. 2:9-10) and the child of God sees the need to believe, affirm, and act in harmony with His revelation! God had man’s well being at heart when He regulated him. He is wise enough to see the end from the beginning and His love keeps Him from alternating and giving in to the impulses of man. The lack of restraint and the failure to accept responsibility for his deeds is ever injuring to man, rendering him unable to contribute to his own well being and to other’s, making him unsuitable for an eternity of happiness.

The fact that many divorces are taking place constantly cannot be denied by any observer. “What are the causes?” is a question that ought to be considered by all of us, so that we may not contribute to such injurious behavior and that we may assist others who are about to become involved in such. The causes seem to be many, and we do not profess to know all, but some seem to be evident to us. Therefore, we shall express our view, hoping that such may challenge some to act before it is too late.

(1) It appears to this observer, who has been married for 30 years, that one may very easily develop a romantic idealistic view of marriage that cannot possibly be achieved. When such expectations are not experienced, then they give up and begin a search for the “dream” elsewhere. One needs to be realistic in his expectation in this relationship. It is not going to produce a heaven without difficulties; no relationship will. Men, are still men with their weaknesses which, perhaps, were not observed before the marriage, due to a lack of constant association; likewise, women are still women, with some weaknesses, which very likely were not observed before the marriage. So, a more realistic view as to what can be expected might save some marriages.

(2) Lack of communication, a failure to learn early in the union to express in an acceptable manner dislikes, feelings, etc., contribute to the break up of many marriages. Men and women who say “I do” ought to begin immediately to express to each other likes and dislikes, so as to learn to communicate effectively early. Then, when real problems come, they can be dealt with. I find that when people wait till they come up against a big problem to try to communicate, they are unable to do so effectively. Beloved begin to communicate – speak and listen to a genuine response, meditate on it and then reason as to what is the message and the right way to react.

(3) A failure to be completely fair in allowing in the other what you want to be allowed for you is another cause of divorce. There has been, in so many places, a double standard in marriages; men were supposed to be interested in other women, notice their feminine qualities and speak in reference to them, but women were not allowed to do the same. The fact is that each need to recognize that they can be tempted by others and that both must be faithful to God, their mate, and to themselves. The marriage “bed” is honorable and must be kept undefiled (Heb. 13:4). “Whoremongers” are unfaithful to their mates and shall be condemned by God! Each person in the marriage bed is to seek the satisfaction of the other (1 Cor. 7:1-5) and he who fails to understand his duty to perform in this respect and tries to the best of his ability to do that is failing in a number of ways; he shall have to pay the cost. We feel that teachers are failing to point to the Lord’s will in this regard; the Holy Spirit caused Paul to record it, and God has persevered it for us. Should we not take note of it and present it to others, when we look around and see that such is not always observed and that such does contribute to the down-fall of some family relationships?

(4) A failure to continue learning how to achieve the maximum in pleasure for the sexual mate in intimate relations causes marital problems. We, as individuals, change; time has its effect on us so that we do not remain the same. It seems to be extremely important that each person in the marriage bed grows in awareness of the other person’s changes as well as the changes that are going on in himself. If the sexual experience is satisfying to both persons, other matters will be viewed from a different perspective; but if the sexual relations are unsatisfying, then other problems appear as mountains to be un-climbable.

(5) When certain problems arise, they need to be faced honestly and with determination to solve them scripturally and fairly, in the best interest of all persons involved, each esteeming others “better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3). Faith in God’s wisdom expressed in the perspective announced in Phil. 2:1-4 will render one potentially capable of handling most problems in this primary relationship. However, many seem to run off to meet with another before and without working out a solution to the immediate problem at home; in that situation, one is likely to look upon another person as being just what one needs. Consequently, new paths are opened which often lead to a break in the first relationship and enter into another only to find that there were hidden factors there also which had not been observed. Too late, however, the observation is made that one was foolish to break the first marriage.

Beloved, Satan, the opponent of mankind is ever active trying to cause us to fail in our permanent relationship, so he can set us adrift upon the sea of destruction (cf. 2 Cor. 2:11). What God has joined together, let us not be so bold to set apart, such is for our eternal well being and to act contrary to God’s will is to our eternal ruin (2 Thess. 1:7-10). Let us be “wise,” understanding what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17). We can. We should. Will we do it?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, pp. 233-235
April 3, 1980

By Earl Robertson

Paul wrote, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27). These verses say God’s children are “in Christ.” God just simply does not have any children out of Christ. God’s purposes and plans aimed to the saving of man essentially include Christ (see Heb. 7:25). Redemption and forgiveness are in Christ (Eph. 1:7), and so also is life (1 John 5:11). There is no question but that the Bible teaches that all of God’s children are in Christ.

Paul says God’s children by faith in Christ have put on Christ. Having located God’s children (in Christ), we further learn they are such by faith. Such did not happen by faith only – but it did happen by faith. It happened by a living and active faith – an obedient faith. Many read Galatians 3:26, 27 and conclude that we become children of God by faith only, but such is untrue. Man’s faith in God and His way of saving sinners expresses itself in doing what God says for forgiveness. Faith come by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17; Eph. 1:13). The case of the Corinthians illustrates this perfectly: “And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8b). The hearing (of the preaching) produced faith and faith acted in baptism.

Paul says they were children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Verse twenty-seven explains how they were children of God by faith. It says, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The preposition “for” which is a conjunction, translates gar. “It adduces the cause or gives the reason of a preceding statement of opinion,” says Thayer. It means, therefore, that verse twenty-seven is an explanation of verse twenty-six; it tells how they became children of God by faith in Christ. It says they were “baptized into Christ.” It is in Christ that one may be a child of God, but one’s faith must express itself in the baptism Christ commanded which baptism puts one into Christ and in which one puts on the Lord Jesus Christ. No one can become a child of God who does not have the faith! Not faith only, but faith that obeys (Mark 16:15, 16). Just as many as had been baptized into Christ became children of God by faith – no more – no less.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, p. 231
April 3, 1980

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Yes, I believe in unconditional grace. But hear me out! Please do not jump conclusions. I do not believe in unconditional salvation – not at all. The Bible clearly teaches that the believing sinner must “repent and be baptized” to receive remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and that the child of God must “walk in the light” to be continually cleansed (1 Jn. 1:7).

God has already extended His grace, thus providing the absolute and never-failing means by which every sinner can be saved if he will come to God by Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:25). This process of grace cannot, has not and will not fail. In this scheme of redemption, we can put our trust, for the cleansing power is not in us but in Christ and the pardon does not take place in the councils of men but at the throne of God’s grace in heaven (Heb. 4:16).

This grace that God has provided in giving His Son as a ransom for our sins was and is indeed unconditional grace. God did not wait until the human race was good enough to deserve a Savior. He did not say, “They are good enough, now I can send a Redeemer.” He did not even list a number of conditions to be met before the Christ would come, but rather He chose a time when Jesus would be rejected, not accepted, so that the Father’s purposes for us would be accomplished in the death of the Son.

Do We Deserve It?

Let us never get the idea that we deserved a Savior. Oh, we needed one; indeed we had to have one. There was no other way!

We give at least lip service to the idea that grace is unmerited favor. But do we really believe it? Do we actually teach it? Of course, we must teach that one is saved by obedience to the gospel, but we must not fail to make it clear that such obedience does not constitute us deserving. The pardon we then receive is still of grace and the Savior who provided the salvation was given even though we would never have the ability to pay for His sacrifice.

God may have looked down through the stream of time, and he may have seen Leslie Diestelkamp living in this 20th century. But he did not see anyone good enough to deserve the high price that was necessary for Leslie’s redemption. But God paid the price anyway! He paid it unconditionally – because He could not see anyone else who was good enough either! Because He loved sinful men, He gave His grace (Jn. 3:16). Jesus loved us too, and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Indeed, He “came, not to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners” (Mk. 2:17).

The benefit of God’s grace is received by us altogether conditionally (Heb. 5:9; Rom. 6:17, 18). But the means to that grace is entirely the free gift of God; Amazing Grace!

Exceeding Riches of Grace

God’s grace is not merely great; it is exceedingly great. It is not merely rich, it is exceedingly rich (Eph. 2:7). And this rich grace deserves much more attention than most of us usually give to it.

The heavenly Father did not bestow grace upon the human race thoughtlessly or carelessly. Rather, He did so with real deliberation and forethought. He began His plans before the world was created (Eph. 3:10-11 – “According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord”). He warned Satan of His plan even in the garden (Gen. 3:15). The prophets prophesied of God’s redeeming purpose that was coming, John the Baptist predicted its consummation, and Jesus, during His ministry, verified it and explained it (see Isa. 53:1-12; Dan. 2:44; Mt. 3:2; Mt. 4:17; 16:18; Lk. 24:47; etc.). The greatness of grace is manifest as follows:

1. The gift of God’s love was a maximum gift. He did not give “second best.” The Father gave as we would decline to give – He gave, not Himself, but His Son, His only Son, His sinless Son, His sacrificed Son. If someone would demand a life today, we would rather give ourselves than our son, but God gave more than we would do.

2. God did not give Jesus to live a long life of service to mankind and then die of old age and of natural causes, but He have Him to die the cruel death on Calvary’s hill. In shame and pain Jesus suffered, saying, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Mt. 27:46); in agonizing triumph, He cried, “It is finished” and “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Jn. 19:30; Lk. 23:46).

3. God’s gift was given for His enemies. Many parents have given a son to die for a worthy cause, but not to save the enemy. Yet every sinner is an enemy of God, and Christ was given to die for such sinners. Paul wrote, “. . . in due time Christ died for the ungodly . . . . peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6-8).

My son, Al, wrote the following little poem which expresses worthwhile thoughts:

Grace

We look with wonder and appreciation,

At the universe, our God’s creation.

But the greatest wonder, it takes first place,

Is man the sinner – redeemed by grace (Al D.)

4. God’s grace provided a redeemer (Eph. 1:7). By that grace, He supplied the Holy Spirit to reveal the Word (Jn. 16:13). By that same grace, the gospel was given to save us (Rom. 1:16, 17). By grace, we have the hope of heaven to be the anchor of our souls (Heb. 6:18, 19). By God’s grace we are even warned of the eternal punishment in hell for all whose names are not written in the book of life (Rev. 20:13-15). For Paul, God’s grace was “sufficient” (2 Cor. 12:9). For the whole human race, sinful though we be, grace is exceedingly great and altogether sufficient that we can be a redeemed people and secure in Christ. Next: Grave Is Not License.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, pp. 230-231
April 3, 1980

By Mike Willis

Last week we made some preliminary observations regarding our need for studying the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. We showed -that in many respects the society in which one lives determines the moral standard which he preaches. Of course, the scriptures demand that this not occur with reference to Christianity. Following that, we introduced the statement of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 19 and in Mark 10 to show what Jesus taught on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. In the first article, we presented the Jewish background from which this question was asked to make the observation that in many respects it was very similar to the way of life accepted in the twentieth century. Hence, the answer to the question which Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”, is one which should be determinative for what we should teach as on marriage, divorce and remarriage in today’s society.

In Jesus’ answer, last week we noticed that he referred the Jews to the original record of creation in Genesis 2. The fact that God made one man for one woman shows His divine approval of the marriage relationship and His intention that they live together for life. Hence, Jesus’ answer was that it was not lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause. When this reply was understood to give that answer, the Jews then asked Jesus regarding Moses’ allowance of divorce. Hence, let us turn to notice Jesus’ reply to the question asked about Moses allowing divorce.

The Commandment of Moses

When the Jews heard Jesus say what He had said, they immediately questioned Him regarding the commandment of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-3. They asked Him why Moses allowed a divorce to be given if this was God’s original intention. Let us look at the Deuteronomy 24 passage and consider it in light of what Jesus said. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads as follows:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor 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. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another’s man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was something that would aid women who had been put away by their husbands.

The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were giving to them. You can therefore understand why Jesus said, “Moses because of the hardness of your heart suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). Moses gave this legislation because of the hardness of heart which the Jews had and the manner in which they were treating their women. What Jesus was doing was reaffirming God’s original pattern of one man married to one woman for life.

Jesus’ Law

The law of Jesus is recorded in both Matthew and Mark.

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 (Matt. 19:9).

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10:11-12).

The law which Jesus gave seems to be abundantly clear, although several have clouded the issue by their unwillingness to accept the plain statements of scripture. Let us notice that law at this time.

1. “Whosoever shall put away his wife . . . and marry another committeth adultery. ” I have purposely left out the exception clause in order that we might get the general statement of Jesus. Jesus’ law is that marriage is to last for a lifetime. This is in perfect harmony with the rest of the teaching of scripture on this subject. Compare the following verses.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man (Rom. 7:1-3).

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39).

This passage teaches that the man who divorces and marries again commits adultery.

Adultery needs to be properly defined in order to be understood. The word is translated from the Greek word moicheuo. Moicheuo means “to commit adultery, have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife” (Thayer, p. 417). One needs to be sure that he has totally grasped the definition of adultery. I say this because some are redefining adultery to fit their preconceived ideas regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. Adultery is to have sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s wife. It is not the breaking of the marriage covenant. Some people have tried to imply that adultery is simply the breaking of the first marriage. Hence, what Jesus is condemning according to this view, is the act of divorcing. Although the act of divorcing might or might not be sinful (that is a totally different subject than what we are discussing), what Jesus means when He says “commits adultery” is “to have a sexual relationship with someone other than one’s divinely authorized mate.” Hence, what Jesus says is this: whenever one divorces his wife and marries another, every time that he has a sexual relationship with that person, he has committed the act of adultery! 2. “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ” This is the second part of Jesus’ law. The marriage relationship is so holy in God’s sight and so permanent that men and women separating for reasons unauthorized of God are not freed from those vows; consequently, any subsequent marriage is not recognized by God as being legitimate. Hence, both parties in a divorce that occurs for some reason other than the one exception which Jesus allowed are bound to their original marriage covenant. Either one of them who remarries is guilty of adultery in that relationship. Hence, if the husband put away the wife because she burnt the toast, neither the wife nor the husband can marry again without committing adultery. They are bound to each other in the sight of God and are obligated to remain separate or be reconciled with their mate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

3. Jesus allowed one exception to this law. He said, “Except it be for fornication.” In cases in which one party commits fornication against the other party, the innocent party has the God-given right to put away his mate and marry again.

There are some who treat these words as if they were not there. They teach that it is always sinful for a remarriage to occur even in the event that fornication is the cause of the divorce. If that were so, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have said “except it be for fornication.” By these very words, Jesus granted the right of the innocent to put away his fornicating mate in order to marry again.

Analyzing The Verse

Because there has been a good bit of controversy over Matthew 19:9, let us give rather extensive analysis of the relationship of the parts of this verse. The reading of the text in English and in Greek are put side by side.

lego de humin hoti hos an And I say unto you,

apoluse ten gunaika autou me Whosoever shall put away his

epi porneia kai gamese allen wife, except it be for fornication,

moichatai (kai ho and marry another, committeth

apolelumenen gamesas adultery; and whoso

moichatai). marrieth her which is put away

doth commit adultery (Matt. 19:9).

You will notice from the very outset that the last phrase of the text (kai ho apolelumenen gamesas moichatai) is in parenthesis indicating that there is some question about whether it belongs in the text or not. Before analyzing the relationship of the parts of the sentence, we ought to, first of all, set aside the question of whether or not it actually belongs in the text. The text used by the United Bible Society is in favor of deleting this, although it gives it a “C” rating on a scale of “A” through “D,” with “A” representing the best text. I am unable to understand exactly just why this reading is given. However, the texts which favor omitting this phrase are as follows:

1. Aleph. This is a fourth century text.

2. C. This fifth century uncial text has been corrected by at least three different subsequent readers. The third corrector of this text marked that this should be deleted as well. Hence, this fifth century text has been cited in favor of the omission, although we do not know the date of the corrector who marked that it should be omitted.

3. D. This fifth to sixth century text also omits this reading.

4. L. This is an eighth century text.

The only other texts to delete this important phrase are 1241 (a twelfth century minuscule text) and 1546 (a thirteenth century minuscule text).

In contrast to those which omit this phrase, the following texts have the phrase in one form or the other. (I mean by that, that there are some variant readings among the texts that do support including the phrase although they agree in the fact that the text should be included.) They are as follows:

1. P25. This is a fourth century papyrus manuscript.

2. B. Codex Vaticanus is a fourth-century uncial text of high respect.

3. C. The original writer of Codex C includes the phrase as well.

The list of less important uncial and minuscule texts which include this reading are as follows: K, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, 28, 700, 892, 1071, 1242, 1344, 1365, 1646, 2148, 2174, 078, 33, 565, 1009, 1010, 1079, 1195, 1230, 1253, 1216. Any one can see that the evidence in favor of this text is considerably greater than that which opposes it.

I think the quotation of the famed German commentator, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer needs to be inserted at this point. Meyer said that these words “are deleted by Tischendorf 8 following C, D, L, S, Aleph, . . . . But there is preponderating evidence in favor of the words and the homoeoteleuton might readily enough be the occasion of their omission. Moreover, there is no parallel passage verbally identical with this.” Hence, Meyer’s comment is that the preponderant evidence is in favor of including the phrase in question in the text. In light of the evidence cited in the United Bible Society text and in opposition to their suggested reading, I conclude that the text should read as presented in the Authorized Version.

All of this discussion about whether or not kai ho apolelumenen gamesas moichatai is part of the original text is rather academic when all is said and done. If these words do not belong in Matthew 19:9, they are nevertheless still contained in Matthew 5:32. As a matter of fact, the primary reason that the phrase is considered an interpolation by textual critics is the supposition that the scribes copying the verse inserted it from the parallel statement in Matthew 5:32. Hence, whether the phrase should be accepted because it appears in Matthew 5:32 or because it appears in Matthew 19:9, is immaterial. If it appears in the Bible in any place, men are obligated to accept it and obey it.

Frankly, I am convinced that the whole matter of criticizing the text has been injected in this study as a smoke screen to leave the impression that there is no evidence that the innocent party in an unscriptural divorce is obligated to live a celibate life or be reconciled to her husband. I realize that this is a judgmental statement, but I am convinced that it is true.

Having the text before us, let us now analyze it.

1. “And I say unto you (lego de humin).” The conjunction de contrasts the statement which Jesus uttered in the following words with one which is the Mosaical legislation. Hence, the contrast is between Moses’ legislation and what Jesus has to say. The word humin is a dative construction which is equivalent to the English indirect object.

2. Hoti. This is a rather general way of introducing a direct quotation. On this occasion it introduces two clauses which are direct objects of the verb lego (I say). The two clauses may be broken down as follows: (1) Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another one, except for fornication, commits adultery and (2) Whoso has married a woman who has been put away, commits adultery.

3. Hos an. This is the word that is translated whosoever. It is a relative pronoun which has its antecedent given in the following inserted descriptions.

4. Apoluse. To divorce. This is a subjunctive of the verb apoluo. It is modified by the exception phrase me epi porneia. Hence, the phrase “except for fornication” only modifies the verb apoluse; it does not modify the following verb gamese (to marry). The word gunaika (wife) is a direct object of the verb apoluse; it is modified by the definite article ten (the) and the pronoun autou (of him). Kai is the conjunction which ties apoluse and gamese together.

5. Kai gamese alrn (and shall marry another) must be considered with the preceding verb. These two words together are identically related to hos an (whosoever). It is “whosoever shall put away . . . and shall marry another.”

6. Moichatai. The verb moichatai is a present tense verb, the force of which is continuous action. The one in this relationship who has put away his wife for some reason other than fornication and has married another continuously commits adultery. It is the verb of the subject hos an (“whoever . . . commits adultery”).

7. The last phrase, the one which is called in question, is kai ho apolelumenen gamesas moichatai. The phrase ho apolelumenen is a perfect passive substantive particle which is translated “the having-been-put-away woman.” Hence, the force of this is as follows: The one married to the put away woman commits adultery. The verb moichatai is also in the present tense with the idea of continuous action. The man who is married to a having-beenput-away woman keeps on committing adultery.

The conclusion drawn from this rather detailed examination of Matthew 19:9 is not all that dramatic; it rather formally establishes what brethren have been preaching for years. It shows the following:

(1) That whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication and marries another is guilty of adultery.

(2) That whosoever has been put away and marries again is guilty of adultery. (Note: Some brethren believe that the innocent party in a divorce involving fornication must file the legal documents of divorce before he has the right to remarry. I am not fully convinced.)

(3) That the one who divorces his mate for fornication has the scriptural right to remarry.

There is nothing in this text that would in any way intimate that the guilty party in a divorce for fornication has the right to remarry. The guilty party has not “divorced his mate for fornication”; hence, he cannot meet the requirements of the exception clause. Consequently, he does not fit the exception which Jesus allowed; hence, any subsequent relationship into which he might enter is adulterous.

Parallel Statements

The statement of Jesus’ law, including the exception, occurs also in Matthew 5:32. We reproduce it here:

But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The other account of Jesus’ comments regarding this new marriage law is given in Luke 16:18 and reads as follows:

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Both of these scriptures simply reinforce what we have already stated as the divine law.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, pp. 227-230
April 3, 1980