Marriage and Cohabitation
1. God’s plan and the weakness of our flesh.
When Jesus was asked about divorce he referred to the account in Genesis where it was written that a man shall leave his mother and father to become one flesh with his bride. This implies that there are only two people having sexual relations in a God-honouring marriage. In Young’s Literal Translation part of Malachi 2:15 reads:
“And He did not make one [only], And He hath the remnant of the Spirit. And what [is] the one [alone]! He is seeking a godly seed.”
Other translations give their interpretation of this verse but from the context it is clear that God hates divorce. However, one could also argue from this text that God frowns on polygany (https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/polygyny). He made one wife for Adam although he could have made more. Indeed, he could have made more people since he had enough Spirit to do so. Rather, he wanted them to produce more people, namely godly offspring. This implies a healthy family life which is highly unlikely if more than two people were sexually involved in the family.
More arguments against polygany can be found in scripture such as the fact that the first polyganist mentioned in the Bible (Lamech in Genesis 4:23) was a violent man. The unhappy family lives of Jacob and David stand out as examples. Paul required an elder and a deacon to be “of one woman a man” (1 Timothy 3:2,12). In Greek, as in Afrikaans, the same word is used for woman and wife (guné) and the same word for man and husband (aner). My interpretation, contrary to many English translations, is that it simply states the man must not be a polyganist or a philanderer.
Some churches have interpreted it as saying an elder or deacon may not be a divorcee. Note that neither polygany nor divorce is expressly forbidden in the Bible. According to Jesus God allowed divorce because of the hardness of our hearts. The same may be said of polygany.
2. The sacredness of marriage
In the sermon on the mount Jesus sandwiches a severe warning against marital unfaithfulness between his denunciation of adultery (moicheia in Greek) and his comment on divorce: “It is better to enter heaven with one eye and one hand than to go to hell with a whole body” (Matthew 5:27-31).
He went on to say that fornication/sexual immorality (porneia in Greek) was the only legitimate cause for a man to "put away" (apoluo in Greek) his wife (Matthew 5:32). The words ‘porneia’ and ‘moicheia’ need to be studied in their cultural context to understand what is meant by them. In Afrikaans they are respectively ‘hoerery’ and ‘egbreuk’. The meaning of ‘egbreuk’ is to break the marriage vow. ‘Moicheia’ means the defilement of a married woman. ‘Porneia’ is derived from the Greek word for ‘sell’. It can imply sex for money. Various versions of the Bible translate it as whoring, harlotry or fornication. Jesus did not elaborate. Most modern translations use the word ‘sexual immorality’ which is open to all kinds of interpretations. But the modern understanding of ‘fornication’ is also not what it used to be in the days of King James.
The phrase ‘put away’ is key to understanding Matthew 5:32. According to the laws of Moses a man could give his wife a bill of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1) and send her packing. A similar custom is still operative in Sharia law. A Muslim can send his wife away by telling her 3 times that he is divorcing her. Below is an excerpt from the article at http://www.academia.edu/4224423/Social_Justice_and_Sharia_Law:
“The divorce works by the husband, not in a state of anger but with a sound mind, uttering the phrase ‘talaq’ (roughly translated as ‘I divorce you’) three times to the wife. This may be done in two ways: 1. uttering it three different periods of times and 2. uttering all three times at once in quick succession. After this, the couple is officially divorced.”
The other concept in Matthew 5:32 we may find strange today is that the man would be forcing his ex-wife into an adulterous relationship. To understand that we need to realise the woman would need to get remarried to survive financially in that society. Most women were not free agents in those days. A woman was either under her father’s care or her husband’s. This is still the case in most Middle Eastern countries. A free woman was an exception; amongst others a widow could fall in this category.
The laws governing marriage in Israel need to be interpreted in the light of the conventions prevalent in the Middle East at the time. An engaged woman was regarded as ‘married’. That is why Joseph wanted to divorce Mary when he found out that she was pregnant, in spite of the fact that their marriage had not yet been consummated.
A key passage in this regard is Exodus 22:16-17. If a man seduced (suth in Hebrew) a virgin who was not betrothed, she was not punished any more than having to become his wife, provided her father was in agreement. The man’s punishment was that he had to pay the bride-price (‘lobola’). If the girl’s father refused to give her in marriage to the man, the seducer had to pay the bride-price anyhow.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 deals with the case when a man ‘grabbed’ (taphas in Hebrew) an un-betrothed virgin. He was obliged to ‘endow’ (mahar in Hebrew) her to be his wife and forbidden to ever dismiss her (put her away). In both cases the marital status of the man was inconsequential. (See https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Deuteronomy-22-28-29 for opinions on this practise.) If a man raped (chazaq in Hebrew) a betrothed virgin he was to be stoned to death. If it was consensual, they were regarded as an adulterer and an adulteress (naaph in Hebrew). In this case both were to be executed as in the case where the woman was already married (Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
Not all marriages of Israelites were wedding ceremonies as is the custom today. For instance “Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent; and he took (laqach in Hebrew) Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her” (Genesis 24:67). Jacob had a party thrown for his wedding to Leah but no feast is mentioned in connection with his marriage to Rachel, except “he went in (bo in Hebrew) also to Rachel” (Genesis 29:30). However, a seven day feast seems to have been common at the time (Judges 14:12).
3. Paul’s advice regarding marriage and divorce
From the style of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians one can argue that much of it was written in response to questions the church asked Paul. In Chapter 7 he seems to answer questions regarding people in four categories of relationships namely
- the unmarried men and the widows (v8),
- the married,
- the ‘rest’,
- the ‘virgins’.
- in most English versions... to the unmarried and the widows ...
- but the JUB translates it as ... to the unmarried men and widowers ...
- and the NMB as... to the unmarried men and widows ...
The widely used Nestle Greek text favours the last of the above translations. Maybe the authors of the JUB decided on widowers because of the context. A similar translation ambiguity occurs in verse 25 in which the Greek ‘parthenon’ is mostly translated ‘virgins’. The ESV uses the word ‘betrothed’, the NLT translates it as ‘young women who are not yet married’ and the RSV simply refers to the ‘unmarried’.
As a general rule one may safely say Paul recommended marriage as the second best option, depending on one’s gifting. Those who could keep themselves pure in the unmarried state would be better off “because of the present crisis” (verse 26). Jesus did refer to “those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12).
When Paul told wives not to “be separated” from their husbands he chose the word which Jesus used when he said “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (chorizo in Greek). Jesus was quoting from Genesis 2:24 according to which “a man (ish in Hebrew) shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife (isha in Hebrew) and they become one flesh”. He elaborated on the Hebrew Bible by saying “they shall no more be two” (Matthew 19:5-6). Paul instructed the ones who had been separated to remain unmarried (agamos in Greek) or be reconciled to their husbands. Husbands were instructed not to ‘send away’ (aphieto in Greek) their wives. By the ‘rest’ Paul seems to refer to those who were in ‘mixed marriages’. He advised the believer (whether husband or wife) not to divorce (aphieto in Greek) the unbeliever (apiston in Greek) if the unbeliever was willing to live with him/her. “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” (1 Corinthians 7:15) Most older commentators are of the opinion that the ‘deserted’ brother or sister may remarry.
4. Fornication and adultery
Regarding sexual sin there is a consensus in the books of the Bible. Fornication or prostitution (porneia) is a sinful practice strictly forbidden in the books of Moses, in Acts 15:29 and Paul’s epistles (Romans 1:24, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19 etc).
Male and female prostitution (porneia) in shrines dedicated to their idols was common practice among the nations around Israel. It was forbidden for Israelites to have any part in idolatry or fornication. According to Deuteronomy 23:17 “No woman of Israel is to engage in ritual prostitution, and no man of Israel is to engage in ritual homosexual prostitution”. The Hebrew words used in verse 17 are ‘qedeshah’ and ‘qadesh’. They are derived from ‘qadosh’ which means holy or separated. This is because these prostitutes were ‘holy’ to their idols.
The next verse, Deuteronomy 23:18, is portrayed quite graphically in Hebrew. In the NLV it reads “You must not bring the pay of a woman who sells the use of her body or of a man who does sex sins into the house of the Lord your God for any promised gift. For the Lord your God hates both of these.” Here the Hebrew word used for a female prostitute is ‘zanah’ which refers to ‘being unfaithful’ and the word for male prostitute is ‘keleb’ which is the Hebrew for dog.
The English words adultery and adulterate are derived from the same Latin word ‘adulterium’. This word is made up by combining ‘ad’ (towards) and ‘alter’(other). According to Merriam-Webster to adulterate means ‘to corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance’. Scholars are not agreed on the exact meaning of the Greek word ‘moicheia’. The word was used in the laws of the Greek city states. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_in_Classical_Athens#Definition
“Sex with the wife, daughter, or sister of a free man were all considered to be instances of moicheia.” ...
“In Athenian law, moicheia was always committed by men upon women.” ... “Married men were not considered to have committed adultery if they were to have sexual relationships with slaves or prostitutes.” Paul warned believers that behaviour allowed by law could nevertheless be in conflict with God’s requirements. He stated that those who practised ‘porneia’ or ‘moicheia’ would not go to heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19-21).
It is important to realise that Paul is referring to the continued practising of sin. Otherwise David and Moses would both be condemned as murderers. This becomes relevant when the phrase "living in sin" is bandied about. It should be crystal clear from the verses already quoted above that man is able to separate what God has put together. That does not make the person involved an habitual adulterer. If the divorce did not satisfy the criteria of sexual immorality (Matthew 5:32) or malicious desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15), it would be sin to remarry. But it is not an unforgivable sin. The Roman Catholics are more strict than God who clearly allowed divorce since the time of Moses. The fact that a woman, who had remarried, was not allowed to return to her first husband, is further proof of the possibility that a marriage can be dissolved (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
In a large part of the world adultery is still understood as the act by which a man defiles another man’s wife/betrothed. If the woman consents to it she is also guilty of adultery. A man commits adultery if he has sex with another man’s wife/betrothed. A woman commits adultery if she is married/betrothed and has sex with a man other than her husband.
Since polygany was not forbidden in the laws of Moses a woman was allowed to be in an intimate relationship with a man who was married, provided she was not married or betrothed to another. She would become a wife or concubine of the married man. In fact, the law of Moses required a man to marry the widow of his childless deceased brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
For a married/betrothed woman extramarital sex was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). If she was allowed to live a stigma would cling to such a woman (John 8:3-11). However, it is instructive to note that David’s great-grandfather Boaz was the son of Rahab (Matthew 1:5-6). Also, God instructed Hosea to take back his wife who had been playing the harlot.
5. Marriage and community
In the modern era more and more people view marriage as a contract between “two adults who are in love and wish to grow old together”. There are several problems with this approach.
In the first place there are usually in-laws who are also likely to become grandparents of the children born to the bride and groom. In societies where arranged marriages occur the couple’s parents play an integral role in negotiating the contract. In these discussions a bride-price and/or dowry is normally involved. In the case of royal houses heirs of titles are not free to marry just anyone.
Secondly children need some kind of security in the event where both parents die. In Western culture the godparents traditionally fulfilled this function. State and church also regard it their duty to look after orphans. It is unrealistic for any couple to treat their relationship as if they were the only parties involved.
Thirdly, a contract is hardly worth anything if it cannot be enforced. That is why the state is normally involved in the marriage ceremony. Many states also recognise common law marriages. If two people have been living as husband and wife for a period of time the state treats them as married for the purpose of legal disputes. The influential humanist David Hume had the following to say about community and the law:
“Human nature cannot by any means subsist without the association of individuals: and that association never could have place were no regard paid to the laws of equity and justice.”
Paul instructed believers to be subject to the pagan authorities. The state is the administer of justice and can therefore not be excluded from any contract. Certain contracts can be declared ‘contra bones mores’ by a court. Surely Christians should honour marriage, an institution established by God. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, state and church became partners in the regulation of marriages. Over the centuries the state adopted the ‘Christian’ view of marriage as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church. The churches of the Reformation became state churches for some of the countries in which they were dominant. The Church of England and the Lutheran Church are examples.
According to the Roman Catholic Canon 1118 “Marriage which is valid and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power, nor by any cause save death”. It is no wonder that mistresses are more common in Roman Catholic communities. It is close to impossible to get a divorce in countries like Italy. Having a mistress can be regarded as a form of polygany and the man’s wife is often fully aware of it. But anyone who got divorced and remarried is considered by Rome to be ‘living in sin’.
The Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox Wesley) accepted, on the basis of scripture, that sexual immorality or desertion were legitimate grounds for divorce (Matthew 5.32 and 1 Corinthians 7:15). In the countries where Protestant churches were dominant this became law.
Until 1984 a woman married in community of property in South Africa became a minor (like one of her husband’s children) by the act of marriage. She was not allowed to sign contacts without her husband’s permission. Similar laws were in force in European countries until well into the twentieth century. The laws of most Western countries have been changed to give women rights equal to those of men. In the modern West women are not under obligation to remarry since they have the same opportunities as men to find work.
When women’s rights were increased, the laws governing marriage and divorce were also amended. Before 1935 there were only two grounds for a legal divorce, namely adultery and malicious desertion. In 1935 the act was amended. From then on a spouse who was declared incurably insane or an habitual criminal could also be divorced. In 1979 the law changed again to allow “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” as a sufficient reason for a divorce. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_South_Africa.) Similar acts, allowing ‘no fault’ divorces, were passed in the 1960 and 1970s in other Western countries. Before this time one of the spouses had to sue the other for breaking the marriage contract.
What is clear is that since the 1960 Western governments have ceased to refer to the Bible for guidance when enacting laws. Humanistic wisdom has replaced Biblical values as the ethical standard. From the extreme of harsh legislation to protect Biblical marriage they have gone to the extreme of allowing marriage to be dissolved at the whim of either spouse.
Comments
Post a Comment