C.verse 32 Now that we have all this under our belt,verse 32 makes perfect sense to us. Jesus here again is disputing their doctrine, and is telling them that this certificate, although valid, was given because of the hardness of their hearts. In other words, they were allowed to get a divorce for any reason they wanted to. It had nothing to do with divorce in itself, or immorality. Jesus knew that if it were a matter of immorality, remarriage would not be the issue., because of the hardness of their hearts. In other words, they were allowed to get a divorce for any reason they wanted to. It had nothing to do with divorce in itself, or immorality. Jesus knew that if were a matter of immorality, remarriage would not be the issue, because the guilty party would be dead, and the living innocent party would be free to remarry anyway because now their spouse was dead. Jesus was saying that the writing of divorcement was given as an easy way out of their marriage commitments because Moses knew he would not be able to deal with their stubbornness and insisting on divorcing their wives or husbands, even though they had no real reason. So Jesus was saying, Yes, this certificate was allowed by Moses, and yes it is valid, but this is not at all the way God intended it to be, in fact, I�m telling you that if you divorce for any other reason other than fornication, then you are committing adultery against her, and causing her to commit adultery against herself. We will return later to this verse and discuss this issue in more depth.
C1. Now here we present False Teaching #1: Perpetual Marriage, and Separation Only. Some people teach that once you are married, that the matrimonial bond is never ever broken. In God�s eyes, you will always be married to that one person, and so if you ever remarry, you are committing adultery. This is part of the meaning in 1 Timothy 4 where Paul tells Timothy that some would depart from the faith forbidding marriage, and this includes remarriage. Of course we know the majority of this teaching has come out of the Catholic Church. So is the doctrine of Separation Only. This teaching says that you may only separate from one another and not divorce. So they are commanding individuals who are married to sex perverts, homosexuals who have come out of the closet, child molesters, and the like, that they have to remain one flesh with these sick people because their is no dissolving of the marriage bond. This of course has no Biblical support whatsoever, and is a tradition of men. There is not one iota of proof for it. We have already seen that Christ himself recognized that divorce, even when given with the writing of divorcement was valid, and all marital ties were dissolved completely, else He and Moses also would have been condoning adultery. So let�s prove this further by looking at some definitions, beginning with the phrase put away.
C.2 The Definition of Put Away: Here we must remember the Rule of Definition. No word can be defined without applying it first to the culture and context of which it is used. The phrase Put Away is a legal term that always signifies the absolute dissolution of marriage. The idea of separation was never known to the Jewish community. It was the Catholic Church who came up with the idea of separation. So the idea of separation is foreign to the Scriptures. Divorce meant cutting off. The certificate was a bill of cutting off. The Hebrew word Carithuth, and the Greek Apulieo mean the same thing: Divorce, to set free, to liberate, to cut away, to sever, to free as a ship or captive, etc. This is the same word used in Mark 15:15-16, interpreted as release to us Barabbas: Let Him Go: Released. So Jesus does not leave us guessing here, but uses the exact same term put away. Not one single source interprets this term as separation.
C.3 False Teaching #2 of Fornication as pre-marital sin Here we will present another false teaching which says that fornication is only pre-marital sex, and so what it means here is that since the Jewish betrothal was as binding as marriage, the husband could divorce his wife to be only if he found out she was not a virgin.
While this could be the case, in most cases there would be no divorce necessary according to Deuteronomy 22. She would be stoned to death! Now Joseph and Mary were an exception to this rule. Their case was not the norm. The truth is shown predominantly however by the definition of the word fornication Biblically.
Secondly, the word, according to the rules of definition does not mean pre-marital sex only, but includes ANY form of extra marital sin, including adultery. In fact, NO Biblical sources support pre-marital sin only. Fornication and adultery are words that are virtually synonymous and are frequently used interchangeably in the scriptures, such as Soul and Spirit, or Rhema and Logos, or Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven. Fornea includes: incest, sodomy, harlotry or prostitution, perversion, all sexual sins before and after marriage. The Hebrew word for fornication is Zama. It is used in Jeremiah 3:1, where a married woman is called a harlot. In Amos 7:17 a woman is called a fornicator, same word Zama. In Numbers 25:1-2, and 1 Corinthians 10:8, Paul refers to married Israelites as fornicators. In Revelation 2:14, and Jude 7 which refers to married and unmarried alike, they all called them fornicators- Fornea.
C.5 The Exception Clause: Now when Jesus was alive on the earth, in his day, there were two primary schools of thought concerning proper grounds for divorce. One of course was very popular, and more widely accepted than the other. Two Rabbis led these two schools of thought. One�s name was Hileal, and the other was Shammai. Hileal taught that you could divorce for every cause, while Shammai said no, could only divorce for fornication. This was a hot topic of the day, but was already being taught, even before Jesus came into the picture.
The Scribes and Pharisees and Herodians were always asking Jesus tricky questions. You�ll remember in Matthew 22:17-21 where they were asking Jesus whether or not it was lawful to pay taxes. Beyond the fact that they were enticing Jesus, trying to trap him, being the controversial figure that he was, and claiming no allegiance to any sect, they would have considered him a somewhat unbiased arbitrator for their endless, and I mean endless disputes over matters. They wanted to know just where he stood on these issues. Again, they asked him concerning the resurrection from the dead. The Pharisees believed in it, while the Sadducees rejected it. Of course in that particular example, Jesus took the side of the Pharisees.
So here we have the same thing. Jesus is settling an issue between groups, and not changing the law. Divorce was rampant and easy to obtain especially with the Talmud. Jesus was saying that divorcing for any reason was wrong. Jesus also assumed automatically the woman would remarry. All women did. So in this case and in Matthew 19, Jesus takes the side of rabbi Hileal.
Jesus says "Whosoever marrieth her that hath been put away committeth adultery". No Remarriage groups say that the exception clause here does not extend to this phrase, but it does! Remember that according to grammatical rules in the Greek, and in this case, even the English, it makes no difference on where you put the exception clause. The meaning does not change. In fact, the Greek actually has the exception occuring in the middle of the sentence.
Dr. A.T. Robinson, who is an outstanding grammitarian, has a book entitled The Grammar of the Greek New Testament. In it, he states that there are two correct ways to interpret the Greek into English. 1. Whosoever puts away his wife, except it be for the cause of fornication... OR 2. Except it be for the cause of fornication, whosoever puts away his wife...
Greek scholars who are not biased by any traditional religious dogma all agree that it is correct to be interpreted either way. Weymouth�s Translation is closest to the original here. It says : "But I tell you that every man who puts away his wife, except on the grounds of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery. And whosoever marries her WHEN SO divorced commits adultery." By the way, committing adultery, and living in adultery are not the same thing.