And in Marriage and Divorce.2246
AND (Marriage - divorce)
Ref. 2246
BIBLE READING: Luke 16:18
INTRODUCTION:
Any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and a man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18)
In the first half of Luke 16:18, Jesus appears to teach that a man who has divorced his wife should not remarry. In the verse's second half, Jesus seems to say that no man should marry a divorced woman. Does this simplistic interpretation of a difficult verse do justice to Jesus' approach to Torah?
Luke 16:18 is very "Semitic," that is, it is full of Semitic idioms, an indication that Jesus may have uttered it in Hebrew or Aramaic. Members of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research have learned that the most effective way to approach a passage from the synoptic gospels is, first, to put its Greek text into Hebrew, then, study the resultant Hebrew reconstruction in light of first-century Jewish exegesis.2
NUANCES OF HEBREW "AND"
While the English word "and" can mean "also," "as well as," or can be used like a comma to connect words, phrases and sentences, the Hebrew - (vav, and) can do the work of "but," "or," "so," "then," "because," "therefore," "namely," "since," "while," "on the contrary," and more. Hebrew frequently uses "vav" where English would use no word at all, and in such cases the best translation is simply to drop the "and" entirely. In many instances, to translate vav as "and" would obscure the vav's true meaning.
Greek Kai (kai, and), like English "and," does not have the wide range of meaning possessed by Hebrew vav. Old Testament commentators and translators are well aware of the many idiomatic usage's of vav, but their New Testament counterparts have only begun to examine the kais of the gospels. Obviously, Jewish thought heavily influences the gospels, and if, as well, Jesus uttered his sayings in Hebrew, an English translation that did not take this Hebraic background into account would fall short. Translating every kai literally as "and" may be as inaccurate as translating every vav in the Hebrew Scriptures as "and."
The "And" of Purpose
"In order to, in order that, so that" is another meaning of vav (and). Scholars refer to this vav as the "and of purpose or intention."4 It occurs frequently in biblical Hebrew, for example: "Let my people go, and [i.e., so that] they may worship me in the wilderness" (Exodus 7:16).5
Apparently, contrary to normal Greek usage, Greek's kai (and) in the sense of "to, in order to" occurs in the synoptic gospels. An example of this usage may exist in Luke 16:18a: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery."6
The meaning "in order to" fits Luke 16:18a better than simple "and." The Greek text? reverts easily and smoothly to beautiful Hebrew: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries [i.e., in order to marry] another [f.] is committing adultery)”.8
VAV (and) in the sense of "in order to" is also attested in Mishnaic or Middle Hebrew, the Hebrew that many scholars in Israel believe Jesus spoke. See, for example: "He who begins to wish that his wife will die and (i.e., in order that] he will inherit her property, or that she will die and (i.e., in order that] he will marry her sister..." Tosefta, Sotah 5:10).9
The Jewish Background
The background to Jesus' saying seems to be a debate between the schools of Shammai and Hillel concerning the grounds for divorce. The debate revolves around the interpretation of an expression found in Deuteronomy 24:1: "After a man has taken a wife and consummated the marriage, if she ceases to please him because he has found an indecency of thing in her, then he shall write her a bill of divorce, hand it to her and send her away from his house." The expression literally, "indecency of thing," is obscure. Consequently, it lends itself to various interpretations, as the rabbinic debate shows: The school of Shammai says: "A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found a thing of indecency in her, for it is written, 'because he has found an indecency of thing in her."' But the school of Hillel says: "[He may divorce her even if she ruined a dish of food she prepared for him], for it is written, 'because he has found an indecency of thing in her."' Rabbi Akiva says: "Even if he found another more beautiful than she, for it is written, 'if she ceases to please him."' (Mishnah, Gittin 9:10)
According to Shammai's interpretation, the emphasis should be on the word "indecency" in the phrase "indecency of thing." Therefore, reversing the order of the words, he interprets the phrase as "a thing of indecency,"10 that is, "something indecent." In his view, marital infidelity is the only grounds for divorce. According to Hillel, however, the emphasis should be on the word, "thing." In Hillel's view, a husband may divorce his wife for anything, for instance, for any imperfection or for any act that is offensive to him. He is permitted to divorce her even for burning his toast. Rabbi Akiva agrees that it is the husband's right to divorce his wife for any cause, illustrating his point with an extreme example: A husband may divorce his wife even if he finds another woman who is more pleasing to him."
A key link to Jesus' saying is the word "another" in Akiva's statement: "Even if he found (a-HE-ret, another [f) more beautiful than she." Jesus' use of this word in a divorce context makes it likely that he was attacking the view espoused by Rabbi Akiva. (Although Akiva lived approximately one hundred years after Jesus, Luke 16:18a suggests that Akiva's view existed in Jesus' day.) Here, Jesus gives a legal opinion. Siding with Shammai, he rules that there is only one cause for divorce-marital unfaithfulness.12
Luke 16:18b and "Translation-ease"
From internal and external evidence, scholars of the Jerusalem School have reached the conclusion that the earliest stratum of the synoptic gospel tradition was communicated in Hebrew; therefore, when evaluating gospel passages they apply, among others, the test of "translation-ease," the ease with which one is able to translate a passage to Hebrew. If a passage translates easily to Hebrew, they tend to assume it belongs to the earliest stratum of the text; if not, they suspect it may have been added, or modified, by a Greek hand during or after the text's translation to Greek. The beautiful Greek of Luke's prologue (Luke 1:1-4), for instance, testifies that the prologue is a later addition to the gospel story.
The first half of Luke 16:18 translates easily into Hebrew; but its second half (literally, "and the one, a woman having been dismissed from a husband, marrying, commits adultery") is difficult to put into Hebrew. Since the verse's second half does not pass the "translation-ease" test, one might suspect that it was not originally part of Jesus' saying; on the other hand, it contains a Matthean - Lukan minor agreement-Matthew and Luke (Mt. 5:32b; Luke 16:18b) agree against Mark (Mk. 10:12) to use the word (apolelymenen, having been dismissed [f). Minor agreements (see Glossary) are a strong indication of originality;13 therefore, it is likely that initially the saying did have two parts, and that Luke or the author of the First Reconstruction, the second of Luke's two sources, modified the saying's second part.
A Hebraic Doublet
If we assume this saying had two parts, there is a strong possibility that the second part was the second component of a Hebrew doublet. Though superfluous to the Greek ear, repetition of words, phrases, sentences, and even stories, is characteristic of Hebrew. Parallelism- expressing the same thought in two or more different, though synonymic, ways-for instance, is the hallmark of Hebrew poetry. When teaching, Jesus frequently employed doublets (e.g., "tax collectors and sinners"; Mat. 11:19, Luk. 7:34) and parallelisms (e.g., "Do not travel Gentile roads, and do not enter Samaritan cities" (Matthew 10:5], where "travel" is a synonym for "enter," and "Gentile roads" is a synonym for "Samaritan cities"). 14
If we reconstruct Luke 16:18b, staying as close to the Greek text as the Hebrew language will allow, we get: (ve-ha-no-SE et ha-ISHAH ha-me-go-RE-shet me-no-EF, and he who marries the divorced woman commits adultery). An idiomatic translation would yield: "Furthermore, he who marries that divorced woman is committing adultery."15
A Further Warning
Based on Luke 16:18, we can suppose that Jesus, like Shammai, holds that adultery is the only grounds for divorce; and therefore, that Jesus views the bill of divorce given by a husband who intends to marry another woman as being invalid from the outset. Thus, subsequent marriages contracted by the husband or wife are null and void, and any children produced by such marriages are illegitimate. Since future marriages of such a wife have no validity, anyone who marries her will be entering into an adulterous relationship.16 Should the divorced wife and her second husband learn of the first husband's real motive for divorcing her, they would be obligated to separate immediately.17 The second part of Jesus' saying is not addressed to the man who might marry a wife sinfully divorced-the man would not contract the marriage if he were aware of the true reason for the divorce; rather, it is a strengthening of the warning given in the doublet's first part. "Realise the far-reaching consequences of your sinful act," Jesus warns the husband contemplating divorce. "Not only will you yourself commit adultery, you will cause your wife and her second husband to live in adultery." Through marriage, a man and his wife become one flesh (Mat. 19:4-6). Should they divorce for reasons other than marital infidelity, any subsequent relationship into which they entered would be adulterous.
New and old
Both parts of Luke 16:18 are exegetical innovations, that is, they are new interpretations of Scripture. The sages believed that the Torah was a bottomless well: one could dig deeper and deeper, ever gaining new insights inherent in the Torah given to Moses at Sinai. Jesus spoke of this when he said: "Every scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a landlord who brings out of his storeroom new treasures [i.e., innovative interpretations of his own as well as old [i.e., what he has learned from his teachers!" (Matthew 13:52).
The first part of Luke 16:18 is an innovation:
Jesus rules that divorcing one's wife in order to marry another is adultery. This statement goes beyond the formulations that Jesus had heard from his teachers. His interpretation "establishes or strengthens" the Torah (Mat. 5:17), that is, his innovation reinforces and clarifies the Torah. The second part of the verse is also an innovation, and more startling18 than the first: the husband who divorces his wife to marry another will not only himself break the seventh of the Ten Commandments, he may cause others to break it.19
Grounds for Divorce
Viewed from a Hebraic and Jewish perspective, Luke 16:18 does not address the question of whether divorce is ever permissible. Surely Jesus believed that a husband is permitted to divorce his wife if she is engaged in an adulterous relationship.20 Nor does Luke 16:18 deal with the permissibility of remarriage after divorce. Jesus probably believed, as did his contemporaries, that both marriage partners, having terminated a marriage with a legally binding bill of divorce, were permitted to remarry.
The church in Corinth wrote to Paul asking for his rulings on several issues relating to marriage. One of these issues was what a follower of Jesus should do about an unbelieving mate whom he or she had married before becoming a believer.21 Paul's response: "If the unbelieving marriage partner is determined to separate, let him or her do so. The believing man or woman is not bound in such cases. God has called us to live lives of peace" 2 Cor. 7:15). In other words, if the unbelieving spouse cannot live with his or her marriage partner's new beliefs, the believing spouse should not attempt, by legal or other means, to prevent the unbelieving partner from separating. By "not bound," Paul also means, presumably, that the believing partner is free to remarry.
The sages legislated additional grounds for divorce,22 for example, infertility. They ruled that if a man had been married for ten years and still had no children, he was not exempt from the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). He was obligated to divorce his wife and marry another woman in an attempt to father children.23)
A Context for Luke 16:18?
In Luke's arrangement, there is no context for Luke 16:18, the last in a series of three contextless sayings. In Matthew's gospel, each of these sayings has its own context, perhaps indicating that Luke or the author of one of Luke's sources has joined these sayings after separating them from their contexts. Does the story in Matthew 19:3-9 (parallel to Mark 10:2-12) provide the original context for Luke 16:18? Since Luke seems to preserve Jesus' saying better than Matthew, perhaps Luke 16:18 should be inserted into Matthew's context as a replacement for Matthew 19:9. Though conjectural, I suggest the following reconstruction: And Pharisees approached him and tested him, saying, "May a man divorce his wife for any reason?" He answered and said, "Have you not read that he who created them, from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Thus it is that a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and the two become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined, let no one separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to divorce?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. But I say to you, anyone who divorces his wife to marry another woman is committing adultery; furthermore, he who marries that divorced woman is committing adultery."
What Would Jesus Do?
What would Jesus have said to a man who had divorced, or was about to divorce, his wife in order to marry another? We can suppose that, since he abhorred divorce,24 he would have spoken sternly to the man. He would have told him (paraphrasing Luke 16:18): "It is detestable for you to divorce the 'wife of your youth,' the one who has shared your life and stood by you for years, in order to marry a younger, more physically attractive woman. In addition, your sin may cause others to enter adulterous relationships." However, Jesus would have tempered his stern rebuke with compassion. He would have tried to restore the marriage. If neither the man nor his wife had yet contracted another marriage, he would have urged the man to repent and be reconciled to his wife. If the man showed a readiness to repent, before concluding the conversation, Jesus probably would have said to the man, as he did to the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more."25
Conclusion
This study illustrates how important rabbinic literature can be for gaining a perspective that allows accurate interpretation of gospel texts. The article also shows that the synoptic gospels' Hebraic background can often provide the necessary clues for understanding Jesus' words. Furthermore, the article demonstrates that even the most insignificant grammatical feature of Hebrew-in this case, one nuance of a one-letter word-can be important for understanding the words of Jesus. The "and" in Luke 16:18a is probably the Semitic "and of purpose." This idiom together with, in the same context, the word "another" strengthen the likelihood that the background to Jesus' statement is a rabbinic debate on the meaning of er-VAT da-VAR (indecency of thing) in Deuteronomy 24:1. Like Shammai, Jesus interprets the expression as "a thing of indecency," that is, marital infidelity, strongly opposing Hillel's interpretation, which allows a man to divorce his wife "for any cause."
We can easily reconstruct Luke 16:18a, but 16:18b is difficult. Apparently, 16:18b has suffered considerably during its transmission in Greek; however, one can conjecture its original wording: "A man commits adultery if he marries a woman whose husband has divorced her in order to marry another." Luke 16:18b, just five words in Hebrew, comprise a devastatingly clear restatement of Shammai's position on the grounds for divorce. They are also a brilliant piece of exegesis.
Many a faithful Christian woman has been discarded by a husband who has found "another more beautiful than she." Though innocent, she has suffered humiliation and public ostracism. Because of her understanding of Scripture, she may have remained single the rest of her life, considering it a sin to remarry Jesus' words should act as a warning: a husband who divorces his wife "to marry another" sets in motion a chain of disasters-in his life and the lives of many others.
1. Thus, apparently, Jesus would not consider a man an adulterer if he divorced his wife but did not remarry.
2. The conclusions presented in this article grew out of a study of the nuances of the Hebrew word (vav, and) many of these Hebraic nuances were displayed in the Gospels by Kai (kai, and), yav's Greek equivalent.
FIRST-CENTURY BILL OF DIVORCE
A First-century bill of divorce is to be found in the Shrine of the Book) A bill of divorce (height: 22 cm.; width: 11.2 cm. ), executed at Masada, but found in Wadi Murabba'at (published by J. T. Milik in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, eds. P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961], 2:104-109, plates 30-31). Written in Aramaic on papyrus, its text differs only slightly from the formula of the traditional Jewish bill of divorce used today. The document was written in the sixth year of the Great Revolt (Oct., 71 A.D.), over a year after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.
This is a "doubled" or "tied" bill of divorce, as it is called in the Talmud. The original bill of divorce is written on the upper part of the page (lines 1-11), and the letters and lines are very crowded. Below, following a gap, the text has been written a second time in large letters, and with ample space between the lines. The upper part of the writ was rolled up and tied with string, which ran through the document and encircled it vertically and diagonally several times. The witnesses signed on the back of the document, their signatures written perpendicular to the lines within the document, each signature beside a knot of the string-there are as many knots as there are witnesses.
Tying the document closed prevented forgeries. The text of the bill of divorce was repeated on the exposed lower part of the page so that it could be studied without opening the tied and signed part.
TRANSLATION (by David Bivin)
LINES 1-11: On the first of [the month off Marheshvan, year six, at Masada. I, Yehosef (Joseph) son of Naksan from ( )h, living at Masada, of my own free will, do this day release and send you away, Miriam daughter of Yehonatan (Jonathan) from Nablata, living at Masada, who have, until now, been my wife, so that you are free on your part to become the wife of any Jewish man you may wish. Here you have from me [literally], from my hand a bill of divorce and a writ of release. Likewise, I give back [to you the whole dowry], and if there are any ruined or damaged goods or ( )n, I will reimburse you fourfold, according to the current price. Furthermore, upon your request, (if lost,] I will replace this document for you, as is appropriate.
LINES 12-25: (A repetition of the text in almost identical wording)
LINES 26-291 [Signed] Yehosefson of Naksan, by his own hand Eliezer son of Malkah, witness Yehosef son of Malkah, witness Eleazar son of Hananah, witness.
