Having twelve different translations before us, we shall quote from those when they seem to render clearer than the common version. The first text reads thus, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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.” Matt. 5:31, 32.
“Maketh her an adulteress.” New Version.
“Causeth her to be made an adulteress.” Rotherham.
It does not seem proper to say that a man, by putting his wife away, necessarily causeth her to commit lewdness. Hence we think the above translations more probably correct. “He maketh her an adultress.” Namely, he makes her such in the eyes of the people. Since the New Testament makes that sin, the only just cause of divorce, by a man putting away his wife, even though she were innocent, he exposes her to the public name of an adulteress. Hence the enormous sin in the sight of God, of thus treating an innocent woman.
Now take your Testament and read Matt. 19:3–12.
Bills of divorce were only allowed by Moses because of men’s hard and depraved hearts. But this was subversive of God’s original plan. Christ, having now come to change men’s hearts, no longer tolerates the putting away of husband or wife, save for the one cause.
“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.
By these words, any man that will marry a second wife, the former not being dead, nor guilty of fornication, is positively charged with the sin of living in adultery in the second marriage.
The question arises: If the woman is guilty, and is therefore put away, has her husband a right to marry again? So far as we know, if such right does exist it is found in the above text alone. And we do not remember of a single instance where a principle, or a rule is sustained by a single passage of scripture. But it is a fact that the New Testament throughout declares a person an adulterer if he marry a second wife while the first lives.
“For a woman that hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband as 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. 7:2, 3.
This is the uniform voice of the Bible under the present dispensation. But let us look at Matt. 19:9 again. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The question that arises here is this: Does the exception extend both to the putting away of the guilty woman, and the marrying of another? Or does it only apply to the first. The construction, we think, would allow either conclusion. The language positively asserts that if a man puts away his wife, and she innocent of that sin, and marries another, he commits adultery. But whether, in case he puts away a guilty woman, he can lawfully marry again, the Scriptures elsewhere must decide. For the clause, “except it be for fornication,” may only justify the putting away. And in the absence of a single other text that teaches a person can marry while a former companion lives, we think it a violation of proper rules of interpretation to take such license from this text. If the Divine author of the Bible intended that we should be free to marry again, when a wife is lawfully put away, would not the Scriptures have inserted the clause elsewhere? And would it not have made that one exception to the positive rule that man and wife are “bound by the law,” so long as both live? That Christ did not intend to give license to a man to put away his wife and marry again, may be clearly inferred by the effect His words produced on the minds of His disciples. Read Matt. 19:10–12. They were driven to the extreme conclusion that if there is no dissolution of the marriage vows until death, “it is not good to marry.” They rashly concluded that if a man must abide for life by the choice he makes, the marriage institution was too sacred to enter. “But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” By this, and the following verse we see that the marriage law, under the New Testament is so high and sacred that the coarse and licentious cannot receive it. Unlike the Mosaic toleration, it is not accommodated to the “hardness of men’s hearts,” and lusts of the flesh. The transforming, and spiritualizing power of Divine grace is abundantly able to place men where they can live happy and contented, without the blessing of a human companion, if that be their lot. Hence all divorcing, save for the one cause, and all marrying of a second living companion, are inconsistent with the New Testament, and derogatory to the grace of God.
Let it also be remembered that the Vatican Manuscript, which is chiefly the basis of our Greek text, does not contain that clause, “And shall marry another.” And the Emphatic Diaglott leaves it out. Were not the uniform voice of the Scriptures elsewhere against such a proviso, we would perhaps take other manuscripts against the Vatican. But the latter being strictly in harmony with the Word throughout, is most likely correct. That a person should not marry again, even though a companion has been lawfully put away, may be inferred from the fact, that the sin of adultery is by no means unpardonable. And should a person guilty thereof repent, become saved, pure and virtuous, what is there to hinder a Christian husband forgiving and restoring such an one? Should not the duty of putting away an adulteress terminate, when the one put away is substantially changed from that character, to one of virtue, chastity, and piety? And if it be a Christian duty to receive back a restored companion, should not that person remain single in order to be able to do so, should the one put away become worthy? We are aware of the fact that this is not the teaching of the law. But in many things the laws of the kingdom of heaven are in marked contrast with the precepts of the abolished code, as Christ shows in Matt. 5.
We drop this point by asking two questions. Where is there a word in the New Testament that would forbid the reception of a truly saved and reformed wife? Second, Where is there a principle in the love of God and Spirit of Christ that would close a man’s heart and home against a companion, when returning, humbly asking pardon, and already forgiven of God and washed in the blood of Christ? Next, read Mark 10:2–12. Here we have again the same answer of Christ to the Pharisees already examined in Matt. 19. But here it is recorded that the disciples asked Jesus again of the same matter, to whom he thus replied: “And he said 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.
Here both the man and woman are placed on the same footing. If either one puts away his or her companion and marries another, the law of Jesus Christ holds that person an adulterer, or an adulteress. There is no exception here. Next we call attention to Luke 16:16, 18. “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”
“Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Here is the preaching of the kingdom of heaven. It is in exact corroboration of the last text. Both declare that “whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another committeth adultery.” “Whosoever,”—that is a very comprehensive word. It means any person, under any circumstances.
Yea “whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery.” These scriptures do not allow of a single exception. Hence they emphatically prove that the exception in Mattt. 19:9 was an interpolation, or only applies to the putting away, and not to the marrying another. To say that the above text teaches one condition upon which a person may marry another and not commit adultery, were to set that text directly against Mark, Luke and Paul, who all declare that there is absolutely no exception. But “whosoever” does so is an adulterer. Christ would not say by Matthew, there is one exception to the rule, and by Mark, Luke and Paul, declare there is no exception at all. The word of the Lord does not conflict. We may also reasonably conclude that if there were one condition on which a man could put away a wife and marry another without becoming an adulterer, the exception would have been mentioned in Rom. 7:2, 3 and 1 Cor. 7:39, in both of which it is declared that the marriage law binds as long as both live. “So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.” So many clear declarations all emphatically teaching the same thing, must surely mean what they say.
Thus far we have given more special attention to the putting away and marrying another. Now let us see what the Word says.