BIBLE
DIGEST - Number 35
(Revised)
February 1995
DIVORCE
- THE "PASSIVE ADULTERY" THEORY
By Allon Maxwell
|
On a few occasions
I have encountered an "interpretation" of Jesus' words about divorce
and remarriage (Matthew 5:31-33
& Matthew 19:9), which for the
purpose of this paper, I shall refer to as the "passive adultery"
theory. In these verses,
the Greek verb used to describe the act of adultery is in the passive voice. It is claimed that
these passive verbs have been incorrectly translated and that Jesus did not mean
to say at all that anyone was actually guilty of adultery! It is further claimed
that nothing in the words of Jesus forbids a second marriage! They say that the
fault begins with the first husband who unjustly divorces his wife. He makes her
appear to be an adulteress in the eyes of others, when they assume that
adultery is the reason for the divorce, (even though she is innocent and whether
she remarries or not)! In the same way,
if she does marry again, then both she and the man who marries her are not really
adulterers, but merely wrongly stigmatised as so, by those who mistakenly
assume that she was divorced for adultery. This opinion has
been advanced by R.C.H. Lenski (1943) and William Luck (1987), both of whom have
written books (now out of print) which promote it. It does not seem to be widely
held, but I have occasionally encountered it in other divorce literature. As a laymen with
almost no credible scholastic ability in Greek I am caught between the "experts". On one hand there
are those "experts", some of whom are good friends, who tell me that
the verbs should be translated as passive, justifying their "passive adultery"
theory. On the other hand
another good friend, with credibility in Greek at least equal to those others,
assures me that it is quite proper to translate the passive Greek verbs used in
these verses, as ACTIVE English verbs. This is exactly
what the scholars who translated ALL of our major English versions have done! How shall we decide
between the two? It is vitally important to resolve that question. The answer will
decide whether or not many remarried divorcees are living in adultery. "PASSIVE ADULTERY"
BY THE WOMAN The "traditional"
view of Matthew 5:32 has been, of course: A man who divorces his wife, (thus
wrongly declaring her "free" to remarry), poiei
auten moicheuthenai causes
her to commit adultery (if
she does actually marry again). The words in parenthesis
are taken as inferred. However, this is
not an unreasonable inference in the light of the words immediately following,
which refer to the man who marries her. The "creative"
alternative rendering of this is:- Poiei auten (......................) moicheuthenai causes her
(to be stigmatised as) an adulteress (Even
though she is innocent, and whether she marries or not). Even if the "experts"
who insist on a "passive" translation have a point, it certainly does
not follow that the addition of "stigmatised" is valid. If in fact it is
valid to translate the verb as passive, what would it REALLY mean? Let us make a few
definitions, before we discuss the Greek word itself. As I understand
it an active verb means "a person does something". The passive means
"something is done to a person". Adultery is "the
defiling of a one flesh relationship between two parties, by the intrusion of
a third party". Active adultery
means "she commits adultery". Passive adultery
means "she is defiled (by her own ACTION and by the man who commits adultery
with her"). If we must use the
passive voice at all, the correct meaning would be something like: Poiei auten moicheuthenai
(Greek passive) Causes her to be defiled (English passive) (by
marriage to the man mentioned in the same verse, ..... and, of course, if she
actually does remarry). I suggest that this
use of the passive verb is far more credible than any totally untenable and unwarranted
creation of the word "stigmatised". The Greek context
does not give the slightest hint of "stigmatised". On the other hand,
"if she actually does remarry" seems to be fully implied in what Jesus
is saying about both the man and the woman. A free "passive
paraphrase" of Matthew 5:32,
would be something like:- "When
a woman remarries, after being divorced by her husband, for any cause at all except
unchastity, (RSV), she is defiled by her own action and also by the action
of the man who marries her. Both commit adultery. However, the guilt also extends
to the first husband, who divorced his wife unjustly. He will be held responsible
for causing his wife's defilement." This view takes
account of the passive verb form and also fits with what JESUS says about divorce,
remarriage and adultery elsewhere, in the other Gospels. "PASSIVE ADULTERY"
BY THE MAN In Matthew 5:32, the traditional interpretation is,
(from the RSV Interlinear Greek Text): os ean apolelumen gamese moichatai Whoever a dismissed
marries commits The "passive
adultery" theory says that the Greek verb used here should be translated
to declare the second husband INNOCENT of adultery! Their "creative"
passive rendition is :- "Whoever a dismissed (woman) marries is stigmatised
as an adulterer", ..... (ADDING words in English which are clearly NOT
in the Greek text and not in any way implied there). It is true that
the Greek verb form used here of the man, is passive. If it is correct to translate
it as passive, it would certainly imply that something is done to the man. However, exactly
the same verb form is used in Matthew 19:9
and Mark 10:11-12, where it is fairly
clear that someone is actively committing adultery, if they divorce
and remarry. The use of the passive
voice in all three places, simply means that any who divorce and remarry, or who
marry a divorced person, are being defiled (passive!) by what THEY ARE DOING.
(active!) CONCLUSION We must now choose
between the "experts"! This "passive
adultery" theory depends on what I call "creative" Greek .... the
art of "making what is seen out of things which do not appear".
i.e. making something out of nothing! (Hebrews 11:3) In this case the
"something out of nothing" is the word "stigmatised". We must reject the
"passive adultery" theory as a speculative and unwarranted distortion
of the teaching of Jesus. Instead we must
choose those "experts" who tell us that the translation into English
as an active verb is quite valid! It is much more
credible to retain the rendition given to us by the many scholars and translators
responsible for ALL of the major English versions. That brings us back
to the main point of the teaching of Jesus. Except for that
one cause of unchastity, there is no possible ground for men to separate what
God has joined. If divorce results
from any other cause, there is no licence from Jesus for remarriage, (and there
are no "innocent party" exceptions). Anyone divorced
for any of those other causes, who marries again while the first partner is still
living, commits adultery. |