La educación en valores en los procesos educativos

J. Carl Laney notes that some scholars discard any ground for divorce because, according to them, the celebrated exceptive clauses are not part of the original teachings of Jesus. Such scholars feel that Matthew inserts the clauses probably or they are an interpolation by the early church.¹⁰⁹ This, J. Carl Laney¹¹⁰ and William Luck note, is a hypothetical and "hypothetical

105 K. E. Brower, 2004. Jesus and the lustful eye: glancing at Matthew 5:28. The Evangelical Quarterly, 76:4, 301-302.

106 J. A. Borland, 1991. Women in the life and teachings of Jesus. Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood to Evangelical feminism. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds.(Wheaton: Crossway Books), 106.

107 J. B. Hurley, 1981. Man and woman in biblical perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 109.

108 J. B. Hurley, 1981. Man and woman in biblical perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 109-110.

109 J. C. Laney, 1981. Divorce myth (Minneapolis:Bethany House), 66.

110 J. C. Laney, 1981. Divorce myth (Minneapolis:Bethany House), 66.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

34

alternative readings must be denied in favour of alternatives in the manuscripts."¹¹¹ This must be looked into closely, because no Greek manuscript omits the exceptions.¹¹²

In an attempt to vouch for the indissolubility of marriage in Mark 10 and Matt.19:3-8, Mark Geldard opines that porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 must assume a narrower meaning. He argues against the wider meaning of porneia as general sexual irregularity and including both adultery and pre-marital fornication. The wider meaning of porneia which makes marriage dissoluble can not be accepted.¹¹³ This is because Matthew 15:19 distinguishes between adultery, moicheia and porneia. "Thus the indication from this verse is that if Matthew wants to speak of wider sexual irregularity then he uses not just the expression porneia (as the advocates of the 'wider meaning' suggest) but rather the words porneia and moicheia together."¹¹⁴ The Pharisees' question reveals that they knew Jesus was teaching indissolubility, because his teaching was in conflict with Moses' teaching on the issue of divorce. Besides Jesus' teaching in Mark 10 and Matt.19:3-8 clearly abrogates the Mosaic concession and affirms the indissolubility of marriage.¹¹⁵ Geldard argues further that:

... had Jesus allowed divorce on the grounds of general sexual irregularity, including adultery (wider meaning), then he would not have been in conflict with the Mosaic concession at all, but would merely have been opting for a particular interpretation of it: an interpretation along similar lines to that of the Shammaites. But the Pharisees certainly understood Jesus' teaching to be in conflict with Moses hence the trap-and Jesus himself explicitly affirms that they are right. His teaching is in conflict with Moses: 'Moses allowed a man to put away his wife, but from the beginning it was not so ...

What God has joined together let no man put asunder.' The clear conflict between Jesus and the Mosaic concession itself logically requires that Jesus taught absolute indissolubility. It logically rules out the 'wider meaning'.¹¹⁶

111 W. Luck, 1987. Divorce and remarriage (San Francisco: Harper and Row), 86.

112 B. Metzger, 1971. A texual commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies), 13-14, 47-48.

113 M. Geldard, 1978. Jesus' teaching on Divorce: thoughts on the meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9."

Churchman, 92 : 133.

114 M. Geldard, 1978. Jesus' teaching on Divorce: thoughts on the meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9."

Churchman, 92 : 134

115M. Geldard, 1978. Jesus' teaching on Divorce: thoughts on the meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9."

Churchman, 92 : 136

116 M. Geldard, 1978. Jesus' teaching on Divorce: thoughts on the meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9."

Churchman, 92 : 137

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

35

Aidan Mahoney relies on the analogy which is often used by the Old Testament prophets and argues that porneia refers to spiritual harlotry.¹¹⁷ According to this view, porneia refers specifically to mixed marriages, and Jesus, therefore, prohibits divorce except in cases of marital unfaithfulness. This position must be rejected for two reasons. The semantic restriction to which porneia is subjected cannot be supported by the context and the possibility of mixed marriages being an issue of relevance to the disputants in this passage is very remote.

Another major support for the indissolubility of marriage is the betrothal view. Advocates of the betrothal view either demonstrate the clause's legitimacy and assumption elsewhere in scripture, or show that the clause does not constitute an actual exception, thereby making the Matthean divorce views compatible with other biblical passages that seemingly prohibit the practice of divorce and remarriage.¹¹⁸ J. K. Tarwater opines that the betrothal practice "rests upon two key truths: the importance of a man not having sexual relationships with his wife after she has had sex with another man and the importance of a bride's virginity."¹¹⁹ Some scholars claim that any divorce that is done under the betrothal marriage indicates that marriage never took place. John K. Tarwater observes that, while a betrothed couple was viewed as married for moral and legal purposes, the termination of such a relationship because of unfaithfulness was not viewed as a divorce as such, "but rather as an annulment of the marriage itself. In other words infidelity during the betrothal period was not viewed as an act that could end a marriage, but rather as an event that demonstrated that there had never been a legitimate marriage in the first place."¹²⁰ David Jones notes that the context of Matthew and lexical support are the reasons for the betrothal unfaithfulness.¹²¹ This, Isakson says, "Linguistically speaking, the most probable meaning of porneia, when used in a statement of a legal nature about a married woman's crime, is undoubtedly premarital unchastity."¹²² Frederic Chase, looks at the Septuagint rendering of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and argues that:

A Jew reading the exceptive clause in St. Matthew remembers a passage in Deuteronomy xxii. 13-21. The passage provided that, if a man marries

117A. Mahoney, 1968. A new look at divorce clauses in Matthew5: 32 and 19:9. Catholic Bible Quarterly, 30.

118D. W. Jones, 2008. The betrothal view of divorce and remarriage. Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, vol. 65, 73.

119 J. K. Tarwater, 2006. Marriage as covenant: considering God's design at creation and the contemporary moral consequences(Lanham: University Press of America), 113.

120 D. W. Jones, 2008. The betrothal view of divorce and remarriage. Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, vol. 65,75.

121 D. W. Jones, 2008. The betrothal view of divorce and remarriage. Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, vol. 65, 76.

122 A. Isaksson, 1965. Marriage and ministry in the Temple. Translated by Neil Tomkinson and Jean Gray(Copenhagen: Lund), 140.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

36

and after marriage discovers that the woman is not a virgin, he may make his accusation against her known. If, according to the evidence prescribed, "this thing be true," then the woman shall be stoned "because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house ( evkporneu/sai to.n oi=kon tou/ patro.j auvth/j)." It will be observed that the verb used here in the LXX (evkporneu/sai) corresponds to the Greek substantive porneia ( fornication) used in St. Matthew.¹²³

Raymond Brown wonders whether there were not rumours and questions about Jesus' virgin birth in the time of Jesus and whether the Jews would not be using this against the legitimate birth of Jesus.¹²⁴ When Jesus informed the Pharisees in John 8:41 that Abraham was not their father, the Pharisees refuted Jesus' claim by saying that they were not born of fornication(porneia) which could have been a reference to the assumed fornication of Mary, the mother of Jesus.¹²⁵

James Montgomery Boice claims that "The natural implication of Matthew 5.32 [and 19:9] is that... a man may divorce a woman immediately after marriage if he finds her not to be a virgin, in which case he was allowed by the law to remarry and was not to be called an adulterer- Deut.24:1-4....[The exception clause] is in essence an explanation of Deuteronomy 24: 1-4".¹²⁶

"This connection of some indecency with porneia may support the betrothal view, as Stooke-Vaughn notes that "there is remarkable confirmation that in S. Matthew it [porneia] refers to betrothal, for the Syriac has ' a writing of breaking a contract' in the peshito-Kethovo d'dulolo - the latter word means breaking a contract. This also occurs in the Sinaitic Palimpsest in S.

Matthew xix. as well as S. Matthew v."¹²⁷

Despite the Jewish bias to the interpretation of porneia, Bernard Drachman and Morris Jastrow assert that betrothal, in the time of Jesus was not just a promise. According to them,

―when the agreement (betrothal) had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.‖¹²⁸

123 F. H. Chase, 1921. What did Christ teach about divorce?(London: SPCK), 27-28.

124 R. Brown, 1970. The Gospel according to John (Garden City: Doubleday), 357.

125 D. W. Jones, 2008. The betrothal view of divorce and remarriage. Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, vol. 65,81.

126 J. M. Boice, 1972. The Sermon on the Mount(Grand Rapids: Zondervan),137.

127 F. S. Stooke- Vaughn, 1927. The solution of St. Matthew v. 31, 32, and xix. 3-9, 15(Exeter: Eland Bros.),3.

128 B. Drachman and M. Jastrow (Jnr) 1910. Betrothal, in Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 vols ed. (New York: KTAV Publishing House), 17.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

37

Jesus was not a legalist, and his absolute prohibition of divorce served only as a guideline, which the Matthean community revised when adherence to it was no longer possible.¹²⁹ Others have argued that Matthew had felt it necessary to align Jesus‘ teaching with that of the school in the wake of the Rabbinic debates of his day. Still others contend that the exception clause had applied only to incestuous marriages, which were becoming more common as Gentile presence increased in the Matthean community. G. Ewald opines that Jesus can be referred to as a legalist in the sense of setting up absolutes. Besides, there is no internal evidence to prove that Jesus supported the school.¹³⁰

The betrothal view must be taken with all skepticism as it amounts to imposing a meaning or a view which is not explicitly stated in a text. Similarly, it is assumed that a word that has both the narrow and broad meanings, as in the case of porneia, must not be denied appropriate interpretations.