Bad Translation Leads to Women Being Abused Twice Over

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

In my recent teaching article on Christ's view of a biblical union I discovered something as I worked with Professor Luck that really set so much in order and in the proper perspective.

Many women today suffer abuse from both the man they were in covenant with and then suffer it again by those who are in the ministry leading as shepherds over them.

Though while it is generally true in regards to salvation and Christian living people can do well with their English translations for the most part, sometimes there are a few places and cases where an ability to examine the original language can make all the difference in the world. But even there one does not per se have to be a Greek scholar so long as he or she can use solid resources, grammar coding charts, and exercise some due diligence with those resources as well as receiving some aid from some mature Bible teachers.

In this case I have discovered something, or more precisely been taught by Professor Luck and then verified it myself with some original work in reading and parsing from the languages, on a topic that has caused great confusion among so many in regard to a divorced woman from the text of Matthew 5:32a.

Many many many women have been abused, put away, divorced unjustly and then because the Bible teachers or leaders they were under did not have the knowledge of the original language here down they then also join in and abuse the woman telling her that when or if she remarries she then is committing adultery. So the woman is unjustly put away, abused by her man, and then she is again abused and mistreated by ministers who do not grasp the correct meaning of the Greek in this text. It is very troubling to say the least.

The phrase under discussion is this: "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery. . . ." (ESV).

The NASB does no better as it too says, "makes her commit adultery."

The NIV tries to get it closer but still leaves it vague and apparently active: "causes her to become an adulterous." It still places the weight on her as she is the supposed active agent.

The NKJV also says, "causes her to commit adultery."

The HCSB says, "causes her to commit adultery."

The NRSV, "causes her to commit adultery."

The RSV, "makes her an adulterous."

Darby's translation, "makes her commit adultery."

ASV version of 1901, "maketh her an adulteress."

The problem however is that all of those translations place the verb for "adultery" in the active voice. In other words they make the woman the active agent doing the act or being the active agent who does something. In other words they translate the verb "commit adultery," which implies she is the active agent when the verb is so clearly in the passive voice.

The verb we have here is "moicheuthenai." It is grammatically parsed as an infinitive verb, aorist tense, passive voice. To translate this verb properly we would say "to" as that signifies an infinitive aspect, the aorist tense would place this in a past tense with ongoing or at times an indefinite aspect. Sometimes we can use the words "to continue" in properly translating this type of verb as Dr. William Mounce correctly shows in his Greek grammar.

But the passive voice must be shown by translating it so that the woman is not the active agent.

The passive voice of this verb requires for us to leave the woman as the passive agent not the active agent. Thus we could rightly translate this: "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her to experience adultery."

Professor Luck translated this, he makes her "adulterized." He coined the term but it did highlight the passive voice of this verb as it pointed out the idea that it was something that happened to her, not something she did. The point of the verb is to show us that the man has made her experience something not of her doing. In other words, he has put her away unjustly and thus he commits adultery against her causing her to experience his unfaithfulness towards her. She passively experiences something but if she has not been sexually unfaithful then she is not the active agent here.

The Reformed theologian and scholar Dr. William Hendrickson also rightly sees this problem. He notes,

"As if the disgrace of having been unjustly rejected by her husband and being forced to face the struggle of life alone were not enough, must she now in addition be branded an adulterous? . . . .Is not the real solution a better rendering of the original? The Greek, by using the passive voice verb, states not what the woman becomes or what she does but what she undergoes, suffers, is exposed to. She suffers wrong. He does wrong. . . .Far better, it would seem to me, is therefore the translation, 'Whoever divorces his wife except on the basis of infidelity exposes her to adultery,' or something similar." (William Hendrickson, NT Commentary: Matthew, p. 305-306).

In agreement with Professor Luck and Dr. Hendrickson, to be faithful to the Greek verb voice we must do a better job in translating this verb to convey the passive experience the woman goes through in an unjust divorce by a sinful man who puts her away without just cause. A woman who has been put away when she has not been sexually unfaithful causes her to experience his sin of adultery. As ministers we too should not abuse her as well by placing the stigma and guilt upon her as if she now at that moment or even when she joins another is the one in sin. Such errors as that are twice over abuses to the woman and much of that can be ended if we go back to the original grammar and properly translate this one verb correctly into a passive English construction.

By taking the time to translate this correctly we can give grace and hope to those who have been treated treacherously by an unjust man.

If you want to see the full article, go here:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2565

 

[joe88]

I had a feeling that there must be something wrong with the "you can't remarry or you're in continual adultery" position simply because that would contradict His own Law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Verse 2 says, if she is sent out divorced, she "MAY GO and be another man's wife." I've also suspected that the hardness of heart Jesus speaks about referred to the offending spouse. The traditional view which states that divorce is not really recognized in God's eyes has a hard time squaring with verse 4 which says that she CAN'T go back to her FORMER husband. Jesus Himself recognizes subsequent marriages when he acknowledges the Samaritan woman's five former husbands in John 4:18.

Some reply that Romans 7:2 and 1Cor 7:39 say that a woman is bound for life. Would it be correct to suggest that the key word in those two verses is HUSBAND (in other words, there has been no divorce)? This brings out an interesting flavor to God's relationship with Aholah (Israel) from Ezekiel 23. He divorced her, but for all her crimes against Him, the implication is that apparently she didn't marry another. He desires reconciliation (Jeremiah 3:1-14). This also fits with 1 Cor 7:11 in the literal sense and with all the passages about our reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ.

Christians (who should have the loving heart and mind of Christ and who should continually forgive others' faults) should never have cause to divorce if both are committed believers. When there is hardness of heart from one or both parties, divorce happens. Although He hates it and calls it spiritual adultery in Matthew 5:32, God allows it. Am I wrong in seeing that God provides second chances to innocent divorcees to remarry only in the Lord without committing sin?

 

[joe88]

I read your treatise on Marriage, Adultery, Divorce, and Remarriage and I can see how understanding the Greek tense can really clarify the issue. Thank you for taking the time to reveal this! However, there's still one thing I don't understand: how can sexual immorality outside marriage constitute just cause for divorce when by definition it would constitute adultery (a capital crime)?

The Law requires that if the woman finds "no favor in his eyes because of some uncleanness / matter of nakedness in her" (Deuteronomy 24:1) or the man "hate" her (24:3), then the divorce can take place. I doubt that a woman having sexual relations with another man would often elicit her husband's mercy (Prov 6:34-35). Wouldn't it be just as easy for him to eliminate both his cheating wife and her paramour by having them both stoned to death as it would be to divorce the woman? Can something else be in view here?

In asking, I'm not trying to justify anyone or find excuses to break up godly marriage unions; I'm trying to sort the issue out. For instance, are severe cases of physical abuse, abandonment, drug addiction, child abuse, deception, abortion, heinous criminal offenses warranting long prison sentences, etc, legitimate reasons for divorce? We're not talking about burnt toast here and these cases are by no means rare in today's society. Is the Greek word pornea a broad term which encompasses many acts of betrayal, or is it a highly specific term indicating only sexual acts?

 

[Mark C]

Bad translation often tends to be closely tied to bad doctrine.

The problem is that the "Greek original" is not 'original' at all.

Yahushua spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, and He quoted His own Word in the original language when He taught! Those who obsess over the Greek without taking the simple step that EVERY one of His followers took for granted are easily mislead: They knew the Scripture to which He referred...IN Hebrew...as did the witnesses who recorded the Gospels!

ANY teaching which contradicts Him, and tries to claim that He taught something different than what He said repeatedly, is simply WRONG. A correct reading of Matthew 5:32 thus MUST be consistent with such clear instruction as Deuteronomy 24:1-3, and all of Numbers chapter 30 (especially v. 30:14).

The latter holds a husband responsible for his wives' vows. The former gives (and repeats) the process for "putting away" (Hebrew 'shalach').

A man which "puts away" a wife unjustly "causes her" to break her marriage vows...and YHVH makes clear that such a husband is responsible for that failure.

A woman who is ALREADY an adulteress is the exception to which Yahushua referred. While a "hard-hearted" husband may be JUSTIFIED in putting her away, and in giving her no certificate of divorce allowing remarriage, those who understand the Savior's message of forgiveness will not. They will seek reconciliation and restoration instead. And by the way -- He is consistent in THAT teaching, too! Read Numbers 5:11-31.

 

[Maddog]

Hi Mark, I was taught in Bible College that Jesus quoted the Septuagint thereby validating that particular translation. Is that not true? How can we know and what writing(either scripture or secular)might prove or disprove such? (Sorry, I don't have any of my old textbooks.) Thanks,
Maddog

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Some reply that Romans 7:2 and 1Cor 7:39 say that a woman is bound for life. Would it be correct to suggest that the key word in those two verses is HUSBAND (in other words, there has been no divorce)?

Joe, yes that is certainly one of the key issues. Is the woman still in a covenant union with the man. Or, has the party put the others away and officially severed the union. If severance has been made then indeed the woman cannot be in adultery as she is no longer under any man or in any binding covenant.

The other idea is that those with that persuasion read into the Scriptures the idea that a union can never in reality be severed or broken or dissolved. It is the indissolubility philosophical ideology that clouds and governs the whole interpretive process of some that forces them to having to make statements like the lady who is divorced and remarries is always in adultery.

 

[Mark C]

Hi Mark, I was taught in Bible College that Jesus quoted the Septuagint thereby validating that particular translation. Is that not true? How can we know and what writing(either scripture or secular)might prove or disprove such? (Sorry, I don't have any of my old textbooks.) Thanks,
Maddog

Sadly, Maddog, many of us are STILL coming to terms with the number and severity of things we have been taught that have far more to do with the "doctrines of men" than the "commandments of YHVH". No doubt this is why the Savior addressed that very issue so frequently and pointedly.

I suspect that the fact we have "inherited lies from our fathers" is exactly what the prophet Yermeyahu (Jeremiah) was talking about (v 16:19), too.

Were you taught that He could NOT speak Hebrew, or was ignorant of the language in which He (presumably ) Wrote the original Scriptures?

(To the extent that the septuagint conforms to the meaning of the Original Scriptures, there should be no conflict. But NO translation into another language is capable of perfectly replicating the Original; that is, I contend, the point of study, and of "searching out the Truth" for ourselves.)

Yahushua was TEACHING in Matthew 5:32 (and indeed, EVERYWHERE) about what He had ALREADY Written! He did so "with Authority" (Matt. 7:28-29) -- which explains what it means that He was the "Word" incarnate, or "Torah Made Flesh".

The far bigger issue is whether He is Who He says He is, and can be trusted to tell the Truth, and keep His promises! IF He REALLY didn't change so much as "one yod or tiddle" of His own teaching and instruction (Matt. 5:17-19; after all, don't "heaven and earth" still exist?), "changes NOT," (Mal. 3:6, Heb 13:8, etc) and did in fact give both Moses and His many other prophets specific instructions about how to recognize false would-be messiahs (i.e., those who would try to change why He Wrote, "add to", "subtract from", and mix His worship with paganism) --
then the answer to your question is simple:

"If you do not believe [Moses'] Writings, you will not believe My Words." (John 5:46-47)

Any "tradition of men" (or "doctrine of demons", as later writers noted!) which contradicts what He Wrote is wrong. That is the "razor" that you are looking for...whether or not the "old textbooks" agree with Him.

 

[CecilW]

Amen, Mark.

 

[Maddog]

Good point Mark, I was taught that Jesus did indeed know Hebrew language but when he quoted for the common man, He used the common language. I am no linguist but a not-so-young skull full of mush and trusted that my professors, themselves with PhD's in Hebrew and Greek knew what they were talking about.
Now a tangent question is: What languages did the earthly Jesus exibit that he knew and how do we know that?
Back on point though, it is good to know that in this passage Jesus was speaking of the man's heart condition(not woman's). I have wondered how to rectify such an apparent contradiction. Thankyou Dr Allen.
Maddog

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

MD,

Christ spoke both Greek and Hebrew (and any language he so desired) and the discoveries we have by archeologists point out that indeed the Greek language was used as the originals. Both Christ and the apostles wrote and spoke in Greek. Dr. Gleason Archer, one of the most premier language scholars in the entire world (spoke fluently in 27 languages by his mid 20's), has done some great work in this field.

I was just talking to Professor Luck the other day about this and he too knows of no reputable leader who embraces the idea that the NC writings were only inspired in the Hebrew. When we have checked with the Hebrew Messianic scholars too none support this view. Dr. Bruce Metzger, also one of the greatest experts in this field, affirms the Greek original view along with FF Bruce and so many others.

Were there some Hebrew translations? Certainly that is highly probable if not reality. But historical evidence from that era points to the idea that koine Greek was the norm for the day because of the particular culture of the time. It is likely that some took the Greek and translated that into Hebrew at various points.

But speaking of providence, God chose to preserve his word historically from that era until today through the Greek manuscripts. Thus, in those one is perfectly safe and justified to use those as valid copies of the originals which no longer exist except in copy formats.

 

[steve]

did Yeshua teach the crowds (including the children) in hebrew or greek or aramaic?
did He quote the OT in greek?

IF the gospels were written in greek, was that already a translation of what He actually said?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Steve,

If you want serious answers to those questions then buy these books and read them from beginning to end and you'll get those questions and many more answered. I use these in the seminary classroom.

http://www.christianbook.com/canon-test ... ew=details

http://www.christianbook.com/the-canon- ... ew=details

http://www.christianbook.com/general-in ... ew=details

Those three books, especially the first two, would clarify the whole matter for you if you really want some solid resource material on how the NT canon developed.

 

[Mark C]

Good point Mark, I was taught that Jesus did indeed know Hebrew language but when he quoted for the common man, He used the common language. I am no linguist but a not-so-young skull full of mush and trusted that my professors, themselves with PhD's in Hebrew and Greek knew what they were talking about.

I quit accepting what the RCC and such 'scholars' ordered as Tradition and accepted as "canon" -- and started doing what Shaul (Paul) and the Apostles advised the Bereans -- once it occurred to me that those who taught abominable pagan "holi-days" in lieu of what He said to keep "forever" were either incompetent, or worse. They didn't quit with lying only about what He Wrote concerning marriage, in other words!

Again, even if it's "all Greek to you", all one has to do in order to discern Truth from lies is EXACTLY what those folks who heard the stories from the Apostles did: they compared the witnesses to the Truth they ALREADY knew well from what Moses and the other prophets had told them, and Yahushua confirmed:

"And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
I do not receive honor from men.
But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you.
I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.
How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that [comes] from the only God?
Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is [one] who accuses you--Moses, in whom you trust.
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-- Yahuchanon (John) 5:37-47

The Hebrew, Greek, and English (and the Spanish, too - I've checked) are all essentially* correct when it comes to the fact that He never changed His "torah", His "teaching and instruction", given to Moses and confirmed via the witnesses of His prophets. (MatitYahu 5:17-19, etc.) My point remains: if Scripture is not utterly CONSISTENT - from Bereshiet (Genesis) to Maps - don't blame Him. It was "perfect" and complete in whatever language He originally Wrote it. But DO remember why He so frequently called so many "respected scholars" HYPOCRITES -- because they took it upon themselves to "add to" and "subtract from" what He Wrote.

But when it came to His speaking of hard-heartedness, and those who would not receive His Written Word, I have no doubt He was referring to "mankind" in the general sense.


Shabbat shalom...

-------------------------------
* Yes, the use of the words "law", "ley", and "nomos" are problematic, and render a less-than-ideal understanding of the Hebrew word "torah" in proper context. But WHATEVER it is, He didn't change it!

 

[Scarecrow]

Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.

Annulment is the process of nullifying the original marriage covenant; adding to is an attempt to add new and additional terms or conditions to a ratified covenant.

By unjustly divorcing her he is forcing her to experience the breaking of (not annulling of or addition to) the covenant which is spiritual adultery.

A covenant is an agreement willingly entered into and agreed upon by everyone involved. In many marriages vows are stated. If these vows are not kept it is spiritual adultery because it is a breaking of the covenant. God uses the term adultery when the nation of Israel breaks their covenant with him by worshiping other gods and other things they do. Later He states that He has given them a certificate of divorcement. (Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3:8)

Joe88 said:
"In asking, I'm not trying to justify anyone or find excuses to break up godly marriage unions; I'm trying to sort the issue out. For instance, are severe cases of physical abuse, abandonment, drug addiction, child abuse, deception, abortion, heinous criminal offenses warranting long prison sentences, etc, legitimate reasons for divorce? We're not talking about burnt toast here and these cases are by no means rare in today's society. Is the Greek word pornea a broad term which encompasses many acts of betrayal, or is it a highly specific term indicating only sexual acts?"

I didn't notice an answer to his question, but from what I can see most if not all those acts would break a marriage covenant, breaking a covenant is adultery and cause for divorce.

 

[cnystrom]

Nice post to clarify an originally not clear verse. Nice assist to Dr. Luck!

The post about the original language was also clear and persuasive.

Chris

 

[steve]

Steve,

If you want serious answers to those questions then buy these books and read them from beginning to end and you'll get those questions and many more answered. I use these in the seminary classroom.

what an interesting response in a discussion
please forgive me if i have asked an inconvenient question.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Steve not inconvenient but I already know you well enough to know your predispositions and presuppositions that you have towards certain views, especially in regard to your quest to either be personally Jewish or Hebraic centered in all things, which can be good if held within balance and the proper overall biblical data. But too it can also lead to false ideas as well due to the number of errors within the overall Hebrew Christian movement of this era that have surfaced over the past decade or so. I certainly am not in any way opposed to the Jewish culture nor to the customs of the Jews. Jews in Christ and Gentiles in Christ can maintain Jewish customs as they personally so desire. I was even trained and taught by a world renown leading Messianic/Hebrew Christian teacher and still to this day learn from him and consider him to be one of the better theologians of our era of history. But from that I am also aware of the ideologies, truths, pitfalls, biases, and misconceptions among those from this tradition as well.

So, in that light, instead of an ongoing extensive dialog here, if you really want to study the issues you have asked about, and if you really do have questions that you would like to get figured out and learn in that particular area in an in depth way then grab those books, i.e. if you're interested in a serious study on those issues you have raised. Those works will challenge your thinking and biases with strong evidences that indeed the apostles who wrote out the Scriptures under inspiration wrote it in Greek.

That, of course, does not rule out the existence of Hebrew manuscripts of the NC that were also written, but these works show by the archeological evidences some discoveries that speak for themselves in regard to how God preserved his word and through what language he chose to do so through. The preservation doctrine of Scripture is a lovely study and one very beneficial to those who take the time to go through it with a solid resource or two.

 

[Scarecrow]

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

I noticed that the remainder of the verse was not covered in this discussion...

Matthew 5:32 ... and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Since it is immediately following the section of the verse that has been discussed and is part of the same sentence, I would assume that it is directly pertaining to it and very important to discuss as well. I have always wrestled with this verse, and if it simply means what it says then there are a lot of individuals living in a adulterous relationship.

So...does the end of this verse pertain to any divorced woman? Does it only pertain to those specifically wrongly divorced? Or does it only pertain to those specifically rightly divorced?

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her experience adultery, and whoever marries a (divorced or wrongly divorced or rightly divorced ? ) woman commits adultery.

or could it be...

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her experience adultery, and whoever marries a woman who has experienced adultery commits adultery.

(italics are my modifications)

I'm not trying to cause any hurt or harm I'm just curious. I have never been able reconcile the end of this verse in any way other than a literal reading which is what actually caused me to previously ask a question about concubinage. I am honestly looking for an improved understanding of the end of this verse.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Since it is immediately following the section of the verse that has been discussed and is part of the same sentence, I would assume that it is directly pertaining to it and very important to discuss as well. I have always wrestled with this verse, and if it simply means what it says then there are a lot of individuals living in a adulterous relationship. So...does the end of this verse pertain to any divorced woman? Does it only pertain to those specifically wrongly divorced? Or does it only pertain to those specifically rightly divorced?

The 5:32b phrase is NOT connected to the 5:32a phrase. This is clear by the use of the Greek kai and the others terms used such as the middle or passive verb of the word for divorced in 5:32b. In the second phrase the woman either does something to put herself away or to get herself put away in order that this other man may join her. THus because she puts herself away or purposefully gets put away the man joining her is in adultery as well as she.

I have written on this fully in the teaching article section on Christ, Marriage, Divorce and Adultery. See the full treatment here:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2565

 

[Mark C]

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

I noticed that the remainder of the verse was not covered in this discussion...

Matthew 5:32 ... and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

... I have always wrestled with this verse, and if it simply means what it says then there are a lot of individuals living in a adulterous relationship.

So...does the end of this verse pertain to any divorced woman? Does it only pertain to those specifically wrongly divorced? Or does it only pertain to those specifically rightly divorced?

... I am honestly looking for an improved understanding of the end of this verse.

This one is easy Scarecrow - whether you look at the Greek, or the earlier Hebrew writings (Deut. 24:1-3) that He referenced.

The KJV is just plain WRONG to translate the word used ELSEWHERE in the very SAME verse as "divorce" in that ONE particular instance!

"Put away" is NOT equivalent to "divorced". [All those who are properly 'divorced' must also first be 'put away'; but not all women who are 'put away' are 'divorced'! And those who abandon their Covenant to their husband are NEITHER; they remain wives to their living husband.]

Take a look at an interlinear Bible, e-Sword, or one of the online references such as BlueLetterBible. Note that the word used (ἀπολύω -- Strong's G630 - apolyo; "shalach", שָׁלַח H7971 in the Hebrew) is translated (correctly) as "put away" in that very same verse(s)!