The discussion about the divorced woman on John Gill.

by Angela Fernandes de Carvalho

Today, the discussion about divorced women seems not to have reached a consummation. The women, like in Jesus's days, still suffer the same social restrictions and religious contempt. Even in non-traditional circles, a divorced woman is easily taken by the equivalent of a prostitute or some sort of social misfit. But, she, actually, exposes the malaise of the hardness and hypocrisy established by bad hermeneutics, bad rulings, bad preaching, and chronic bad husbandship. ( See dictionary: http://imm.io/kSLh ) Mt 5.32 John Gill in Exposition of the Bible comments: "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery" 'because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man...' " Tresury of Scripture Knowledge points the following references in Scriptures pertaining to "whosoever" Matthew 19:8 Matthew 19:9 Malachi 2:14-16 ; Mark 10:5-12 ; Luke 16:18 ; Romans 7:3 ; 1 Corinthians 7:4 1 Corinthians 7:10 1 Corinthians 7:11 Robertson Word Pictures of the New Testament also comments on this verse but makes no direct reference to the divorcee (or divorce?). There is a possible conclusion, according to the emphasis highlighted, that they were still referring to a woman whom a man had divorced but who had not been legally released. The other plausible inference comes from the fact that the man leaving the wife made her to commit adultery ( in the law). The divorce exception was necessary to provide the right mending for the divisive situation, and it pressuposes the woman who is divorced would definitely join another man, thus provoking a double-jeopardy adultery conflict. Worse, it reports the double punishment inflictable upon a woman already despised by her husband. Jesus may have been exactly showing how absurdly unsensitive they were. It might be a total non-sense not to provide the means, the letter of divorce, given the hardness of man's heart was doomed to bringing about inevitable chaos which could not, obviously, be denied. Jesus did not admit that the real issue behind divorce be faced. Maybe Jesus was referring again to the hypocrisy of trying to justify divorce, usually initiated by men, without considering the consequences of dividing what God joined. Jesus made no reference to a woman's fault. After considering these consequences of men's disregard for God's intention in marriage, Jesus might have had no need to re-address the first interest in their own selfish minds, self-righteous "mending". The kind of ruthless actions of divorcing would not

hinder or ammenize the damages brought about by the attitude of neglect toward the women. A good heart of a husband would not arrive at such a need of emergency solution having followed God's perfect style of marrying in Hosea 2.16-23. This is my closest thought so far, in viewing the principle behind God's purposes in marriage and Jesus reference and argument in it. We did not even mention here yet the actual verbal mode and action of leaving we think in implied in the Greek words for the divorced woman. Now, let us also consider, for example, new similar discussions about divorce and remarriage, like Luke 16.18, for while God condemns divorce, Jesus did not talk about the legal procedures but about the act of marrying, sexually. He commented exactly the expected consequences of a new union happening either in the adultery context or in porneia if no measure were taken fairly. Therefore, we may also suppose, Jesus wanted to justly reunite male and female, according to the initial principal of God in creating them. He needed to release the woman who had been left by her husband for futile reason (not for reason of the adultery clause) so that she might join another man in peace, legally, and her new husband might also be considered lawful to marry her, one whose previous husband rejected for no justifiable reasoning or legality, provoking the unacceptable situation in which she had been left without the honor nor support of the law. Jesus makes their finger point back to themselves and tells them they are the ones committing adultery for leaving the female connection without the only possible condition allowable. This kind of interpretatiin is also maintained by John Gill in Luke 16.18 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-thebible/luke-16-18.html) and in Mark 10.12 ( http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-thebible/mark-10-12.html )

Web Sources: biblestudytools.org blueletterbible.org; biblegateway.com

bibliaautomatica.com;

ebible.or;