|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
There are times when the Bible speaks with crystal clear clarity, and there are times when it speaks in an ambiguous, or ambivalent way. It may surprise readers to know that when it comes to the matter of divorce and remarriage, the meaning of God’s Word is by no means crystal clear. This is apparent when one approaches the subject by way of the many books and articles which have already been written about the subject.
For example a book by W. Heth, who spends many pages examining the meaning of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:3-9. In Mr. Heth’s thoroughly researched book, page 136-147 he looks at the meaning of the Greek, the context, the audience, the subtle meanings which may have been buried in the words, the comments by other Bible scholars and so forth, and then he follows all this up with five pages of notes, or 44 separate numbered comments! What an enormous effort spent on so few words by Jesus.
Yet at the end of such complex arguments, which swing to and fro, speculating and reflecting, examining and conjecturing, one ends up more or less at the place where one begins, i.e. “Just what exactly did Jesus mean?”, and do we need to be a theological student to read the Bible, or can we take what Jesus said at face value? If Jesus meant His words to be understood only by an elite few, then He was doing the ordinary layperson a great disservice.
My approach is to begin somewhere else.
But before I do this, I would like to say the following: If I was a Law-abiding Jew I would probably begin in the Old Testament and quote the Law. Sticking to the letter of God’s Law I would quote Deuteronomy 24:1-4. But then if I were a Christian I would go to the words of Jesus where he said God had allowed divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts (Matt.19:8), and point out that Jesus was still determined to uphold the Law. “There” I would say, “The Law has not been abolished, therefore it is still against God’s law to divorce, except when people’s hearts are hard!”
But this simple approach becomes very difficult to uphold in the light of the following short list:
1. What about the prostitute who has never married but has slept with 50 men? Is the first man she slept with her ‘husband’?
2. What about the woman who marries, watches her husband march to war, and then, because of a report from the army to the effect that he has been killed, remarries?
3. What about the arranged marriage? If two children have no say in the marriage but are forced into it by rule of law, surely they have a case for divorce and remarriage?
4. What exactly constitutes marriage? Is it simply living together, or does it become a marriage at consummation? (Sexual union)
5. What about State marriages, where two people sign a sheet of paper at the Registrar’s office? Is this secular, totally non-Christian ceremony rated as the same as a Christian marriage “in the sight of God”?
6. What about the marriage where one member becomes a Christian and the other remains unsaved - the relationship may become brutal, miserable, and intolerable? Is the Christian not then free to divorce and remarry to a Christian?
7. What about the situation where two people are already previously divorced before they marry?
The legalist might take pleasure in using the Old Testament Law, but there are plenty of grey areas where the Law is not specific enough. One of these grey areas is the sexual union which normally follows a relationship, and leads to a child. In today’s modern world it is possible for conception to take place in a test tube, without either the man or the woman being anywhere near the new child. Is this ‘technically’ adultery? Some would argue that it is, others that it isn’t. Is sexual union crucial to marriage? When do two people actually become “one flesh?”- at sexual union or at the marriage ceremony?
This is why I prefer to start somewhere else.
I begin with John 1:17 “For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” That word “grace” is not another word for “license” of course, so we must not force into it meanings which it does not carry. We cannot, for example, say that because of God’s “grace” we can now feel free to lie, steal, cheat and show disrespect towards our parents. But “grace” is another way of understanding the Father’s heart towards His children. Some people swing one way, into the Judge aspect of God and forget the Father aspect, while other people swing the Father way too much and forget the Judge. God is both.
So when we look at Matthew 19:7 onwards, we find the work of Law and Grace in the words of Jesus. He exercised both. In some cases he judged, in others he forgave. The woman taken in the act of adultery was dismissed, while the Pharisee was condemned. Jesus was flexible enough to treat each case on an individual basis, and not, as some would have it, like some blind justice machine.
In 19:7 the Pharisees thought they had caught the Lord out. They thought He had contradicted the Old Testament law. Hadn’t Moses made provision for divorce? A man could simply give his wife a written statement and then send her out of the house (Deut.24:1-4)
Jesus agreed that Moses had permitted divorce, not as God’s best for Mankind, but because of Israel’s backslidden condition. God’s ideal was and always has been that people should marry for life, and that divorce should never happen. Just think of the blessings that would follow from this! No more abandoned, insecure children. No more inter-family rivalry. No more contesting of wills. No more same-sex marriages. No more drifting, rootless people with unstable home-lives. No more fragmented, dislocated family members. And then again, on the positive side we would have fulfilled grandparents loving and helping to raise their grandchildren, and children growing up in the security of stable homes, with wonderful role models everywhere. And so on.
In Matt. 19:9 Jesus stated, with absolute authority, that the past leniency on divorce was henceforth discontinued. From now on, according to Jesus, there would be only one ground for divorce – “fornication”. If a person was divorced and remarried for any other reason, he or she was guilty of adultery.
In this verse Jesus also implied, or set up a logical inference, that where a divorce was obtained on the grounds of “fornication”, the innocent party was free to remarry. Otherwise divorce would serve no purpose not achieved by separation. After all, if a marriage could be broken up because of immorality, why not just separate? Why bother going through a divorce procedure?
It is at this point that the Pharisee-like Bible students jump in and begin to ask all sorts of difficult (and often rhetorical) questions. They suggest that “fornication” might mean something else, such as adultery, or pre-marital immorality which is discovered after marriage (Deut.22:13-21). Others suggest that Jesus was referring to Jewish marriage customs only, and that his “except” clause is only in Matthew because He was speaking to Jews. (Matthew is a sort of ‘Jewish’ gospel)
Matthew 19:10 shows us the disciples reacting in great surprise to Jesus. They leap in and push what He has said to a great extreme. They decide that it is better to never marry than to risk sinning and then have to go through a divorce. This is an argument from the extreme, and as we say “The exception does not prove the rule”. Jesus responded to their comments by pointing out that some people, by God’s grace, can remain single, while others need to marry. He then talked about eunuchs, or people who cannot, or do not, ever marry. (See 1Cor.7:7)
Just reiterating briefly, let us see where we have come to. Divorce was never God’s intention when He created humans. His plan and His ideal was for one woman to remain married to one man throughout life, with death being the only possible way of breaking the union (Rom.7:2,3) Jesus made this clear to the Pharisee by referring to the original pattern, way back in Genesis.
We also know that God “hates” divorce (Mal.2:16). By this we understand that God hates divorce which is not based on the correct grounds. We cannot say that He hates all divorce, because He Himself divorced His people Israel (Jer.3:8) He called His people His “Wife” and was married to them, until they began to turn away from Him to worship idols, which He interpreted as unfaithfulness to Him, a sort of spiritual adultery. On these grounds God was able to divorce His Wife Israel . . . but then Jesus came and died for Israel. Having died, He was then raised from the dead and on these grounds was able to re-marry Israel. Remarriage was possible because Israel’s Husband (God) had died, on the cross, therefore Israel was free of the original marriage and was now able to marry again.
In Matthew 5:31,32 and 19:9 Jesus taught that divorce was forbidden except when one of the partners had been guilty of sexual immorality. (In Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 the exception clause is omitted)
It seems possible to me that the reason neither Mark nor Luke recorded the whole statement by Jesus is simply that – they did not record it all. Their omission does not prove anything. Another point to notice is that Jesus did allow for divorce, though he never commanded it.
1Corinthians 7:12-16 teaches that divorce is acceptable when a believer is deserted by an unbeliever. Paul says that the remaining person is “not under bondage in such cases”, which means that the offended party is free to obtain a divorce (for desertion). It seems likely therefore, though it doesn’t actually say it, that this is the same exception clause which Jesus was speaking about in Matthew 5 and 19. In both cases the unbeliever probably leaves and starts living with someone else (or perhaps has an affair). Therefore the believer can be granted a divorce on Scriptural grounds only if the offending party commits adultery.
Some people say that while they agree that divorce is permitted in the New Testament, remarriage is not mentioned. But the problem with this argument is that it begs the question. Remarriage is not condemned. The innocent party, the believer who is cheated on, betrayed, and abandoned is free to remarry, because Jesus did not say this was not an option. It seems logical to me that the reason for scriptural divorce is to enable the offended party to remarry. It is the offending party, the adulterer, who is condemned.
In the list of difficult questions at the beginning of this essay, so many vague and grey areas were raised, it seems quite impossible to untangle them all with a simple black and white answer from the Bible. But such an answer does exist.
First of all, in the Christian world there should be no problem when we look at unlawful divorces and remarriages. There are several very clear, unambiguous rules governing Christian marriages.
But what of those marriages contracted before conversion? Many people come together who have dreadful past lives – prostitution, adultery, and so on. The Bible says all these things can be forgiven – see 1Cor.6:11, where Paul includes adultery in the list of sins in which the Corinthian believers had been involved before they became Christians. Pre-conversion sins do not bar believers from full participation in the Church, and Jesus sets us free of all our past lives.
But what about Christians who want a divorce, and one (or both) partners in the marriage want to remarry? This is more difficult to answer. I think the question turns on just one thing? On what grounds is the marriage to be dissolved? Is it simply cheating, dishonesty, an addiction, beating, or some other sin? Remarriage is not permitted on any of these grounds. If the reason for the divorce is adultery or fornication, then there is solid ground for divorce.
But having said all this, I think it must be said that all Christians are answerable to God alone for their choices. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”(Rom.14:23), and “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil.2:12), and “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom.14:5) some room must be made for “grace”, because God is a Father as well as a Judge. God’s immense love is expressed in His longsuffering, and patience, tolerance and forbearance towards us His erring children. We do not live in a perfect world, and it seems to me that God prefers to make the best out of a bad situation, rather than impose a sort of tyranny of obedience on His people.
This is not to say that we are free to be disobedient, but in some situations it seems that things are best left as they are. If we follow the strictly legal view, we may cause all sorts of much worse problems, and all in the name of obedience. For example, what if we have a combined family, where two Christians bring their respective children from two previous marriages together, and the new family is formed. A reasonable amount of love and harmony exists in this combined family, and the children are secure and stable. Along comes the legalist and says they must separate because their original marriages were not dissolved on “scriptural grounds”. Think of the misery that may follow. Children torn apart, husband and wife living separately again, misery and chaos springing from the split, and really no good at all coming from the action – except ‘obedience’.
Again, I’d like to say that the elders, (if the fellowship has any), are there to help solve situations like this. They ought to examine the situation, weighing up what the Bible says with the people involved, and when they make a decision it ought to be followed.
In summing up, we ought to remember that God’s Word contains two kinds of directive: Laws and Principles. In the Law category, there is usually no problem interpreting what God wants. “Thou shalt not steal” is clear enough. New Testament rules are also very clear – as clear as the Ten Commandments. But there are also Principles, and these are often mistaken for Laws. Principles are general governing guidelines, which are firm enough to indicate a certainty, but general enough to be shaped to fit changing situations. “Love your enemies” is a Principle, “Train up a child” is another. No specific details are included with Principles, so the believer is free to interpret the meaning in light of their own particular situation.
In the matter of divorce and remarriage, the Principle is clear. Marriage should be for life, divorce is only allowed on certain grounds, and separation is permitted on others. The elders are allowed to make rulings on some matters if asked, and the individual is free to follow his or her conscience. It is because of this freedom of conscience aspect that we have the situation where:
When it comes to marriage and remarriage, there is a certain degree of freedom of conscience. Personally I am not in any position to sit in judgement on any two people who may be considering marriage. It is my job only to present as best I can what God says. If two Christians, who have past lives of adultery or just plain chaos, ask me if they should marry I can only say what I have just written and leave them to make their own decisions. It is, after all, between the individual and God, and each of us alone has to live with what follows, should we make a wrong decision. It is God who sees the hearts, who weighs the motives, who knows our thoughts. He alone can see the end from the beginning. If our hearts are free before God, then we are walking in the light, and God will ultimately decide our future. That, when all is said and done, is the final word.