8
Divorce Law
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so (Matthew 19:8).
Divorce is painful. If you have been through a divorce, you need
no one to tell you that. Not only do the children get hurt, there are the
grandparents, the family, the friends. And no one can tell of the pain,
of the anger that comes in the middle of the night to the two people
who once loved each other above all others. Once this wreckage is
strewn across the lives of a family, it can never all be cleaned up. The
pain and the hurt may be healed, the guilt may go away, but life will
never be quite the same again.
The heart and core of Christianity is forgiveness and healing, and
yet the effects of divorce seem terribly hard to shake. Jesus could heal
a withered arm. He could give sight to the blind. He could make the
crippled walk. He could make the deaf hear. What we now have to
consider is whether he can, or will, heal the broken lives of the
victims of divorce.
Human beings are not machines. When they are cut they bleed.
When they are divorced they hurt. So the hurting ones turn to Jesus,
not only for forgiveness, but for understanding and for guidance. The
Pharisees came to Jesus to hear his interpretation of the law: “Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
(Matthew 19:3 NIV). There were two major schools of thought at that
time. One believed that a man could divorce his wife for almost any
reason; the other held that some form of unchastity was the only
ground. The Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood on the
question.
He gave them an answer, though it was not what they expected or
wanted. He allowed that men should not divorce their wives at all:
“Have you not read,” he replied, “that he which made them at the
beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall
a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they
two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two, but one
flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put
asunder” (Matthew 19:5-6).
Jesus’ answer was unequivocal and clear, and the Pharisees
understood it well enough. Marriage was in the design of God from
the beginning and it was permanent. Man was commanded not to “put
asunder” what God had joined together. Not only was Jesus opposed
to divorce for every cause, he was opposed to divorce for any cause.
The Pharisees were taken aback by his reply, and they challenged
it immediately: “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?” (v. 7). They felt they were on
firm ground, because the Law of Moses plainly permitted divorce,
and Jesus knew it. He could only acknowledge the truth of what they
said: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to
put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (v. 8).
This statement of Jesus is crucial. With it he establishes what may
be the single most important fact in the entire discussion: There was
a law “from the beginning,” an original law, if you will, and it
differed in significant ways from the Law of Moses. Here is the Law
of Moses on the issue:
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come
to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath
found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house (Deuteronomy 24:1).
Jesus said this law was given because of the hardness of men’s
hearts. In other words, the law was given in response to a set of
conditions existing at the time. Jesus established beyond question that
the law stated in Deuteronomy 24 was a judgment—that is to say, an
application of the law to a set of circumstances.
Moses specified a case where a man had found some
“uncleanness” in his wife. The Hebrew expression here rendered
“uncleanness” means “matter of nakedness.” The same expression is
used extensively in Leviticus 18 and 20 and there it refers to illicit
sexual relationships. In other words, if a man's wife has an affair, he
can put her away.
It is sometimes objected that “uncleanness” in this passage cannot
mean adultery, because the law required the death penalty for
adultery.
The fact is that, although the death penalty was authorized,
it was not always required. When Joseph found Mary with child, he
assumed it was the result of an illicit affair. Since he was a “just
man,” i.e., one not afflicted with hardness of heart, he was minded to
“put her away,” to divorce her, privately (Matthew 1:18-19). On
another occasion, Jesus declined to authorize the stoning of a woman
taken in the very act of adultery (John 8:3).
The question Moses faced was simple. When sin had entered the
picture and destroyed the very foundation of marriage, when a man's
wife has slept with another man and he can no longer trust her or live
with her, yet he does not want to stone her, what should he do? The
answer, given with all the authority of God's law, is found in
Deuteronomy 24. The man was to make a written document of
divorce, give it to the woman, and send her away. She was then free
to marry another man.
One primary purpose of this judgment was to protect the rights of
the divorced woman. This was not an age when women could readily
enter a work force, and there was no welfare as we know it. When her
husband put her away, her right to remarry was a right to food,
shelter, and clothing. It is not often realized that in the ancient world,
women were largely treated as chattel. This law not only gave the
woman the right to remarry if she were divorced, it prevented the first
husband from taking her back against her will. The second marriage
terminated the first husband's property rights (verse 4).
This underlines one other effect of this judgment. There is no case
for breaking up a second marriage on the pretext that a woman is
somehow bound to the first husband. The second marriage, whether
it was right or wrong, ended the first husband’s rights. She was not
deemed to still be married to the first husband.
Divorce was not a part of the original intent of God’s constitution
for man. Even under Moses, it was a “necessary evil,” a step taken to
alleviate the damage of failed marriages, and keep some semblance
of order in the home for the sake of the children and for society at
large.
When Jesus restated the original intent of marriage, did he reject
the Law of Moses on this subject? Not at all. When his statement was
challenged by the Pharisees, and when he had acknowledged that
Moses had indeed given them a law regulating divorce, he went on,
“And I say to you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso
marries her which is put away commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
The original word for “fornication” is porneia, and it denotes
illicit sexual relations in general. The King James Version renders the
word, “fornication,” which is generally thought of as premarital
sexual intercourse. But that is not all it means. Porneia includes
premarital sex, and adultery.
In other words, porneia in Jesus'
statement corresponds to “some uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24.
This means that Jesus accepted the judgment of the Law of Moses on
divorce and rejected the rabbinical idea of “divorce for every cause.”
But why make an exception at all? After all, the law is the law.
Why compromise it with judgments and exceptions? The disciples
still did not understand. Their conclusion was, “If that is the case of
the man with his wife, it is good not to marry” (v. 10). That doesn't
seem to follow, but at least it prompted Jesus to explain further. In the
process, he gave us the reason for the exception clause.
But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement,
but only those to whom it has been given. For there are
eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb;
and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and
there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the
sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this,
let him accept it” (Matthew 19:11-12 NASB).
The idea Jesus advanced here is a little obscure at first, but it is
firmly based in God’s original intent: “And the LORD God said, it is
not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Man was a
good piece of work, but what was included in the design of man was
what Freud called the libido (the sexual urge, to you and me).
Actually it is not just sex drive, but the drive to love, to be close, to
touch, to be intimate with another human being. Most human beings
cannot flourish without it.
If Jesus’ disciples were talking about permanent celibacy when
they said it was good for a man not to marry, they seem to have
missed the point entirely. But if they were talking about the man who
is divorced, that it is good for him not to marry, then the discussion
becomes rational.
What Jesus was saying in his curious discussion about “eunuchs”
is that some men and women cannot remain celibate. Thus, Jesus and
Moses both conclude that when a marriage is broken by sexual sin by
one of the partners, it is not necessary for the offended party to live
alone for the rest of his or her life. But, at least as far as this judgment
goes, if a man and a woman divorce for any other reason, they must
not marry another. If they do, it is adultery. As Paul put it, “And unto
the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife
depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband
put away his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
A couple who are divorced do not have to live celibate lives. They
have an option—they can be reconciled. In this case, the sexual urge
can serve to bring two people back together. But it does not require
a lot of imagination to realize that there are problems with this. In
fact, Paul had to deal with a problem that Jesus did not address—the
problem of marriages divided, not by infidelity, but by religion. The
Corinthians had written Paul about several questions, and he was
systematically addressing them. Unfortunately, we do not have the
letter from the Corinthians to Paul. It would be of enormous value in
understanding the Corinthian letters, but we can still draw some
inferences from what we read.
The subject of divorce and remarriage is addressed in the seventh
chapter and is introduced by the curious statement, “Now concerning
the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch
a woman.” Since we know that it is not wrong for a man to touch a
woman,
we must assume he was referring to a question arising from
their letters. Indeed, later in this chapter, he acknowledged that much
of what he was saying was said only because of the “present distress”
(verse 26).
Having made this statement, he went on to acknowledge the
physical needs of men and women. He knew that any attempt to
impose celibacy would lead to fornication. In verses three through
six, he outlined the intimate responsibilities of husbands and wives
to one another.
Like Jesus, Paul knew that the ability to remain celibate was a gift
that some had and some did not: “For I would that all men were even
as myself,” he wrote, “but every man hath his proper gift of God, one
after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the
unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But
if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to
burn” (vv. 7-9). Note that the same word “unmarried” is the same
word used in verse 11 for divorced women. The “unmarried and
widows” in this passage are two categories of formerly married
women. Paul says, if they cannot control themselves, “let them
marry.”
But Paul stood opposed to divorce: “And unto the married I
command: yet not I, but the Lord, Let the wife not depart from her
husband: But and if she departs, let her remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife”
(vv.10-11).
Having said all this, he was still left with a problem—not a few
of the Greek converts were married to unbelieving mates. These were
not Christian husbands with different doctrinal beliefs, but pagans
who did not believe in Jesus Christ at all. What was a woman to do
if she was abandoned by such a man?
Paul began by saying, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord,” (v.
12). He was rendering a judgment. His judgment in this matter
follows: “If any brother hath a wife that believes not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And a woman
who has a husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell
with her, let her not leave him. . . But if the unbelieving depart, let
him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases;
but God hath called us to peace” (verses 12-15).
Was Paul adding another “exception clause” for divorce? In the
first place, he declared that religious differences are no excuse for
breaking up a marriage. Marriage is just as binding for
Christian/pagan marriages as it is for marriages between converted
mates.
However, this was not the case if the unbelieving mate abandoned
the marriage. When that happened, a brother or sister was not “under
bondage.” In other words, they were free—loosed from the marriage
bond. Paul spoke of marriage in terms of “binding and loosing” twice
more in the chapter. Once in verse 27, “Art thou bound unto a wife?
Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife,”
and again in verse 39, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her
husband lives.” Paul plainly said that a woman deserted by an
unbelieving mate was not bound to her husband—she was free to
remarry.
Then it would seem that Paul was indeed adding another
exception to the one given by Moses and Jesus. Did he have the right
to do that? There are some things to consider. First is Jesus’ statement
to all the Apostles that they had the power to make “binding and
loosing” decisions (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18). Nowhere is this
wording more appropriate than in matters of marriage and divorce.
Second, there is a strong presumption that a pagan mate who
abandons his Christian wife will not remain celibate—that he will
commit sexual sins and thus invalidate marriage. Just because the
wife cannot prove it should not condemn her to a life of celibacy, or
worse, to a life of sin because she cannot remain celibate.
Perhaps the most important thing to understand is that Moses,
Jesus, and Paul were not creating “exception clauses.” They were
rendering judgments. Jesus was addressing essentially the same
people Moses addressed. Paul was not. Had Jesus addressed the
Corinthian church directly there is no reason to think He would have
said anything differently from Paul.
But Paul had one more difficulty to address; that of the divorce
and remarriage that is already an established fact. One or both of a
married couple had divorced a previous mate without legitimate
grounds. Paul addressed the problem this way:
Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide
with God. Now concerning virgins I have no commandment
of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained
mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this
is good for the present distress, I say that it is good for a man
so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosened.
Art thou loosed from a wife [divorced]? Seek not a wife. But
and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned (verses 24-28).
This passage speaks to the newly converted at the time of his
calling. It assumes that reconciliation with the former mate is out of
the question.
The time of a person's calling is pivotal. One's whole life turns on
the point of baptism, because at baptism we die to the past. This is
just as true of divorce as it is of any other sin. In another letter, Paul
says: “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law),
how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he lives? . . .
But if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband” (Romans 7:1-2).
Compare this with what he said in an earlier chapter: "Know ye
not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by
baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by
the glory of the Father, even so we should also walk in newness of
life. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the
body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve
sin. For He that is dead is free from sin” (Romans 6:3-7).
There is no requirement for the man or woman who is baptized to
go back and try to make up for all the sins of the past. As far as the
law is concerned, they are dead. The penalty has been exacted. No
former obligations, including the penalty for divorce, can be enforced.
They are free to walk in a new life. There is never a case for splitting
up an existing marriage and home to try to right some past wrong.
God hates divorce, and He hates second and third ones as he does the
first.
There will always be questions about divorce and remarriage that
will require judgment. What about a woman who learns she has
married an alcoholic, or a child abuser? What if she fears for her life?
Naturally she can flee to a crisis center, but can she divorce such a
man? Almost certainly. This is the reason God established a set of
judges under Moses (Deuteronomy 17:8-13), and under Christ
(Matthew 16:19 and 18:18).
Those who judge righteous judgment will always take the high
ground of Jesus’ statement first: “Have ye not read, that He which
made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said,
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no
more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
let no man put asunder.”
But if they remember Jesus' caution, “I will have mercy and not
sacrifice,” they will also work to bind up the brokenhearted and to
heal the spirit wounded by divorce. Divorce is not the unpardonable
sin. The ravages of divorce can be forgiven and healed like any other
wound.
It is not my intent to make the judgment for people considering
divorce or remarriage, but to give them the knowledge to make that
judgment for themselves. In the end, those who have to live with the
decision should be the ones to make it.
For the rest of us, it is not our decision to make, and we should
not attempt to influence the outcome. Those who make the decision
will answer to God and God alone. And they have enough pain
without the rest of us adding to it.
|