MARRIAGE AS INTENDED BY GOD
CHAPTER SIX 6.0 FROM WHENCE COMETH DIVORCES?
The Oxford Reference Dictionary defines divorce as the legal termination of a marriage; the art of putting an end to a marriage; the art of revoking one’s marital vow.
The issue of divorce is not a popular subject; the mere mention of it in many settings (Christian inclusive) stirs up real misgivings. Many senior and experienced counselors have told me that they are hesitant to offer their personal views based on biblical teaching on the subject of divorce because it is so controversial and has the tendency to lead one into offending those caught up in its web.
Since I entered the counseling ministry, now well close to seven year ago, I have made divorce one of my most interested subjects of concentration. The major reasons being the below:
- My biological parents divorced when I was nine and I did grow up amidst the many ills divorce inflicts upon the kids of broken homes.
- Divorce is a time bomb, which if not denoted, will cause greater havoc for humanity.
In my endeavor to establish for myself a view on the issue of divorce is concomitant with remarriage, I have had an encounter with the four views. Those who hold those various views do cite powerful scriptural references as their biblical backings. Below are the views:
- No Divorce and No Remarriage
- Divorce, but No Remarriage
- Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion
- Divorce and Remarriage under a variety of circumstance
Broadly speaking, the views of most evangelical Christians fall into the first three of the above categories.
I staunchly subscribe to the first of the above views. I believe a marriage commitment, made between two persons of opposite sex and physically consummated, is indissoluble until the death of one of the partners.
Not long after the fall, God’s standard of one man, one woman was violated (Genesis 4:19). By the time of Moses, Israelite men were orally divorcing their wives, as was the custom among heathen nations. By merely observing something that displeased him, a husband could simply declare before witnesses, “I divorce my wife, “ or declare, “you are no longer my wife.” The rejected wife would have no recourse but to leave home, as she was not entitled to none of her husband’s property. For this reason, the wedding present or dowry (I King 9:16) provided an important resource should a woman be divorced by her husband.
Increased laxity regarding divorce and remarriage among the Hebrews necessitated legislation to deal with this matter. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is a key Old Testament text dealing with this issue. It is crucial to understand that this passage does not institute or approve divorce, but merely treats it as a practice already known and existing.
Stylistically, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is an example of biblical case law where certain condition (“if”) are stated which become the basis for a command (“then”). In this text, verses 1-3 specify the conditions that must apply for the execution of the command in verse 4. The legislation actually applies to a particular case of remarriage. Its grammatical intent is not to give legal sanction to divorce or regulate the divorce procedure, but to prohibit the remarriage of a man to his divorced wife in cases where the wife had had an intervening marriage.
The first three verses of Deuteronomy 24 describe the situation of a woman who is twice divorced by different men or once divorced and then widowed. It should be noted that divorce is neither encouraged nor commanded in this text. The circumstance leading to the divorce is described. But the text does not suggest that divorce is necessarily sanctioned under such circumstances.
In this case, the married woman lost favor with her husband because of “some indecency in her” (literally, “nakedness of a thing” or “a naked matter”). The precise meaning of the phrase (erwat dabar) is uncertain and consequently was the subject of heated rabbinic debates on divorce. This may refer to some physical deficiency – such as the inability to bear children. A possible parallel between our text and an old Assyrian marriage contract suggests this. Or perhaps it refers to some shameful or repulsive act such as the indecency referred to in Deuteronomy 23:13 where the same expression is used as a euphemism for excrement. At any rate, it is very unlikely that the phrase (erwat dabar) refers to adultery since adultery was punished by death (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24) not divorce.
There are several circumstances mentioned in the Old Testament for which divorce is specifically prohibited. A man who morally defiled his wife before marriage was not permitted to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) . Nor could a man divorce his new wife, having falsely accused her of not being a virgin ((Deuteronomy 22:13-19). Apparently, however, in the case of the “naked matter” of (Deuteronomy 24:1), divorce was not prohibited.
Many have concluded that since, in this case, divorce was not prohibited, both divorce and remarriage are permitted with divine sanction. However, the text is far from approving the second marriage. In verse 4, the second is viewed as bringing defilement (“after she has been defiled”). The word defiled (tame) means ‘to become unclean” and is used in Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:13-14 of the defilement of adultery. The implication is that a woman’s remarriage after divorce is similar to adultery in that she cohabits with another man. This mosaic perspective is certainly consistent with Jesus’ teaching that divorce and remarriage either by the husband or wife constitutes adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
The rejected wife was sent out with a “certificate of divorce”. This phrase has been truly misunderstood and used as a basis for divorce. But according to the Mishnah, the essential words of such a document are “Behold you are free to may any man”. It is important to note that the bill of divorcement is not required by this text. The case being described includes the giving of a divorce document, which implies only that is was a matter of custom. Such a document would protect the rejected wife from any further responsibility to her husband. It would also protect any subsequent marriage from interference by the former husband.
The prohibition against remarriage legislation as recorded in Deuteronomy 24:4 points out the “then” clause in verse 4, it relates to a particular case of remarriage. Moses declares that a man not remarry his former wife if she has in the meantime been married to another man. Even though her second husband should divorce her or die, she must not return to her first husband. The prohibition is backed up with a reason and a command.
The reason: to commit this sin (that is, to remarry one’s original husband after an intervening marriage) is “an abomination before Yahweh.” The reason is followed by the command; “You shall not bring sin on the land which Yahweh your God gives you as an inheritance.” To commit the act prohibited in this case law amounts to bring the guilt sin on the land of Israel. These words bring to mind the warning God gave the Israelites in Leviticus 18:24-25 regarding the wicked ways of Canaan.
Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations that I am casting out before you have, becomes defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so that land has spewed out its inhabitants (NASB)
This legislation was designed to prevent the defilement of the land, which God would soon be giving His people as an inheritance. Does Deuteronomy 24:1-4 have a similar purpose?
The purpose of the legislation was intended to discourage divorce among the Israelites. Since there was a good possibility of not being able to remarry one’s former wife, the husband would not be so likely to put his wife away hastily. Yet, would this deter an angry husband? In biblical times the chief deterrent to divorce was financial. Usually the husband forfeited the dowry and sometimes had to make a divorce payment as well.
Conclusively, Moses did not institute divorce; he acknowledged it as taking place and sought to curt that which clearly contradicted God’s original design for marriage. Although divorce, was “permitted” in the sense that it was not specifically prohibited by law, it was not looked on with favour. The lot of a divorcee was not pleasant (see Isaiah 54:6). Although she was free to remarry, she could not marry a priest (Leviticus 21:7), This suggests that there was something of stigma (social or moral) attached to her as a divorced woman. And there would be some measure of moral or ceremonial defilement associated with her should she remarry (Deuteronomy 24:4)
Many have wondered why God did not outlaw divorce and remarriage in the Mosaic Law and terminate all the future haggling over this issue. The answer is found in the words of Jesus, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” (Mathew 19:8). Because of Israel’s hardness of heart, they rejected God’s design for marriage (Mathew 19:8); it is not likely that a general prohibition against divorce would have been obeyed. Instead, God chose to progressively reveal his displeasure with divorce and direct his people back to his standard.
6.1 JESUS’ TEACHING ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
Two major passages record Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage – Mathew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12; (see also Mathew 5:31-32, Luke 16:18) While both record the same incident, each Gospel has unique contributions which must be considered in determining what Jesus taught regarding divorce and remarriage.
Jesus teaching on divorce, recorded in Mathew 19 and Mark 10, given while he was traveling through Transjordon on his way to Jerusalem for his last Passover (Mathew 19:1; Mark 10:1). In Perea, the territory ruled by Herod Antipas, the Pharisees confronted Jesus with the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all? (Mathew 19:3 NASB) .
Both Mathew and Mark inform us that the Pharisees were “testing” Jesus with their question. Perhaps they wanted to confront Jesus with the fact that his teaching conflicted with their understanding of Mosiac law. Or they may have wanted to lure Jesus into making a politically dangerous remark about the marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother’s wife. Remember such as statement against Herod Antipas’ incestuous marriage had resulted in the arrest, imprisonment, and execution of John the Baptist just a year or two earlier (Mathew 14:4-12).
The question raised by the Pharisees was asked in the context of the rabbinic debates concerning the meaning of the phrase “erwat dabar (“the nakedness of a thing “ or “ a naked matter”) in Deuteronomy 24:1. While virtually all Jews in Palestine accepted the principle of divorce, there was a major debate among the rabbis over the legitimate cause for which one might divorce his wife. According to the Mishnah, the liberal school of Hillel said that divorce for any reason was legitimate, while the conservative school Shammai allowed divorce only on the ground of adultery. The question put to Jesus literally was, “What side of the controversy are you? The Pharisees could expect Jesus to reject a lenient view (se Mathew 5:21-48). But to side with the conservative school of Shammai would be to condemn the marriage of Herod Antipas, endangering Jesus’ own life. Precisely what the Pharisees wanted.
In responding to the Pharisees, Jesus rejects both the liberal and conservative views on divorce held by the leading rabbis of his day. Mathew records Jesus’ explanation that divorce has no part in God’s original design; marriage is permanent (Mathew 19:4-6). First, Jesus appeals to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to point out that in the beginning God made one male for one female. Second, he appeals to Genesis 2:24 to show that in marriage two persons actually become united together in family (one flash) relationship. Third, Jesus affirms that God is the One who actually joins couple in marriage, and that which God has joined, no man should separated. The phrase “let no man separate” is a present imperative of prohibition and demands the cessation of something in process (that is, divorce). The last part of verse 6 could be paraphrased, “stop severing marriage unions which God has permanently bound together.”
Jesus answer to the Pharisees question “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” (Matthew 19:3) is clearly “No!” In contrast to the religious leaders of his day, Jesus affirmed the permanent and inviolability of the God ordained marriage union. His answer indicated, “There is no valid reason at all” for divorce. Yet, by making no mention of Herod Antipas, he avoided a confrontation with the ruler through whose district he was traveling. By so doing, he successfully skirted the trap of the Pharisees.
The Pharisees clearly understood Jesus to be teaching a “no divorce” view point and sought to challenge him on the basis of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They questioned, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her? (Mathew 19:7). Like many evangelists today, the Pharisees had missed the point of the Mosiac legislation. Moses did not institute divorce or even command the issuance of a divorce document. The only command in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is that a husband not remarries his divorced wife if she has had an intervening marriage. This passage provides direction for cases in which divorce and remarriage has already occurred.
While the Pharisees though that Moses commanded divorce, Jesus explain that he only “permitted” it. The words “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives” simply mean that God did not give Moses a specific commandment prohibiting divorce. Jesus then points out that the Mosic legislation was necessitated by Israel’s hardhearted rejection of God’s original design for marriage (Mathew 19:8). He further categorically explains, “ But from the beginning it has not been this way”. Thus he sets the Mosiac concession in stark contrast with God’s original plan for marriage as set forth in Genesis 2:24.
Where should the focus of evangelical Christians be in relationship to the issue of divorce and remarriage – On God’s original plan or on a concession made because of hard hearts?
Continuing his instruction on this controversial issue, Jesus puts himself in contrast to the other rabbis of his day by declaring that divorce and remarriage constitute adultery: “And I say to you, whosoever divorces his wife, except for “porneia“ (immorality), and remarries another commits adultery” (Mathew 19:9). According to Jesus, mere formal or legal divorce does not dissolve the actual marriage that was made permanent by God.
But what is the meaning of the Phrase “except for “porneia”? A proper understanding of this word is crucial to determine the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage.
“Porneia” is related to the noun “porne” which derived from the root “to sell”. The original concept behind the word was the offering of one’s body for a price. The word “porne” was especially used of slaves and meant “a harlot for hire”. From “porne” comes the word “porneia,” found in Mathew 5:32 and 19”9. It basically refers to unlawful sexual activity, including prostitution, unchastely and fornication. “Porneia” is a general term, which can be interpreted in various ways. The context is the key to determining the meaning in any specific passage.
Many evangelicals have equated “porneia” with adultery. By this interpretation, Jesus teaching did not rise above that of Shammai and the Pharisees, contrary to his usual pattern (see Matthew 5:21-48). The majority of the Patristic writers took this view, although they did not permit remarriage after divorce for “adultery”. The word “porneia”, however, does not normally mean adultery. The usual word for adultery is “Moicheia” and Mathew recognized a distinction between the two terms (Mathew 15:19).
Jesus argued that the permanence of marriage is the will of God according to his created order (Mathew 19:4-5; Genesis 2:24).
Conclusively, in the face of the Pharisees challenged, Jesus stood firmly and made a strong statement against divorce thereby emphatically declaring his stand (Mathew 19:6). Christians are to follow the stand of Jesus final authority.
6.2 PAUL’S CONTRIBUTION ON DIVORCE
Christians struggling with the issue of divorce and remarriage are faced with confusing and often contradictory arguments. It would be most helpful to know how a first century Greek scholar and theologian understood Jesus’ teaching on this topic. Fortunately, we have such a first century interpreter of the words of Jesus in the apostle Paul. His analysis and understanding of the teachings of Jesus in I Corinthians sheds much needed light on the present divorce and remarriage controversy.
First Corinthians contained Paul’s replied to a number of inquiries made by the Corinthian believers. This is evidenced by his words “Now concerning the things about which you wrote” (7:1) and the repeated used of the introductory phrase “peri de” (now concerning – 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). In chapter 7 Paul responds to several questions, which the Corinthian believers were asking concerning marriage.
- Is divorce permitted? (I Corinthian 7:10-11). In verses 10-11 Paul addresses married believers about maintaining their marriage relationship. Appealing to the authoritative command of Jesus as express in (Mathew 19:6; Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18), Paul declares in no uncertain terms that married persons should not seek divorce. Twice he affirms the principle of no divorce: “the wife should not leave her husband” (7:10), and “the husband should not send his wife away” (7:11). The word translated “leave” (chrizo) means” to divide or “separate” and was something of a “technical term in connection with divorce” in the first century.
- Is a mixed marriage binding? (I Corinthians 7: 12-16). Paul goes on in verse 12-16 to deal with the responsibility of believers in a mixed marriage. Is a marriage between a Christian and a pagan? Yes, the marriage between a Christian and a pagan is binding! In terms of structures, the text prohibits divorce (vv 12-13) and then presents a reason for preserving the union (v. 14). This is followed by a declaration of freedom from salary (v 15) and a reason for allowing release (v 16).
While Christ did not give any command regarding mixed marriage (“I say not the Lord,” v 12) Paul does, and his teaching is divinely inspired and authoritative. As in the case of two married believers, Paul, instruction is “no divorce” (me aphieto). If the case is mixed partner, the believer should not seek divorce if the unbeliever partner is willing to remain married (vv 12:-13). The prohibition of divorce is given four times in verses 10-13! Paul stresses that marriage covenant which binds a couple together is in no way changed when one of the partners is converted. Paul points out in verse 14 that by continuing the marriage the unbelieving partner “is sanctified” (hagiazo) through the believing spouse.
In verse 15 Paul acknowledges that the unbelieving partner may insist on ending the marriage when his or her spouse converts to Christianity. In such case, is the believing brother or sister required by the command of Jesus and teaching of Paul to preserve the union at all cost? Verse 15 is being interpreted by some as allowing for divorced and remarriage in the case of abandonment in the interest of preserving peace. Paul is actually exercising his “pastoral privileged” in modifying the teaching of Jesus by adding another exception desertion.
While many evangelicals firmly mistaken v. 15 as their bedrock for divorce and remarriage, the below points refute that erroneous view:
- It is very unlikely that Paul would permit in verse 15 something forbidden in verses 10-13.
- While Paul recognized the possibility of unapproved divorce among Christians, under the command of Jesus remarriage to another partner was not allowed in this case (v 15) and not in the preceding on (vv 10:11), since Paul taught that marriage with a believer is no different from marriage with an unbeliever.
- The winning of the unbelieving partner to Christ (v. 14) would take place only through a continued or reconciled marriage not through divorce and remarriage to a new partner.
In verse 15 Paul simply saying that if the unbelieving partner demands separation, then, the believer is not “under bondage” (de doulotai, literally “enslaved”) to preserved the union by or through legal maneuver or by pursuing the unwilling partner all over the Roman Empire. The word “enslaved” has to do with how the partners relate. Is the believer to function like a slave in relationship to the partner who is unwilling to maintain the marriage? Paul answers, No! The rejected, Christian partner is either “enslaved” or “at peace”. Peace in the midst of a difficult situation in God’s portion for a rejected Christian partner, not new marriage.
Some have mistakenly concluded that the words “under bondage” in verse 15 are identical or related, to the word “bond” in verse 39, and the verse 15 contained an exception to the permanence of marriage expressed in verse 39. The words are quite different. The Greek word “doulous” used by Paul in verse 15 mean “ to enslaved” or bring into bondage”. The Greek word “deo” used by Paul in verse 39 means “ to tie”, bind or fasten.”
The word “deo” is used by Paul in Acts 20:22 to describe his sense of constraint or obligation to go to Jerusalem and uses “deo” in Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:26:39, to describe the marriage commitment which is “ Binding” until death.
Many of those who take verse 15 as allowing for divorce in the case of desertion also argue that a second marriage is permitted. But note that Paul says nothing in the verse about a second marriage for the deserted spouse. Allowance for the deserted spouse to remarry in simply not stated here and cannot be substantiated by an exegesis of their verse.
Paul makes no reference to remarriage except in the case of the death of the spouse (Roman 7:2-3, I Corinthian 7: 39; I Timothy 5:14). For a marriage that end short of death, reconciliation or a single life is the only two alternatives Paul acknowledges (7:11).
As verse 14 provides the reason for maintaining a marriage, so also verse 16 provided reason for allowing separation. If the unbeliever demands divorce, it should be granted because of peace. While the continuation of the marriage may provide the unbelieving partner with a gospel witness, the conversion of the unbeliever is not guaranteed by the continuation of the marriage.
Paul the apostle being inspired to contribute to their topic under discussions never promote divorce and remarriage neither did he in any significant manner contradict Jesus Christ.
Many who tirelessly twist Scriptures in an effort to back the sin of divorce and remarriage mostly do so because of the hardness of their hearts and to conceal their sins.
It is my prayer that Christians will begin to live according to God’s original marital program instead of blindly satisfying their flesh under disguise of erroneous biblical interpretation.
Back 