Divorce and Remarriage, part 1
I was taught all my growing-up years that even though God allowed divorce in the Old Testament, the rules changed under the New Covenant, so God no longer even recognizes divorce. They said that today, only death can dissolve marriage. But is this true?
Admittedly, divorce is a huge problem in modern society. About 40 to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Among those who live together before marriage, the risk is much higher: more like 70%. The more sexual partners one has had, the higher the divorce rate. However, for Christians who come as virgins into marriage, and who continue to faithfully attend church, the divorce rate is as low as 5 to 7%. Of course, the modern church is very different from this, as cohabitation is usually as common there as in the world.
It's easy to point a Pharisaical finger at the world and say, "it's your own fault!" But that's never the attitude of Christ, or of the early church, to those in the pain of broken homes.
The fact is that the church is full of broken homes.
There are seriously hurting men, women and children in the church, who need ministry.
They are abused, wounded, broken and bleeding. If the church is truly what she claims to be, she must first of all find a way to fully include these people, and help them find wholeness. Otherwise, the church is nothing more than an exclusive culture-based club, completely irrelevant to the lost around her.
But really, how much higher is the divorce rate today in America, than it was in the first century?
In Rome, divorce was extremely easy to get, and was very common. It was said by a writer of that time that many got divorced yearly. Add to this the fact that Roman law required every man to remarry within a year after divorce, or risk losing half of his assets to his neighbor who reported his single status! The early church would have faced much the same divorce-and-remarriage rates as we have today, if not far higher rates.
In Judea, divorce was easily obtained and even recommended by the Pharisees, depending on the situation. Reasons to divorce ranged from burnt toast to barrenness. (The first commandment given to Adam was to be fruitful and multiply, so among the Pharisees, if a couple was childless there was a good bit of pressure to discard the barren wife and take another.)
The Pharisees asked Jesus His opinion on divorce. "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any reason?"
Culturally, this was a widely understood position: "any reason" would do for the followers of long-dead Rabbi Hillel. But for the school of Shammai, the Law only gave permission for divorce on grounds of sexual immorality.
So, what DID the Law say about divorce?
First of all, the Law allowed for women to sue for divorce on the basis of neglect and abuse.
A well-known principle of the Law is that any commandment given to any class of people applied to that social class and all above it.
For instance, a law given to the King didn't really apply to anyone else.
But a law given to judges applied to kings... but not to the common man.
Laws given to the common man applied to everyone, up to the king himself.
Now, the lowest social class of all is the slave. And the lowest of all the slaves is... the first slave wife, who has been replaced by a younger wife. In all other societies of that day, such an unfortunate woman would find her provisions much reduced and her workload greatly increased. But not under God's Law.
God cared so much for women, and especially for abused, hurting women, that He gave a law. And this law extended even to the lowest of the lowest slave woman. The aging slave wife.
Now, in the year of Jubilee, slaves had to be set free. But God knew hard-hearted men would use this to get rid of unwanted slave wives. So He prohibited it.
But God went a step further.
God went so far as to grant the power of divorce in this situation, only to the wife.
Exodus 21:10 "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."
Jewish tradition tells us this passage has always been enforced in this manner: The wife who was no longer treated as she was formerly, made her way to the gates of the city, and approached the judges with her plea. The judges would call the man to the stand, and force him to sign divorce papers, which set that wife completely free.
Jewish tradition also tells us that this law was seen as applying to every wife in Israel, if she found herself abused or neglected. After all, a law applies to the class spoken to, and every class above it!
And this makes perfect logical sense.
The compassionate God who authored Deuteronomy 24, allowing a woman to remarry after divorce, cares equally for women who are abused or neglected.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says,
1 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.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Notice, God does not prohibit divorce. Why would He not prohibit it, if he hates it?
Jesus said God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts.
This is God's mercy for women.
If a husband hates his wife, it would be a very bad situation for her to remain in his home. God permitted husbands to divorce, but divorce only happens when a hard heart is involved.
In verse 2, God specifically gave permission for a divorced woman to remarry. Why would He do that, if He sees all divorce and remarriage as adultery? Answer: He doesn't.
Why then did Jesus say, in Luke 16:17
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
Notice, He FIRST says clearly that not one tiny mark of the Law will fail... and then immediately follows that up with "whosoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery"!
On the surface, those two statements seem opposed to each other.
If God no longer allows divorce and remarriage, then has not the Law failed to measure up?
What Jesus was talking about is more evident in the Greek, than in English.
In the Greek, the word translated "and" can often mean "in order to."
This is seen in the following references:
Matthew 11:29 "take my yoke upon you and (in order to) learn of me."
Matthew 13:49 "the angels shall come forth and (in order to) sever the wicked from the just."
Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore and (in order to) teach all nations..."
This would transform what Jesus said. "Whoever puts away his wife in order to marry another...!"
Which then makes Christ's teachings completely mirror all the rest of Scripture.
This was the context of the conversation; the Pharisees were looking for excuses to put away their wives, in order to take other wives. And as He always did, Jesus pointed out the root problem: their sinful heart condition. They were looking on women, lusting after them, committing adultery in their hearts. And they were divorcing their wives over the smallest things... why? Their hearts were hard.
And in this context, such a divorce and remarriage was adulterous in its very conception.
But what about "whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery"?
Obviously, Jesus was in a conversation. And when we are in a conversation, we don't have to outline all the contingencies. Some things are just understood, without having to be said.
Even those who say "divorce and remarriage are always sin" will, if pressed, agree to certain conditions they don't outline in their strong statement. For instance, if a divorced person's partner dies, is it sin for the surviving divorced partner to remarry? Of course not. How about if the marriage was incestuous? Would not that divorce be required, by God's moral law? Of course.
Therefore, certain things do not have to be outlined, when making a strong statement... and when Jesus was talking in the first century, He did not have to outline the exceptions every time.
Everyone knew He was talking in the context of Pharisee divorce culture.
He was not dismantling the Law. He made that very clear.
Notice that Jesus DID allow for divorce and remarriage, in certain situations.
Matthew 19:9 says clearly, "except it be for fornication."
Now, many have attempted to force this into a "meaning in the Greek" that no serious Greek scholar believes is there. They say, "this only means if she's found unfaithful before marriage."
But the Greek word there is not properly translated "fornication". The word is "porneia" and means sexual sin. The meaning is actually quite broad, and applies to all manner of sins, from pornography to whoredom, to bestiality and other perversions. It's all in that word "porneia."
So, Jesus says, "whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for porneia, and shall marry another, committeth adultery."
Obviously, then, "whosoever shall put away his wife, in the case of porneia, and shall marry another, does NOT commit adultery!"
Remember, one verse must never be used to negate the whole counsel of the rest of Scripture.
If one verse seems to contradict the rest of Scripture, the problem lies in our understanding of that one verse. Not in the rest of Scripture.
Seriously consider, did Jesus ever turn an abomination of the Old Testament into a commandment of the new?
Of course not.
That would be destroying the Law.
Jesus said very pointedly, "I did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets!"
Now, look at the abomination of Deuteronomy 24:4.
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Why do some churches command this?
The reason they do, is because they have a very wrong idea of what Jesus was doing. They think the very moral structure of the Old Covenant was so faulty that Jesus came to give us a "higher, better" standard.
That's true in a way... as long as your standard is "love."
Because Love is the fulfilling of the law.
But if that "standard" makes a list of commandments that contradict the very moral law of God revealed in the Old Testament, then that "standard" is nothing but another law.
In fact, it would equate to the Pharisees' laws of Jesus day.
But what about what Paul said in Romans 7:1-3?
1 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 liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Look carefully at that first verse.
Notice, Paul is speaking to those who know the Law.
He's using something in the Law as an example of a spiritual truth in the New Covenant.
He's specifically talking about marriage dissolving in death, as an example of how our death in sin makes us free from the Law: free to marry Christ.
Paul basis his discussion on what the Law says. And he appeals to those who know the Law.
Would he then turn around and contradict what the Law says in Deut 24:1,2?
Of course not.
He wasn't talking about divorce. It's not part of his discussion here.
Therefore, it's abusing Scripture to use Romans 7:1-3 to say divorce and remarriage is sin.
Paul was not saying that.
He was only using dissolution-of-marriage-upon-death as an example of a New Testament truth.
And that's all.
But what did Paul teach about divorce and remarriage to the New Testament church?
Remember, the early church was dealing with a LOT of divorce and remarriage cases, due to the pro-divorce culture! Why don't we read anything in the Epistles about how to handle those difficult cases?
But we do. It's there, and it's easy to see, if our cultural blinders are off.
We'll go there in the next post.
Stay tuned!
Admittedly, divorce is a huge problem in modern society. About 40 to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Among those who live together before marriage, the risk is much higher: more like 70%. The more sexual partners one has had, the higher the divorce rate. However, for Christians who come as virgins into marriage, and who continue to faithfully attend church, the divorce rate is as low as 5 to 7%. Of course, the modern church is very different from this, as cohabitation is usually as common there as in the world.
It's easy to point a Pharisaical finger at the world and say, "it's your own fault!" But that's never the attitude of Christ, or of the early church, to those in the pain of broken homes.
The fact is that the church is full of broken homes.
There are seriously hurting men, women and children in the church, who need ministry.
They are abused, wounded, broken and bleeding. If the church is truly what she claims to be, she must first of all find a way to fully include these people, and help them find wholeness. Otherwise, the church is nothing more than an exclusive culture-based club, completely irrelevant to the lost around her.
But really, how much higher is the divorce rate today in America, than it was in the first century?
In Rome, divorce was extremely easy to get, and was very common. It was said by a writer of that time that many got divorced yearly. Add to this the fact that Roman law required every man to remarry within a year after divorce, or risk losing half of his assets to his neighbor who reported his single status! The early church would have faced much the same divorce-and-remarriage rates as we have today, if not far higher rates.
In Judea, divorce was easily obtained and even recommended by the Pharisees, depending on the situation. Reasons to divorce ranged from burnt toast to barrenness. (The first commandment given to Adam was to be fruitful and multiply, so among the Pharisees, if a couple was childless there was a good bit of pressure to discard the barren wife and take another.)
The Pharisees asked Jesus His opinion on divorce. "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any reason?"
Culturally, this was a widely understood position: "any reason" would do for the followers of long-dead Rabbi Hillel. But for the school of Shammai, the Law only gave permission for divorce on grounds of sexual immorality.
So, what DID the Law say about divorce?
First of all, the Law allowed for women to sue for divorce on the basis of neglect and abuse.
A well-known principle of the Law is that any commandment given to any class of people applied to that social class and all above it.
For instance, a law given to the King didn't really apply to anyone else.
But a law given to judges applied to kings... but not to the common man.
Laws given to the common man applied to everyone, up to the king himself.
Now, the lowest social class of all is the slave. And the lowest of all the slaves is... the first slave wife, who has been replaced by a younger wife. In all other societies of that day, such an unfortunate woman would find her provisions much reduced and her workload greatly increased. But not under God's Law.
God cared so much for women, and especially for abused, hurting women, that He gave a law. And this law extended even to the lowest of the lowest slave woman. The aging slave wife.
Now, in the year of Jubilee, slaves had to be set free. But God knew hard-hearted men would use this to get rid of unwanted slave wives. So He prohibited it.
But God went a step further.
God went so far as to grant the power of divorce in this situation, only to the wife.
Exodus 21:10 "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."
Jewish tradition tells us this passage has always been enforced in this manner: The wife who was no longer treated as she was formerly, made her way to the gates of the city, and approached the judges with her plea. The judges would call the man to the stand, and force him to sign divorce papers, which set that wife completely free.
Jewish tradition also tells us that this law was seen as applying to every wife in Israel, if she found herself abused or neglected. After all, a law applies to the class spoken to, and every class above it!
And this makes perfect logical sense.
The compassionate God who authored Deuteronomy 24, allowing a woman to remarry after divorce, cares equally for women who are abused or neglected.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says,
1 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.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Notice, God does not prohibit divorce. Why would He not prohibit it, if he hates it?
Jesus said God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts.
This is God's mercy for women.
If a husband hates his wife, it would be a very bad situation for her to remain in his home. God permitted husbands to divorce, but divorce only happens when a hard heart is involved.
In verse 2, God specifically gave permission for a divorced woman to remarry. Why would He do that, if He sees all divorce and remarriage as adultery? Answer: He doesn't.
Why then did Jesus say, in Luke 16:17
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
Notice, He FIRST says clearly that not one tiny mark of the Law will fail... and then immediately follows that up with "whosoever puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery"!
On the surface, those two statements seem opposed to each other.
If God no longer allows divorce and remarriage, then has not the Law failed to measure up?
What Jesus was talking about is more evident in the Greek, than in English.
In the Greek, the word translated "and" can often mean "in order to."
This is seen in the following references:
Matthew 11:29 "take my yoke upon you and (in order to) learn of me."
Matthew 13:49 "the angels shall come forth and (in order to) sever the wicked from the just."
Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore and (in order to) teach all nations..."
This would transform what Jesus said. "Whoever puts away his wife in order to marry another...!"
Which then makes Christ's teachings completely mirror all the rest of Scripture.
This was the context of the conversation; the Pharisees were looking for excuses to put away their wives, in order to take other wives. And as He always did, Jesus pointed out the root problem: their sinful heart condition. They were looking on women, lusting after them, committing adultery in their hearts. And they were divorcing their wives over the smallest things... why? Their hearts were hard.
And in this context, such a divorce and remarriage was adulterous in its very conception.
But what about "whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery"?
Obviously, Jesus was in a conversation. And when we are in a conversation, we don't have to outline all the contingencies. Some things are just understood, without having to be said.
Even those who say "divorce and remarriage are always sin" will, if pressed, agree to certain conditions they don't outline in their strong statement. For instance, if a divorced person's partner dies, is it sin for the surviving divorced partner to remarry? Of course not. How about if the marriage was incestuous? Would not that divorce be required, by God's moral law? Of course.
Therefore, certain things do not have to be outlined, when making a strong statement... and when Jesus was talking in the first century, He did not have to outline the exceptions every time.
Everyone knew He was talking in the context of Pharisee divorce culture.
He was not dismantling the Law. He made that very clear.
Notice that Jesus DID allow for divorce and remarriage, in certain situations.
Matthew 19:9 says clearly, "except it be for fornication."
Now, many have attempted to force this into a "meaning in the Greek" that no serious Greek scholar believes is there. They say, "this only means if she's found unfaithful before marriage."
But the Greek word there is not properly translated "fornication". The word is "porneia" and means sexual sin. The meaning is actually quite broad, and applies to all manner of sins, from pornography to whoredom, to bestiality and other perversions. It's all in that word "porneia."
So, Jesus says, "whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for porneia, and shall marry another, committeth adultery."
Obviously, then, "whosoever shall put away his wife, in the case of porneia, and shall marry another, does NOT commit adultery!"
Remember, one verse must never be used to negate the whole counsel of the rest of Scripture.
If one verse seems to contradict the rest of Scripture, the problem lies in our understanding of that one verse. Not in the rest of Scripture.
Seriously consider, did Jesus ever turn an abomination of the Old Testament into a commandment of the new?
Of course not.
That would be destroying the Law.
Jesus said very pointedly, "I did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets!"
Now, look at the abomination of Deuteronomy 24:4.
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Why do some churches command this?
The reason they do, is because they have a very wrong idea of what Jesus was doing. They think the very moral structure of the Old Covenant was so faulty that Jesus came to give us a "higher, better" standard.
That's true in a way... as long as your standard is "love."
Because Love is the fulfilling of the law.
But if that "standard" makes a list of commandments that contradict the very moral law of God revealed in the Old Testament, then that "standard" is nothing but another law.
In fact, it would equate to the Pharisees' laws of Jesus day.
But what about what Paul said in Romans 7:1-3?
1 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 liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Look carefully at that first verse.
Notice, Paul is speaking to those who know the Law.
He's using something in the Law as an example of a spiritual truth in the New Covenant.
He's specifically talking about marriage dissolving in death, as an example of how our death in sin makes us free from the Law: free to marry Christ.
Paul basis his discussion on what the Law says. And he appeals to those who know the Law.
Would he then turn around and contradict what the Law says in Deut 24:1,2?
Of course not.
He wasn't talking about divorce. It's not part of his discussion here.
Therefore, it's abusing Scripture to use Romans 7:1-3 to say divorce and remarriage is sin.
Paul was not saying that.
He was only using dissolution-of-marriage-upon-death as an example of a New Testament truth.
And that's all.
But what did Paul teach about divorce and remarriage to the New Testament church?
Remember, the early church was dealing with a LOT of divorce and remarriage cases, due to the pro-divorce culture! Why don't we read anything in the Epistles about how to handle those difficult cases?
But we do. It's there, and it's easy to see, if our cultural blinders are off.
We'll go there in the next post.
Stay tuned!
Comments
Post a Comment