BIBLE
DIGEST - Number 42 March
1994
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
SORTING OUT THE CONFUSION OF THE
MANY CONFLICTING THEORIES
By Allon Maxwell
|
Over the years
I have read extensively on this subject. It has been revealing to discover
the vast body of literature which exists, promoting many diverse opinions,
each of which clamours for our attention as though it was the ONLY ONE worth
considering! All have the
backing of "experts" and all claim that they present
incontrovertible evidence, appealing to the Greek and Hebrew, to history, to
the support of other "experts" with BIG NAMES, or to the author's
recognition for superior scholastic ability, etc., etc. This is not a
subject about which any of us can afford to remain neutral. When we are
confronted with them, these theories require us to make a choice. We must
either accept or reject them. In the case of
what has now become the majority view, our choice will decide whether or not
we condone what Jesus calls ADULTERY. THE MAJOR
THEORIES In their book
"Jesus and Divorce", (Hodder and Stoughton 1984), Heth and Wenham
identify no less than SEVEN major theories found in the literature of our
times. They also mention briefly an eighth which, although not
"major", needs to be noticed. Each of these
eight theories is briefly described below. The information gleaned from Heth
and Wenham is augmented from many other sources encountered over the years. In presenting
this summary we are not indicating approval for all of the views described.
Indeed, just in case some of my readers accuse me of bias, I plead guilty
now! I do have a
personal bias in favour of one. Before this paper is finished that bias is
certain to show! 1. THE EARLY
CHURCH VIEW This is the
view which is virtually unanimous amongst the writers of the first five
centuries of the church. It prevails in the Roman Catholic church to the
present time. It was written
into the Canon Law of the Anglican Church in the 17th Century and upheld
until perhaps a generation ago but is now virtually abandoned in those
circles. It was also
widely held amongst the Anabaptists of the "Radical Reformation". Briefly stated
that view is: a)
Church approval
could be given for separation, only on the ground of adultery, and with no
right to remarriage. b)
Annulment
(divorce under another name) could be approved, with the right to remarry,
for premarital unchastity, prohibited degrees of blood relationship, marriage
under duress, etc., etc.. 2. THE
"ERASMIAN" (REFORMED) VIEW This theory was
introduced to the Church by Erasmus in the 16th century, and was quickly
adopted by Luther, Calvin, and other reformers responsible for the
development of the Protestant Church. The
"Reformed View" is probably best stated in the Westminster
Confession of Faith, adopted by the Scottish Reformed Churches. It permits
divorce and remarriage for adultery, and also for desertion of a Christian
partner by an unbeliever. In the case of
adultery, this permission is justified by adopting Luther's "legal
fiction" that since the Biblical penalty for adultery is death,
the "innocent party" is free to act as though the adulterer is
actually dead! Although this
view has been fiercely defended by the Reformed Churches since the 16th
century, there are clear signs that the winds of change are blowing. There
are now "Reformed" writers who are openly following the lead of the
vast majority of other evangelicals. In our generation the Erasmian theory has been "developed" and
"refined" far beyond anything intended by the reformers. Hearts
gradually became harder and consciences more elastic, until ways were found
to justify remarriage on virtually any and every ground. Now
"scholars" seem to be able to "prove" that it is NEVER
adultery to remarry, and that Jesus did not really mean to say that it was! For example,
sometimes deserters are regarded as deserving of the same penalty as
adulterers for their cruel treatment of their spouses. They are therefore
"legally" dead. In another
version, the act of desertion "proves" that Christians who abandon
their spouses may be regarded as unbelievers, thus granting freedom to
exercise the so called "Pauline Privilege". Yet another
theory invents the concept of the "innocent party" who has been the
victim of a "guilty" spouse. The "innocent party" is
granted freedom to remarry, regardless of whether or not the erring spouse is
a "believer". Other
rationalisations for adultery by remarriage include "The Passive
Adultery Theory", (see Bible Digest No. 35), or "The Divorced
Virgins Theory" (see Bible Digest No. 34) There are many
other variations not mentioned here. The diversity of what men with
hard hearts have managed to build around those few plain words of
Jesus, seems almost endless. 3. THE
"BETROTHAL" VIEW This view is
really the early church view, dressed up in a slightly different way. It says
that the only possible meaning of the "exceptive clause", in which
Jesus permits divorce for "unchastity", is premarital sexual sin by
the woman with another party, discovered during the betrothal period or at
the very beginning of the marriage. (And not
withstanding those many modern Greek "experts" who say that in
Greek, the meaning of "unchastity" includes "adultery",
Heth and Wenham mention several authorities who say that in the exceptive
clause it does not.) Adultery is not
included in the exception because it can only occur AFTER a marriage has been
joined by God. Therefore adultery can never be a ground for men to undo what
God has joined. Since it is
assumed that in the case of unchastity, men are separating what God has NOT
joined, most exponents of this theory grant the right to remarry, as though
no former marriage had ever taken place. It is usually
recognised that continuing unrepented adultery will almost certainly lead to
estrangement and unavoidable separation. It is also recognised that in other
circumstances beyond their control, a Christian may be deserted by an
unbeliever. However, in these cases, the Christian has only two
options during the lifetime of their spouse "Remain
unmarried or else be reconciled ". 4. THE
"UNLAWFUL MARRIAGE" THEORY In this case
the only marriages which may be undone by men are those contracted
unlawfully. It is usually claimed that "unchastity" refers to Leviticus 21, which describes unlawful sexual
relationships within the prohibited degrees of blood or marriage
relationship. A new marriage is permitted on the grounds that the first was
never valid in the sight of God. 5. THE
"PRETERITIVE" VIEW This theory
claims that the exceptive clause should be translated something like: i.e. What Moses
said has no bearing at all on what Jesus is NOW SAYING to those who will hear
what God intended "from the beginning". This view does
not allow for divorce on any ground at all after a valid marriage, or for
remarriage, under any circumstance short of the death of one of the partners
to the marriage. 6. "THE
TRADITIO- HISTORICAL" THEORY This view
insists that the exceptive clause was not actually spoken by Jesus. It is
claimed that it was added to Matthew's Gospel at a later date to accommodate
the practice of a church for whom the words of Jesus were too absolute! Divorce and
remarriage are not permitted at all. (This view of
the exceptive clause is certainly not supported by the history of the early
church. We merely record it to note that it does exist and that there are
strong opinions which support it.) 7. THE "NO
FURTHER RELATIONS" VIEW This view
insists that adultery breaks and defiles the "one flesh"
relationship, thus making divorce MANDATORY, without any scope EVER, for
forgiveness, reconciliation and resumption of the marriage. The
"innocent" partner must remain single during the lifetime of the
"guilty" one. 8. THE
"INCLUSIVE" VIEW This theory
regards "unchastity" as being specifically INCLUDED amongst all the
other grounds for divorce which Jesus rejected. i.e. the translation of the
exceptive clause is held to be "NOT EVEN FOR UNCHASTITY" (There are
of course Greek "experts" willing to say that this is the only
possible translation!) 9. OTHER VIEWS We have by no
means exhausted the list! In different churches, places, cultures, and times,
there is tremendous variation within these categories. There is also a
wide variety of other minority opinion outside these categories. CONFUSION! As we study the
"evidence" for those competing theories, we are faced with
confusion. One thing
becomes obvious very quickly. They cannot all be right! Nor can it be true
that Jesus meant to accommodate all the contradictions presented by the
various contenders. However it is
worth noting that ONLY ONE of the above views permits remarriage after
divorce for adultery or desertion. Even though that one, in one form or
another, does now represent the majority view, it constitutes a radical
departure from the practice of the early Church. The awkward
feature of this view is that it so readily dismisses the early church
teaching as irrelevant. The implication now is that all those who paid the
high price of obedience to the literal words of Jesus, were either the
victims of a tragic mistake, or worse still, legalistic heretics! SORTING OUT THE
CONFUSION With the
divorce rate in Australia approaching 40%, sooner or later all of us will be
confronted by circumstances in which we will have to decide whether we stand
in the lonely place with Jesus, or whether we travel the broad road of
conformity with the vast majority who condone what Jesus calls adultery. How do laymen
with no "higher education" in theology decide which
"expert" is telling us the truth? Or indeed, whether ANY of them
are. For a start, I
DO NOT recommend that you rush out to buy all the books that I have read. The
wise man was right! (Ecclesiastes 12:12). In any case,
most of those on my bookshelf are now out of print! If our answer depends on
our access to out of print books, what hope do we have? As laymen we
must find a better way to evaluate the "experts" and choose between
their many different and confusing theories. We must find that way, without
knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, and without scholastic credentials! PRAISE GOD
THERE IS A SIMPLE WAY available to us all! WE CAN ASK GOD
TO HELP US! (His book is not yet out of print!) And God does
guarantee to give wisdom generously to those who ask in faith, without
doubting. (James 1:5-6). We need
nothing more than our Bible and a God who is willing to honour His promise to
reveal Himself to us. THE BIBLICAL
VIEW I have asked
God for the answer. I have prayed as honestly as I know how. I do not say
this to impress you or to ask you to receive me without challenge, as yet
another "expert", with yet another different view. Rather, I want
to encourage you also to deal with God yourself. To do that you
must say your own prayers and read the Bible yourself. However, I can
share with you that when I prayed and opened my heart to the words of Jesus,
this is what I found: 1.
"A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
his wife, and the two shall 2.
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery". 3.
"If (a wife) divorces her husband and marries another, she
commits adultery". 4.
"He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits
adultery". 5.
Moses wrote a commandment from
which the HARD OF HEART took licence for divorce, "but from
the beginning it was not so". (Matthew
19:8). 6.
"A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives".
(1 Corinthians 7:39)
And of course, if the wife is bound, then so is the husband! 7.
"If her husband dies, she is free to be married".
(1 Corinthians 7:39).
This must also mean that a husband also is not free to marry again, until his
wife's death dissolves the marriage. 8.
A wife should not separate from
her husband, but "if she does let her remain single or else be reconciled to
her husband". (1
Corinthians 7:10-11). 9.
"If any brother
has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should
not divorce her ..... but if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let
it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound ".
(1 Corinthians 7:12-15).
The same applies to wives. 10. "Except for
fornication" (Matthew
5:32 & Matthew 19:9). In Matthew's
Gospel the teaching of Jesus does contain ONE exception. This exception
was not known to those who had access only to Mark's or Luke's gospels! (Note
also that Luke records the Gospel as he must have heard it preached by Paul
many times!) In Mark and
Luke, Jesus ABSOLUTELY prohibits divorce, with NO EXCEPTION AT ALL. Mark and
Matthew both say that once God has joined a marriage, men may not separate
it. This means that
the exception cannot not refer to any ground that might arise AFTER God has
bound the two into one. Since ADULTERY
is a sin which takes place AFTER God has joined a marriage, it cannot be
included in the exception. If that is so,
then the sexual sin encompassed by the exception, must refer to something
which arises BEFORE a "marriage" is joined by God. We are not left
without a "case history" which will help us to understand the
exception. It is
significant that the only Gospel to record the exception is also the only one
to include the story of Joseph and Mary. This is the only New Testament
EXAMPLE of what Jesus might have meant by "fornication" or
"unchastity" as a ground for divorce. It is this case
which defines for us the ground on which a "just man", (Matthew 1:19), as opposed to a hard hearted
one, might divorce his wife (or betrothed wife) without guilt before God. 11. God says
bluntly, "I HATE DIVORCE".
(Malachi 2:16). Who amongst us,
except the hard hearted, would choose to do or condone what God hates? CONCLUSION One major
reason for the growth of the divorce rate in Australia, from almost nil since
the beginning of the century, to 40% now, is that most of the Church has
relaxed its standards to conform with the hard hearted world. It seems that
this is just one more area in which the Church has become ashamed of the
words of Jesus, no longer confessing him before men. This is not
simply a "learned discussion". Nor is it merely a simple
disagreement between Christians with a different OPINION and a different
CONSCIENCE about the subject. It is a
question of whether or not we are guilty of what Jesus calls "hardness
of heart". On the day of
judgement, ADULTERY will not be excused as a simple "difference of
opinion", left to the decision of individuals who approve it in
"good conscience". The
consequences of that are almost too fearful to contemplate |