Here's my interpretation of Christ's teaching on divorce. You guys tell me if you think it's plausible. Let's look at all the biblical data I'm going to try to explain, and then I'll give you my synthesis of it.

 

1) Christ, per some gospel texts (at least one occurrence in Luke), says that those who put away their spouses and marry again commit adultery.

 

2) In other gospel texts (two occurrences in Matthew), Christ says if a husband puts away his wife for any cause other than fornication and remarries, he commits adultery.

 

3) Hosea the prophet was told by God to put away his adulterous wife, which also symbolized the fact that God was divorcing Israel for their idolatry, which was likened by God to adultery.

 

4) And Christ said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law OR PROPHETS until heaven and earth passed away (i.e., until all was fulfilled).

 

5) Christ, in Matthew 19. said that from the beginning, divorce was not provided for, and that Moses allowed it for the hardness of heart. This chapter follows immediately Matthew's account of a parable where Christ says he who does not forgive will not be forgiven.

 

6) Paul claims that the Lord (I assume he's referring to Christ's teachings) commands that believers remain married, and that if they are separated, to remain separated AND unmarried until they can be reconciled TO ONE ANOTHER.

 

7) Paul adds a new piece of information that Christ did not address--that if an unbelieving spouse wishes to leave, let them leave as we are called unto PEACE.

 

8) Paul claims that we are bound to our spouses by, for one thing, the duty to render due benevolence to one another lest we be tempted to commit fornication. He even advised those who had no such "burning" to remain single because of an "imminent distress" that he believed would cause complications for married people. This seems to be not so much of a moral adivsory as one that was quite practical. It may have been the same thing that Christ alluded to when he said that many "make themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of God" when his disciples said it was unprofitable to marry if the only "out" was fornication. I.e., Christ may have been agreeing with Paul's point that those who do not "burn" might very well be better off to remain single because of the extra problems that marriage can result in under certain kinds of tribulations that can be experienced.

 

OK, how do we synthesize all this. In the first place, the fact that Paul says he is adding teaching that Christ did not provide makes it seems reasonable to suppose that Christ was not trying to be exhaustive in his teaching about divorce. In specific, much of Christ's doctrine was given as corrections to the false teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. So here's my synthesis, which I think reasonably reconciles all the passages.

 

First, 7) and 3) are related. An unbelieving spouse who wants to leave may do so. But a spouse who is an habitual adulterer/fornicator, as Hosea's wife was, has practically the same implications, for both Christ and Paul seem to teach that habitual fornicators/adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God, as their lifestyle is compelling evidence that they have no true heart belief. The one caveat to this is Paul's claim, in 1 Cor. 5, that God's corrective discipline may result in death. But in any case, this latter would imply that a believer could not live INDEFINITELY in a state of habitual fornication/adultery. Paul even says that God will judge us if we don't judge ourselves LEST we be condemned with the world (1 Cor. 11). Thus, once a believer is convinced that his/her spouse is unbelieving, by word and/or life-style, and has no intentions of living in a peaceful marital state, the marriage is not binding.

 

This leaves to us the explanation of how to reconcile the more absolute sounding words of Christ with his seeming conditional ones. On the one hand Christ says divorce was not provided from the beginning and that Moses provided for it for the hardness of heart. On the other hand, he talks about the single case of fornication as grounds for divorce. The way to reconcile these is to see the contexts of the cases where Christ mentions the "cause" of fornication. The first is the Sermon where he is re-affirming the law and the prophets by contrasting his interpretation of them to that of the scribes and pharisees. The second is Matt. 19, right after his lesson about forgiving to BE forgiven.

 

These can be reconciled with each other and the other more absolute sounding passages as follows. Paul tells us to restore those that are overtaken in an offense with meekness CONSIDERING OURSELVES lest we also be tempted. The clear implication of this is that we are to forgive our spouses of adultery if that adultery is not an act of habitual fornication, as was that of Hosea's wife. For in that latter case, they weren't overtaken in an offense. Rather, they were doing it with no regard for right-relating.

 

Therefore, the context of Matthew 19 right after the lesson about forgiveness seems to be this:

 

Divorce was not provided for from the beginning. But for two professing believers in the Torah, Moses allowed divorce for the ONE specific cause of adultery, even when that adultery was a case of being "overtaken in sin", on account of the hardness of heart of the offended spouse. IOW, insomuch as the Torah was a CIVIL law for a society, allowances were provided so that in cases where there could only be a LESSER of evils, the lesser evil was permitted. Rember, if there were 2 or 3 witnesses to adultery, the option to divorce over the adultery wouldn't even have existed. This allowance for hardness of heart was given for a case where only the divorcing spouse had evidence of the adultery. There was no way to prove, with appropriate due process, who was right. But Christ is telling us that NO SUCH hardness of heart is tolerated for his disciples. We are to FORGIVE our spouses in such cases. Only when the adultery is analogous to that of Hosea's wife, where it is evidence of unbelief, can adultery be grounds for divorce for married believers. Indeed, Christ is claiming that his teaching on this matter was the very intent of Moses from the get-go. The Torah golden rule ENTAILS the duty to forgive, insomuchas we wish to be forgiven.

 

So, in conclusion, when Christ speaks absolutely, he is meaning just what Paul says he means--that believers are NOT be be divorced under any circumstances. We are to FORGIVE! When he speaks of the exception of fornication, he is explaining what always was the ONLY grounds of divorce that Moses addressed, and that even that case was for the hardness of heart as a provision for a lesser of evils.

 

Of course, none of this even addresses physical abuse or such. These fall under the Hosea case. Habitual physical abusers will not inherit the kingdom of God and are, thus, covered under the unbelieving spouse case of being called UNTO PEACE. In short, when contextual intent is considered, all these passages are reconcilable in a plausible, coherent manner, to my mind. It simply involves a distinction between sinful behavior that is consistent with true heart belief, and which is therefore no ground for divorce, and that which is not.

---

 

Post Edited (Similtude) : 9/26/2008 12:51:43 PM (GMT-5)

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am."

 

It simply involves a distinction between sinful behavior that is consistent with true heart belief, and which is therefore no ground for divorce because of our duty to forgive, and that behavior which is NEITHER consistent with true heart belief NOR that peace unto which we are called. For if the unbelieving spouse is willing to live in that peace unto which we are called, their unbelief, per se, is no grounds for divorce.

These considerations require judgment on the part of each of us, as only general principles are provided, if I'm right in my understanding. There is no hard fast rule we can apply in every circumstance. We have to do the best we can in faith, doing that which we are fully persuaded in.

---

 

Post Edited (Similtude) : 9/26/2008 4:34:57 PM (GMT-5)

 

That being said... I understand remarriage happens, and I'm not condemning that in those cases that BOTH person's hearts have become hardened toward their first spouse. But I don't see how the hardening of one's heart toward another is ever God's will. But where it has already happened, I believe God would prefer THEN that we learn to un-harden in relation to another. So, as a conciliation, I believe God will bless a subsequent marriage, but more beautiful than that is when one chooses by faith to remain unhardened in the face of grievous marital offense.

Post Edited (Corey) : 9/27/2008 9:55:49 AM (GMT-5)

 

Yes, of course, separate from the jerk. Yes, of course, make yourself and and your kids safe! But.... this is not grounds for the hardening of your heart toward that abuser. You should love them from afar, but you should love them. This doesn't not release you from your vow of faithfulness.

 

Straight up.

I just praise God that my ex-wife and I are still alive.

Yeah...

God calls us to peace and sanity.

 

Does God LIKE divorce or want divorce?  Of course not. 

 

Does God deal with our broken realities, forming what he can our of the shards of our lives?  Sure.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am."

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am."

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am."

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am."

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am."

 

That being said... I understand remarriage happens, and I'm not condemning that in those cases that BOTH person's hearts have become hardened toward their first spouse. But I don't see how the hardening of one's heart toward another is ever God's will. But where it has already happened, I believe God would prefer THEN that we learn to un-harden in relation to another. So, as a conciliation, I believe God will bless a subsequent marriage, but more beautiful than that is when one chooses by faith to remain unhardened in the face of grievous marital offense.

 

Jeff: I think D has addressed the principle of my response. Just because a divorce occurs, that doesn't mean that the couple can justly harden their hearts to one another. For we are still NEIGHBORS. But in the same way that a believer's behavior can merit the cessation of certain types of fellowship with the local church, so too can a lack of a certain kind of peace merit a divorce or separation. None of this has anything to do with a hardening of the heart or an absolute lack of forgiveness. Hosea could have (and probably did) forgive his adulterous wife, but he committed no wrong in putting her away. His duty to render due benevolence was mute as she was getting those needs met independent of him. And those very relationships may have threatened the very physical health of both spouses.

 

Corey: You KNOW this to be true? I don't. And then to use this as a justification for hardening of one's heart... come on!

 

Jeff: We have to make judgments. I could say, if I was willing to be ludicrous, that all living humans are believers, and that those who deny that are just lying, but that believers CAN lie. All people have to make this judgement for themselves with the aid of scriptural statements about divine discipline, etc. That is what I mean when I say that what we are given is principles. We have to use judgment in discerning how to apply those principles. My particular judgment is that physical abusers and fornicators who show no remorse and evidence no visible discipline of the kinds scripture tells us God visits upon His own disobedient children ARE unbelievers. I could be dead wrong. I'm just making my own judgment on that matter. You have to make yours. Though we probably both agree that my ludicrous example above is, indeed, ludicrous. Though it truly is a logical possibility if we want to stretch the scriptural language to absurd lengths.

 

As for your dedication to your wife, I think that truly IS a beautiful thing. Paul does NOT say that allowing an unbeliever to go is equivalent to an allowance for re-marriage--that's true. But since he had just got through saying that believing spouses could NOT remarry if they had separated, the fact that the subject about allowing the unbeliever to go is brought up as a SEPARATE case, unaddressed by Christ, it may have a contextual implication that remarriage is allowed in that case. I"m not arguing hard and fast one way or the other. I just think it's a plausible logical possibility, given the case with Hosea. But I think waiting for reconcilation even in those cases is most definitely a beautiful thing. Because it may very well happen. And why not give it every chance when children are involed as well? And for believers, it's downright imperative, per Paul (and seemingly, Christ).

 

 

 

 

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am."