DOES JESUS ALLOW FOR DIVORCE?

In my Pilgrimage to Princeton, appearing elsewhere in this issue, I referred to a conversation I had with Dr. Bruce Metzger, who was one of my teachers when I attended Princeton 30 years ago. I mentioned that we had discussed one aspect of the divorce question and indicated that I would say more about it in a separate article. I do this because of the interest our readers have in this subject. In recent years we have published three articles about divorce, and the response has been vigorous. Our people are eager to know whatever may be gleaned from Scripture on this issue.

What is presented here may be different from what you have always heard, and I am not asking you to accept my viewpoint (or that of Prof. Metzger), but to consider it as an effort to be honest with the Scriptures involved.

I wanted to lay before my former professor a matter that I had been considering, and to get his reaction. It occurs to me that our Lord’s position on divorce was the opposite of that given by Moses in Deut. 24:1, where a man is allowed to divorce his wife “if she find no favor in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her.” The rabbis had made this law even more liberal, especially the school of Hillel, allowing a man to divorce his wife if she burned his food. Rabbi Akiba saw in “if she find no favor in his eyes” a husband’s right to divorce his wife if he found a better looking woman. The school of Shammai interpreted Moses stricter, insisting that a man may divorce his wife only if he find something indecent in her.

When I say that Jesus’ position was opposite to this I mean that while Moses and the scribes allowed divorce for almost any cause, Jesus allowed divorce for no cause at all, not even for unchastity or fornication. Our own folk in Churches of Christ have made much of the phrase, “except for the cause of fornication,” which appears in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, deducing from this that Jesus allowed for this one exception. This is of course understandable, for that is what Matthew says, but I want to look at this from a different angle. A fresh look is needed when so many of our folk in a troubled marriage are led to look for “a Scriptural reason” for disrupting their union. I’ve known of partners to wait around until their mates commit adultery, either by promiscuity or in a second marriage, so that they as “the innocent party” may marry again.

My position is that it is highly probable that Jesus never gave this as an exception, and that if we are really intent upon following our Lord we will not think of divorce in any circumstance at all, but will accept his principle as final, that “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” When Jesus stated this principle, the Pharisees questioned it, appealing to Moses, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” Jesus replied that from the very beginning God never intended it, that is, divorce, and that Moses allowed it only “for the hardness of your hearts.”

Would it not be strange for Jesus to say all this, rejecting the Mosaic precept on divorce, and then turn right around and allow the very reason that Moses allowed to start with? Moses said, “if he finds some uncleanness in her” he may divorce her by giving her the proper document. The reason, some uncleanness, would surely include sexual unfaithfulness. But Jesus rejects this, insisting that what God has joined in marriage is not to be dissolved, and says that Moses allowed such reasons only because of men’s hard hearts. In other words, the exception given in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 is not all that different to what Moses gave in Deut. 24:1, which Jesus would not accept.

This means that I am questioning the exception given by Matthew. If this is offensive to your view of “inspiration,” I only ask that you hear me out, for I do not reject any Scripture, and I certainly accept Matthew as Scripture. I am only seeking to be honest with all that the Scriptures say. After all, the apostles sometimes spoke on their own, things that Jesus did not say. “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord,” says Paul in 1 Cor. 7:12. But even if Jesus did not say what Paul says in that context, I nonetheless accept it as Scripture and as apostolic. I also accept Matthew’s exception, “except for the cause of fornication,” as Scripture and as apostolic. But I am strongly suspicious that he inserted that exception on his own, and that Jesus never said it.

Mark’s account in chapter 10 strongly indicates that Jesus made no exceptions to his precept on the inviolability of the marriage bond. In fact verses 1-10 indicate that Jesus had already said all that he thought needed to be said on the matter, that a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife, for God has joined them, and no man is to put asunder what God has joined. That was that, and apparently Jesus would have said no more had his disciples not brought the subject up again once they were in the house (verse 10). He then said to them, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

When 1 laid this before Prof. Metzger he agreed that Mark’s omission of the exception given in Matthew almost certainly indicates that he knew nothing of it, and he suggested that Matthew felt free to add it on his own, as an apostle, due to some of the marital problems that had arisen in the church in the intervening years. He went on to say that he had had people insist to him that Mark did know of the exception but just didn’t mention it. We agreed that this view has serious difficulties. Mark supplies details that Matthew does not, such as the disciples questioning Jesus further on divorce once they were alone in the house. If Mark had known that Jesus had approved of a reason for divorce, similar to what Moses had legislated—fornication or moral uncleanness, it defies explanation as to why he did not include it.

It is noteworthy that Luke (16:18) follows Mark. It is generally agreed that Mark was the first to write and that some years later the other two used his work. Neither Mark nor Luke record the exception, while Matthew does. Which do you think correctly represents what Jesus actually said? One has to keep in mind that Matthew has Jesus giving a reason for divorce very similar to what Moses had allowed, while both Matthew and Mark make it clear that Jesus rejected what Moses allowed, insisting that from the beginning divorce (for any reason?) was not God’s intention, and that Moses allowed it (for some reasons) only because of the hardness of men’s hearts.

One cannot very well say, as some of our preachers are wont to do, that by reading both Matthew and Mark one has the full story. Mark did not write with the idea that his readers would also be reading Matthew. Nor did Luke. They were all writing to separate audiences.

I asked the professor how he would explain something like this to a “fundamentalist” whose view of inspiration is such that he can’t bring himself to cope with a problem of this sort. He said that Matthew should be accepted as Scripture, and that when one follows the exception given by Matthew he is following an apostolic precept. But, he went on to observe, if one is interested in following the highest ideal of Jesus in reference to divorce, he would likely find it in Mark’s account.

Looking at this practically, if a brother should come to me with evidence that his wife had committed adultery, I would urge him, in the light of what I see Jesus teaching, to forgive her and not dissolve his marriage. Forgive her seventy times seven, if need be, but don’t disrupt the marital union. Do not put asunder what God has joined together! Love and forgiveness are the highest laws in Jesus’ teaching. I would never divorce Ouida, no matter what sins she committed. I would forgive, forgive, forgive! To die forgiving is a good way to die.

But should a sister come to me with abundant proof of her mate’s infidelity, insisting, that she’s had it and wants out, and there’s no place for forgiveness in her —and she has her finger on Matt. 19:9 as Scriptural authority for what she plans on doing, I would not question her right. She has apostolic authority for her decision, and the church should accept her decision on that basis. But I think we are less than true to the Scriptures if we do not continually hold up as the ideal Jesus’ highest teaching on the preservation of every marriage through love, forbearance, and forgiveness. Circumstances sometimes make it virtually impossible to follow the ideal. It was probably such circumstances that caused Matthew to expand upon what he found in Mark. Since he was an apostle, I do not question his right to do this, just as I don’t question his right to take a lot of Old Testament verses out of their context! My concern is what Jesus actually taught.

Life is such, with all its tragedies, that the ideal often eludes us. Divorce, even if God never intended it, often comes to those who would have it otherwise. Well-meaning people, who would do anything to preserve their marriage, are often the victims of a cruel, debilitating divorce. And often, very often, divorces are perpetrated against all that is good and decent, with those involved flouting the ideals of both God and man. Divorce is nearly always sin, on somebody’s part. .

But that doesn’t mean that it is an unpardonable sin. Jesus accepts sinful man, including the divorced. And when they start over in a new marriage, the church should hold up the ideal. God has made you one, so don’t dissolve the union—not for any reason. If our people entered into marriage with that ideal in view, there would be fewer divorces.—the Editor