Essay 86 (8-13-05)

PROPOSITIONS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

In this essay I borrow a page from Jesuit educational methodology. The Jesuits have a way of subjecting their students to the regimen of defending a proposition before a panel of critics and an attending audience. When I was a professor at Bethany College I was invited to serve on such a panel at nearby Wheeling College. It was a new experience for me, and I was favorably impressed by the method used, an ancient Jesuit practice.

The student was free to set forth any thesis he chose, but he was expected to do so philosophically, which meant responsibly and resourcefully. And he had to defend it before critics. He didn’t have to be right, but he had to be reasonable. He must demonstrate his right to be heard, even when the proposition is suspect and controversial.

I am using that method as I set forth several propositions relative to divorce and remarriage. I grant at the outset that while I believe I am right I might be wrong. Some will disagree with some of the propositions. Such ones may – in good Jesuit fashion – think of themselves as on the panel of critics and thus join in the criticism. I only ask that you hear me out.

The subject of divorce and remarriage seems always to be relevant. While in recent decades there has been more acceptance of the divorced in our churches, there is still need for grace and compassion, along with better understanding of the subject. We still hear the opprobrium "living in adultery" applied to people legally married, and some still insist that one who is divorced for other than "a scriptural reason" is required to be celibate the rest of his life. Some go so far as to say that the divorced (for an unscriptural reason) and remarried cannot come into the church unless they break off the second marriage.

In short, the divorced among us have had a hard time of it. They are among our wounded that we callously shoot. I hope these propositions will help to clear the air, and bring liberty to the oppressed – and to the oppressor.

1. From the beginning God has made marriage indissoluble.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, he asked them what Moses had said. They replied that Moses allowed it, that a man only needed to write his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus replied that Moses allowed for divorce "because of the hardness of your heart." He went on to say, "From the beginning God made them male and female," and so a man is to leave his parents and be joined to his wife, and the two become one flesh.

Jesus then says what I think proves my proposition: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate (Mark 10:9).

This should be our approach to marriage. We should advise our youth that the God of heaven has made marriage inviolable, and that they should not marry unless they intend to stay married – for life! They should enter into matrimony with the understanding that the marital bond is indissoluble – for no reason at all.

This is at least the ideal, and we should think in terms of the ideal. The ideal is sometimes outreached by reality, which brings us to the second proposition.

2. God nevertheless allows divorce, even when he intended it otherwise.

We are to distinguish between God’s intentional will and his circumstantial will. Circumstances arise that make God’s intentional will impossible – or too oppressive – and so his circumstantial will takes over. If one is under the sentence of death with terminal cancer, he cannot do what God intended for his life, but even in the circumstance of a terminal illness God has a will for him. God takes into account changing circumstances.

God himself made an exception to the inviolability of marriage in the time of Ezra. The Israelites had taken foreign wives, which may have been all right had they not been idolaters, which was a threat to the purposes God had for them – "the holy race has mixed itself" (Ezra 9:2) He therefore told them to "put away all these wives and their children" (Ezra 10:2). Ezra was at his wit’s end, wondering what to do, tearing his garments and pulling out his hair. God gave him his answer, which was contrary to his intentional will for all marriages: Divorce.

Both reason and revelation would suggest that there are other circumstances in which God would permit divorce: (1) When a spouse is caught in an oppressive situation, (2) When there is incompatibility in religion – in 1 Cor. 7:15 Paul speaks directly to this; (3) When there is sexual unfaithfulness – Mt. 5:32 and 19:9 names fornication as justification for divorce.

But one may have the right to divorce and choose not to in view of God’s ideal. Some may patiently endure an oppressive relationship to the end, and others may try to preserve a marriage with a disbeliever, who threatens to leave, in spite of Paul’s advice to "let him leave." And some will forgive a wayward spouse – again and again -- rather than destroy a marriage.

3. It appears next to certain that Jesus did not allow for divorce for any reason at all.

If one carefully examines Mark’s account of what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage, he can only conclude that he rejected out of hand Moses’ allowance of divorce, and did not allow for divorce under any circumstance. It is inconceivable that Mark knew of Jesus saying "except for the cause of fornication" -- as Matthew has it -- and did not refer to it.

Matthew has Jesus accepting Moses’ decree – that a man may divorce his wife if she behaves "unseemly" or if she commits fornication. Not so in Mark, and not so in Luke. It is to be noted that after Jesus rejected Moses’ permissiveness – "It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses allowed divorce" – his disciples afterward asked for further information. That is when Mark has Jesus say, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mk. 10:11-12). No exception given.

If Mark knew of the qualifier "except for fornication" he certainly would have included it in this context. This is supported by Luke 16:18 which has it the way Mark has it. That Matthew has Jesus making an exception – and agreeing with Moses’ permissiveness after rejecting it! – poses a problem. Did Matthew – for whatever reason – add "except for fornication" on his own? And is it the case that Jesus allowed for divorce for no reason at all, as Mark and Luke have it?

One time when I was back at Princeton for an alumni gathering, I happened to sit at dinner with Prof. Bruce Metzger, then recognized – and still recognized – as an eminent New Testament scholar. I placed this problem before him. He agreed that Jesus – like his heavenly Father – believed in the indissolubility of marriage, and that he allowed for divorce for no reason at all. Mark, being the first gospel, surely has it right. Luke, with Mark before him, follows Mark’s account, with no knowledge of any exception on Jesus’ part. Matthew, who also had Mark before him, deemed it appropriate to add the qualifying phrase, "except for fornication (or unchastity)" But it is almost certain something Jesus never said.

The professor could only conclude that Matthew – writing later and influenced by the problem of divorce by his time – exercised his apostolic authority and granted a reason for divorce. He did this kind of thing in other instances, such as misapplying (as we would see it) Old Testament passages to events in the life of Jesus, such as "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Mt. 2:15). But he was an apostle and could do what interpreters today should not do!

I told the professor what he already knew, that some people will have a problem with Matthew saying that Jesus said something he did not say, and for there to be this kind of "contradiction" in the Bible. What would he say to them?

He showed utmost respect for Scripture, pointing out that Matthew was also inspired. He was an apostle who had the right to interpret Jesus’ teaching the way he did so as to make it applicable to those to whom he was writing. And Matthew’s account provides a reason for divorce for those who choose to accept it.

But Prof. Metzger was fully persuaded that Jesus held up the ideal of no divorce whatever. And if one wants to follow the ideal, he will follow the teaching of Jesus and not even consider divorce – for no reason whatsoever. But if one is caught in circumstances that he or she sees as overwhelming– such as an incurable unfaithful spouse – that person has the right to draw upon Matthew’s exception.

While I didn’t say it to the professor, that is the way I have always thought of my own marriage. I would not leave or divorce Ouida under any circumstance whatever. If she were unfaithful to me (unthinkable!) I would forgive her, over and over. If she ends up in a wheelchair I will be there for her. If she is afflicted with Alzheimer’s and no longer even recognizes me, I will still be at her side.

I don’t know that that is why I feel that way, but I believe it happens to be the ideal taught by our Lord – no divorcing (period).

(To be continued)

Note: I've had computer problems and lost recent emails. If you wrote to me within the last few days, especially for names to be added to our list, please write again.