Divorce And Remarriage

Transcription

1 Divorce And Remarriage The very liberal attitudes of many Pharisees to divorce Some Jewish historical documents reveal that many of the Pharisees during and after Christ's time had very liberal attitudes to divorce similar in some ways to modern Western people. For example Gittin 9:10 of the Jewish religious writing called the Mishnah teaches what the attitudes of three different Jewish leaders around Christ's time were to divorce. These three leaders were the Pharisee named Shummai, the Pharisee named Hillel and Rabbi Akiba. Gittin 9:10 states: The House of Shummai say, A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deuteronomy 24:1). And the House of Hillel say, Even if she spoiled the dish, since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything. Rabbi Akiba says, Even if he found someone else prettier than she, since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deuteronomy 24:1). In the above quote, we see: a) the Pharisee Hillel and his school of followers believed that a Jewish man had the right to divorce his wife on the basis of Deuteronomy 24:1, even if she ruined his meal. In his book 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee states that the Jewish writing b. Ketub 75a also teaches that Hillel s followers allowed Jewish men to divorce their wives for spoiling the meal. 1 b) the Jewish Rabbi Akiba taught that Jewish men had the God-given authority to divorce their wife on the basis of Deuteronomy 24:1 if they found a woman prettier than her. Matthew 19:3 records the Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was lawful for a husband to divorce his wife for any reason : The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason? This question typifies the liberal attitude of many Pharisees to divorce. Even the twelve disciples had been brought up as Jews prior to conversion to Christ with a liberal attitude to divorce. This is evident in their response to Jesus high standards about divorce recorded in Matthew 19:8-10: He said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. His disciples said to Him, If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry. The twelve disciples said that if adultery is the only acceptable reason for believers in Jesus Christ to be divorced, then it is better not to get married. Like numerous modern churchgoers, the twelve disciples probably began to think of various other very difficult exceptional circumstances about which they had previously believed God would approve of divorce but now heard He disapproved of. The disciples were shocked about how high God s 1 Gordon Fee, 1 Corinthians, page 293, footnote 12.

2 standards were under the New Covenant and how God did not approve of or only tolerated many of the excuses Jews had used to obtain divorces previously. Josephus was a Jew and a Pharisee who lived between A.D. He was a prolific writer. He expressed the popular Pharisaic interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 when he said: He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do; but if she be misused by him also, or if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him. 2 Josephus also wrote about that time I divorced my wife also, as not pleased with her behaviour, though not till she had been the mother of three children 3 A similar liberal attitude to divorce is found in the Jewish Apocryphal writing Sirach 25:24-26: Drooping hands and weak knees are caused by the wife who does not make her husband happy. From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die. Allow no outlet to water, and no boldness of speech in an evil wife. If she does not go as you direct, separate her from yourself. This liberal attitude among many Jews may have continued right from the time of the prophet Malachi when God strongly attacked the then Jewish attitudes to divorce. Malachi 2:13-16 records: And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying; so he does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with good will from your hands. Yet you say, For what reason? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by COVENANT. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously. It is likely that the Jews in the time of Christ and the Apostles only allowed Jewish men to divorce their wives and not vice-versa. Proof of this is found in the words of Josephus: But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away. 4 Also, note in Matthew s Gospel, Matthew only refers to Jesus Words about men divorcing women (see Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:8-9). But in Mark s Gospel, Mark mentions Christ's Words about both men and women divorcing their spouses. The Gospel of Matthew was especially aimed at ministering to Jews. The Gospel of Mark was aimed at both Jews and non- Jews. Non-Jews permitted both men and women to divorce their spouses. Marriage and divorce in Roman Emperor Augustus era The Roman historian Gaius Suetonius ( A.D.) records that the Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar (63B.C.-14 A.D.) tried to tighten up the Roman laws about marriage, divorce 2 Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, Book 4, Flavius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, Josephus, Antiquities 15:259.

3 and adultery: The existing laws that Augustus revised, and the new ones that he enacted, dealt, among other matters, with extravagance, adultery, unchastity, bribery, and the encouragement of marriage in the Senatorial and Equestrian Orders. His marriage law being more rigorously framed than the others, he found himself unable to make it effective because of an open revolt against several of its clauses. He was therefore obliged to withdraw or amend certain penalties exacted for a failure to marry; to increase the rewards he offered for large families; and to allow a widow, or widower, three years grace before having to marry again. Even this did not satisfy the knights, who demonstrated against the law at a public entertainment, demanding its repeal When he then discovered that bachelors were getting betrothed to little girls, which meant postponing the responsibilities of fatherhood, and that married men were frequently changing their wives, he dealt with these evasions of the law by shortening the permissible period between betrothal and marriage, and by limiting the number of lawful divorces. 5 But Augustus attempts at reform did not prevent Roman standards about marriage and divorce to decline further in following years. Divorce practices of some Romans in about 80 to 140 A.D. The Roman author Juvenal ( A.D.) wrote about a Roman woman he knew or a fictional Roman woman who symbolically represented the divorce practices of many Roman women during his time: But before long she vacates her kingdom; she flits from one home to another, wearing out her bridal veil; then back she flies again and returns to her own imprints in the bed that she has abandoned, leaving behind her the newly decorated door, the festal hangings on the walls, and the branches green still over the threshold. Thus does the tale of her husbands grow; there will be eight of them in the course of five autumns a fact worthy of commemoration on her tomb! 6 This woman had eight husbands in only five years. Juvenal s Satire 6 is a detailed satirical evaluation of the practices of many Roman women at the time. Modern poor excuses There has been such a drastic unbiblical liberalising of teachings and practices about divorce in so many American churches recently, that now the divorce rate among churchgoers is slightly higher than among American non-churchgoers. The same liberalising is spreading to other countries. The following are many of the poor excuses which born-again Christians use to justify divorcing their born-again spouses and my comments on these excuses: The incompatibility excuse One common worldly attitude which has spread among most Western unbelievers and even some born-again Christians is that divorce is justified if a married couple find they are incompatible. Incompatible means being so different from each other that they find it hard to have a good unified marital relationship. This belief that divorce can be justified on the grounds of incompatibility had its modern beginnings in the French Revolution. In their divorce legislation of 1792, the humanists and violent leaders of the French Revolution decreed that 5 Suetonius, Augustus, Juvenal, Satire 6,

4 incompatibility was a sound excuse for divorce. 7 By 1793, one out of three French marriages were ending in divorce. 8 But note the Apostle Paul opposed the above worldly attitude. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, he taught that born-again believers should never divorce their unbelieving spouses unless their spouses wish to leave this relationship. Paul was here writing to Corinthian believers who had spouses who were sinful idol-worshippers. You cannot obtain two people who are more incompatible than a born-again believer with someone who worships metal, stone or wooden idols. The pagan Corinthians worshipped the idols of pagan gods like Aphrodite, Apollo, Poseidon, Athena, Hermes, Hera, Isis and/or Serapis. 9 Idolatry is one of the things which God totally despises (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 10:7, 10:14, 1 Peter 4:3, 1 John 5:21, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15). Another problem with the incompatibility excuse is that every married couple is incompatible to some degree. This is because of differences caused by being brought up in different families who have different standards and attitudes to bringing up children, the roles of husbands and wives, money, material possessions, cleanliness and so on. Also there are differences resulting from being men and women. Men and women are different in many ways. This incompatibility excuse is also partly a product of the attitudes promoted by Hollywood movies and television soap operas. For most of the 1900 s, most Hollywood romantic movies gave the impression that we will find an almost perfect partner of the opposite sex. Nearly all television soap operas promote a constant changing of husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends. Many Christians have followed these attitudes instead of Bible standards. The hardness of heart excuse Some may argue that Jesus permitted born-again believers to get divorced from their born-again spouses for any reason because of their hardness of heart when He said in Matthew 19:8: Moses because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. But note Jesus here was saying the excuse of hardness of heart only applied to Jews under the Mosaic Covenant. In the above verse and Matthew 19:9, Jesus set a higher standard for born-again New Covenant believers. The Holy Spirit guided me excuse Another common excuse used today to justify divorces of born-again Christian couples is to say, The Holy Spirit guided me to divorce him (her). This is even though no adultery occurred and the spouse had not turned from the Lord and abandoned the person wanting to divorce. Such Holy Spirit-revelations are not from the Holy Spirit. Instead they are from religious flesh masquerading as the Holy Spirit. It is like those unmarried believers whose flesh tricks them into believing the Holy Spirit is leading them to have sex with their fiancees before marriage because they love them. The Holy Spirit never guides us to do things contrary to the written Word of God. 7 Antony Copley, Sexual Moralities in France , Routledge, London, 1989, page Ibid. 9 Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary 1 Corinthians, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1993, page 5.

5 Misapplying Mosaic Covenant teachings to the New Covenant Someone may argue, Deuteronomy 24:1 permits God s people to divorce and remarry for other reasons than adultery. Also in Exodus 21:10-11, God allows a wife the right to divorce if he did not provide her with food, clothing and her marriage rights. But note: a) Deuteronomy 24:1 relates solely to those under the Mosaic Covenant. In Matthew 19:7-9, we see Jesus taught that Deuteronomy 24:1 does not apply to His disciples under the New Covenant. b) Exodus 21:10-11 relates to the situation of a Jewish man under the Mosaic Covenant having two wives and the first being his slave. Such verses have no relevance to New Covenant believers because they relate to having two wives. Under the New Covenant, having two wives is a sin. It is a major unbiblical error to try to transfer the divorce laws of the Old Mosaic Covenant to the better New Covenant. For example, the Deuteronomy 22:28-29 teachings about divorce do not apply under the New Covenant. These latter verses say a man who rapes a young girl must marry her and can never divorce her. Under the Mosaic Covenant if this wife later committed adultery, she would be stoned. But if she committed adultery under the New Covenant, her husband could divorce her. c) Deuteronomy 21:10-14 teaches that if Israelite men took female captives in war, they could marry them. These verses also permit these Israelite men to set their foreign wives free if later the men have no delight in these wives (see Deuteronomy 21:14). But note such a liberal standard in relation to these female captives-of-war cannot be used as a standard for the marriages of born-again New Covenant couples. This is especially since such captivesof-war would mostly still be idol-worshipping pagans in their hearts, even though they were not permitted by the Israelites to own idols. The situational ethics excuse It is true in each of Matthew 5:31-32, 19:1-9, Mark 10:1-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, Jesus and Paul are answering questions about marriage and divorce which relate to differing specific situations or circumstances. For example in Matthew 19:1-9, Jesus is answering questions in relation to Jewish men divorcing the wives under firstly the Mosaic and then New Covenants. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, Paul is answering questions about non-jewish and Jewish women believers divorcing their believing husbands and non-jewish and Jewish male and female believers divorcing their unbelieving spouses. But the New Testament does not give us the licence to make our own judgements about divorce in differing specific situations. No married couple is the same. Each couple have their own strengths and problems. So each troubled marriage is different. But this does not mean God wants us to adopt our own relativistic changeable subjective standards to each different case. To do this would involve the errors in the worldly situational ethics philosophy. Refer to Chapter Situational Ethics for more details on situational ethics. The psychology and sociology excuse Someone may argue, We should not just follow what the New Testament teaches about divorce. Modern psychology and sociology have provided us with new insights about divorce which show the New Testament teaching about divorce is not right in all areas.

6 My answer to this is that the subjective fallible studies of psychologists and sociologists with limited brain matter are no reason to abandon the teachings of the infinite Person who created husbands, wives and marriage. I studied psychology and sociology at university and found the moral approaches of these two subjects very inferior to that of the Bible. Also note at present, the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association are publicly supporting the wicked normalisation and legalisation of homosexual marriages and homosexual adoption of children. This shows these two groups are not good guides for Christians on moral issues. The human need excuse One modern view argues that divorce is sometimes a good option for two born-again believers because it can better provide for their human needs and solves their problems more successfully. Such attitudes are based on the secular worldly philosophy of humanism and not on God s Word. Humanism suggests that humans understand more about their real human needs and the solutions to their problems than what God does. I know numerous examples of born-again Christians divorcing their born-again spouses even though their spouses had not committed adultery (see Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:1-9) and were not nearly as bad as their spouses claimed. At present, many Christians are following the worldly principle of, My spouse is not providing for all my emotional and physical needs and is not making me happy. So I am justified in leaving this person to find someone better. This is regardless of the fact the person made a covenant before God and others not to leave their born-again spouse before death. In Malachi 2:13-16, God insists that marriage is primarily a covenant before Him. Twisting Jesus Words In Matthew 19:11, Jesus said: All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. One false view claims Christ's Words above mean His earlier Words in Matthew 19:9 about Him permitting divorce between two married disciples if either has committed adultery, are the highest ideal but cannot always be the practical standard in all situations. This view claims in Matthew 19:11, Christ meant that there are many other reasons which God approves of in relation to divorces of married born-again couples. But the above involves poor Biblical interpretation. In Matthew 19:11, Jesus is referring to the disciples words to Him in the previous verse. In verse 10, the disciples referred to the possibility of not getting married. The expression this saying in verse 11 refers to the disciples words in verse 10 and not to Christ's Words in verse 9. Note Christ said this saying and not My saying. Also observe Jesus Words in verse 11 are closely related to His Words in verse 12 about remaining unmarried. The usage of the word for at the beginning of verse 12 emphasises this connection. The flee persecution excuse Recently I read an article in which the author said we should apply Jesus Words in Matthew 10:23 about fleeing persecution to the issues of marriage and divorce. In this verse, Jesus said: But when they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

7 The author claims that in this verse, Jesus instruction not only applies to being persecuted for our faith but also to women being emotionally abused by their husbands. Note the following about the above: 1. The context of the verse has absolutely nothing to do with marriage and divorce. Even though in this verse, Jesus was referring to many different types of being persecuted for our faith, He was not in any way referring to divorce. 2. If we foolishly apply Matthew 10:23 to marriage, we can also apply it to parent-children relationships. We can tell little children in Sunday School or Children s Church that if their parents emotionally abuse them, they should run away from home. This would leave it open every time their parents discipline them, correct them or do not give them everything they want, for all children to define this as emotional abuse and to then leave home. 3. The verses we need to apply to Christian women being abused by their husbands are Paul s words in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 and not Matthew 10:23. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, Paul refers to marriage and separation but in Matthew 10:23, Jesus does not. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, Paul taught: a) If a Christian woman is married to a Christian man, it is God s perfect will that they are never divorced (verse 10). This confirms Jesus Words in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9. b) But if for some reason, such as physical or emotional abuse, she chooses to leave, it is not to be for the purposes of divorce (verses 10-11). Also she is not permitted by God to remarry but must sincerely with all her heart aim to sort out the problems so she and her Christian husband can reconcile. c) Also if her husband is hitting her, the leaders of the Church need to visit him and rebuke him about his violent tempers towards his wife. The church leaders need to continue to help him through prayer, study of the relevant Scriptures, counsel and oversight to turn from his wicked practices. Violent tempers are acts of evil (see Galatians 3:20, Ephesians 4:31, Colossians 3:8 and James 1:19-20). The Bible teaches parents to smack their children (see Proverbs 13:24, 22:15 and 23:13-14) but does not instruct husbands to smack or hit their wives. d) Those who claim that emotional abuse is a valid excuse for a Christian couple to divorce are basically following the easy divorce ethical standards of non-christians. This is because every or almost every Christian can claim to some extent that their Christian spouse has emotionally abused them at one time or another. So according to this pagan philosophy, every or almost every Christian couple can get divorced. e) This emotional abuse excuse is not based on Biblical ethics. Instead it is based on the sinful worldly philosophies of: i) situational ethics founded by Rev. Joseph Fletcher. Fletcher taught that humans operating by true love can often disobey God s commands against adultery, sex before marriage, murdering unborn babies and so on if the situation requires it. ii) the French Revolution philosophy of humanism which concentrates on the socalled rights of the individual to happiness and self-fulfillment even if obtaining these rights involves disobeying God.

8 f. Paul s words in verse 11 about separating (but obviously not divorcing) are not God s perfect will but are a concession to human weakness. The context of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 shows that Christian couples staying together is God s perfect will. g. If a Christian man or woman is married to an unbeliever who does not want the marriage to continue to function, the Christian can agree to finish the marriage (verses 15 and 16). But if the unbeliever sincerely wants the marriage to continue to function, the Christian should not try to finish the marriage (verses 12 to 14). h. If the unbelieving spouse is physically or emotionally abusing the Christian partner very badly, the Christian can move out with the primary intention of working towards a reconciliation. Verse 11 relates to a Christian couple. But the principle relates to all marriages. i. Paul s words in verse 11 were not intended as a means by which one marriage partner could control and manipulate the other. To constantly threaten, I will move out and get my own flat or move back to my parents house if you do not start doing what I want is a form of wickedness. It is not love from God. Other verses taken out of context One view says that Jesus Words in Matthew 18:6 justify divorce if children are being badly affected by the actions of one parent. In Matthew 18:6, Jesus said: But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. The above verse is totally true. But in its surrounding context, it has nothing to do with divorce. Also, the idea that children will be less likely to become involved with sin, turn from Jesus Christ and get involved with crime by seeing one of their Christian parents do wrong to each other while married than if the two parents divorce, is highly questionable. Another false view suggests Malachi 2:16 teaches that a Christian husband or wife can divorce his/her Christian spouse if the latter is violent at times. Malachi 2:16 states: For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously. But note: a) Malachi 2:16 is saying that divorce itself is an act of violence against our marriage covenant. This verse is not teaching that instances of violence are a God-approved reason for a Christian couple to be divorced. In Old Testament times, an Israelite man often claimed a woman as a wife by spreading his garment over her. In Ruth 3:9, Ruth asked Boaz to spread the corner of his garment over her as a sign that he should be her husband. Ezekiel 16:8 refers to God covering the people of Israel when He became their husband. When an Israelite husband divorced his wife, he committed an act of violence against his original symbolic taking of her as a wife through the covering by his garment. b) If a Christian continues to assault his/her Christian spouse violently, 1 Corinthians 7:11 is broad enough to cover this circumstance. This verse permits the assaulted person to separate from the spouse for a period of time. But this verse does not approve of divorce. Instead it encourages the couple to be reconciled. The Christian couple need continual prayer, support and Biblical advice until they sort out the bases for the violence and the solutions, so reconciliation can occur.

9 The excuse of spiritual adultery Some may claim that when Jesus said that God permits divorce between believers on the grounds of adultery, He included the emotional and spiritual unfaithfulness of one spouse against the other in this. This is supposedly a form of spiritual adultery. But note the Greek word porneia used by Christ in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 has only two basic general meanings. The first relates to any type of sexual intercourse which is unlawful in God s view. The second is being unfaithful to God our Husband through participating in forms of Christianised pagan idolatry and its associated evil teachings and practices. Vine says porneia in some contexts is used symbolically to mean the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to the Christian faith. 10 Possible examples of porneia meaning the latter are found in Revelation 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3 and 19:2. When Christians try to broaden the meaning of porneia to include any form of spiritual and emotional unfaithfulness of a believing spouse to his/her believing spouse, the result is the person begins to have a similar attitude to divorce to that held by unbelievers. In other words, almost every marital problem or wrong committed by one spouse against the other becomes an excuse for divorce. For example, one spouse can divorce the other if the latter is unfaithful to the former by spending too much time with their parents or Christian friends or is not doing what the spouse wants in some other way. Jesus command about divorce Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-9 reveal Jesus said the major reason for which God permitted divorce under the New Covenant was adultery. Matthew 5:31-32 states: Furthermore it has been said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. In Greek, the word adultery above is porneia. The word porneia means prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse 11 or illicit sexual intercourse. 12 In Matthew 5:28-29, Jesus revealed that adultery in the heart is sin also. But in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9, Jesus is referring to actual adulterous sexual intercourse and not the sin of adultery in the heart. Porneia can refer to sexual intercourse involving incest (see 1 Corinthians 5:1). In Revelation 2:21, it refers to a married person having sex with someone to whom they are not married. Note Revelation 2:21 links porneia to a form of the word moicheuo meaning sexual intercourse of a man with a married woman other than his spouse. 13 Porneia refers to homosexual intercourse in Jude 7. In 1 Corinthians 10:8, porneia relates to the men of Israel having sex with the women of Moab. Because it is likely some of the Israelite men and Moabite women were single, porneia also includes sexual intercourse by single people outside marriage. 10 Vine, page Bauer, page Vine, page Louw and Nida, page 772.

10 Someone may argue, The Greek word porneia equals the Hebrew expression erwa dabar meaning unclean thing found in Deuteronomy 24:1. This is false because porneia includes adultery and sex before marriage, but under the Mosaic Covenant adultery and sex before marriage were punished with death and did not involve permitted divorce (see Leviticus 20:10-12 and Deuteronomy 22:20-25). God s commands for believing married couples In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul gives God s instructions to born-again believers who are married to other born-again believers: Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. Here Paul teaches that: a) God s perfect will is that a born-again Christian couple is never divorced. b) If a believing wife chooses to separate from her believing husband, she is not allowed to be remarried. (The only exception to this is if he has committed adultery Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:9. If he has done this, she is permitted but not commanded by God to divorce him and be remarried.) Paul stresses that this separation without remarriage option is only a second-best concession when compared to God s perfect will as expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:10. Paul s usage of the qualifier But at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 7:11 shows that separation is the poorer option. The emphasis in verses 10 and 11 is on remaining married or working towards being reconciled if separated. Paul s answers in these two verses are in relation to a question about the possibility of Christian women divorcing their husbands. Note in Greek, the expressions let her remain and be reconciled in 1 Corinthians 7:11 are in the present tense. In Greek, the present tense signifies the relevant action is continuous or repeated. This means God commands believing women, who decide to leave their believing husbands, to remain unmarried continuously and repeatedly to be reconciled to their believing spouses. We can safely say that Paul s words about striving towards reconciliation and not being remarried would equally apply to believing men who separate from their believing wives. This is especially since in verse 11, he commands believing men not to divorce their believing wives. A similar situation existed under the Mosaic Covenant. Divorce was only a second best concession to the state of believers hard hearts living under that covenant. Under the Mosaic Covenant, God s perfect will was expressed in Malachi 2:15-16: But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously. Someone may suggest, But Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:12 that his instructions about such matters are not the Lord s commands. But note what Paul means by this is he did not have any relevant recorded command of the Lord from the Old Testament or command from the Lord Jesus to cover the questions Paul was answering in 1 Corinthians 7: Paul was not saying his words in these verses were only his own subjective opinion.

11 The case of divorced unbelievers who turn to Christ As quoted previously, Malachi 2:16 teaches that God hates divorce in all circumstances. This includes even in cases in which He permits divorce. In Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9, Jesus Christ taught that God s original intention was that humans marry and stay married to the same person. But because of people s hardness of heart sin and a lack of faith in God divorce happens (see Mark 10:5). Prior to turning to Christ, many unbelievers have been divorced and remarried. Some have been divorced and remarried two, three or more times. Also, their spouses mostly have been remarried. When these unbelievers turn to Christ, God forgives them of all their sins, including their divorces (see Matthew 12:31 and Colossians 2:13). But note even though they repent of their sins at conversion, it is mostly impossible in practical terms for them to be reunited with their first husband. There have been exceptions to this. But mostly such reconciliations are not possible. Usually the spouse is remarried or opposes reconciliation. This opposition to reconciliation often increases because of the person s conversion to Jesus Christ. I personally believe that new converts who were divorced prior to conversion are free to remarry other believers. To me, this is similar in many ways to the example of a believer whose unbelieving spouse refuses to continue their marriage relationship, as mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7: But note 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 emphasises that if the unbelieving partner wishes to continue the marriage relationship, the believer should not divorce the person. So the difficult question is: Does this mean that a new convert, who prior to his conversion initiated the divorce from his previous unbelieving spouse, should seek to remarry this woman if the latter wishes to reconcile? This becomes even more complicated when the new convert has been married to other women prior to the previous marriage. The subjectivity of broadening the meaning of the word depart In 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul teaches: But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. Some may argue, The departing by the unbelieving spouse here refers to more than just leaving the house. It also relates to the unbelieving spouse continuously not fulfilling the emotional, mental and physical needs of their believing spouse. There is an element of truth in the above. This is because before an unbelieving spouse deserts his/her believing spouse by departing from the place where they were living together, the unbelieving spouse will begin to depart from his/her believing spouse emotionally, mentally and in his/her actions. The problem with judging such matters, however, is it is so subjective. Many believers can use these subjective criteria to try to justify saying their unbelieving spouses have left them, when actually the unbelieving spouses have no such intention. Also such subjective criteria can easily result in the New Testament teachings about divorce degenerating into the world s present standard of no-fault easy divorce. I have seen an example of the above in which a supposed believer cunningly set up a situation in which it appeared her unbelieving husband had left her. But the truth was he was a good husband who had no intention of leaving her.

12 Paul s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 applies primarily to a situation in which a believer is married to an unbeliever. But these verses also can apply to a situation in which one believer totally backslides away from the Lord, stops going to church and leaves their believing spouse. In such a situation, the believing spouse can be divorced. This is even if no adultery has occurred. God will forgive repentant divorcees but In Matthew 12:31 and Mark 3:28, Jesus declared that God can forgive every sin, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This means the sin of being divorced can be forgiven. Through faith and repentance, we can receive God s complete forgiveness for any sin (see Luke 24:47, Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38-39 and 26:18). But this is not a licence for those Christians who are considering divorcing their bornagain Christian spouses for reasons other than adultery or their spouse turning from Jesus Christ and leaving them. A born-again Christian is risking hardening his/her heart against God if he or she insists on divorcing his/her born-again spouse for reasons which God does not approve. Hebrews 3:12-13 warns: Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called Today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Do not sinfully plan: My believing spouse has not committed adultery. I know that divorcing her is a sin. But because God is so loving and gracious, I know He will later forgive me if I commit it. So I will do it and then later confess it and claim His forgiveness. Such an attitude abuses God s grace in order to justify sin Jude 4 refers to people who sinfully turn the grace of our God into lewdness..., another example of churchgoers abusing God s grace. Divorce is a serious sin which can be forgiven Among churchgoers, there are a number of wrong extreme attitudes to divorce. Two of these are: a) The first is the modern humanistic attitude that divorce is not a sin. But note in Malachi 2:13-16, God reveals He hates or abhors divorce among couples who claim to be in a covenant relationship with Him. Many pastors and counsellors fall into the trap of having a worldly attitude to divorce. This attitude involves convincing those believers who have initiated the divorce from their believing spouses that God does not regard the initiators as being guilty of serious sin. Such pastors and counsellors express humanistic love and not Jesus love to believers considering committing or who have already committed this sin. In Revelation 3:19 Jesus reveals that true love rebukes evil. In Isaiah 5:20, God stated: Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. In Romans 13:9, God commands believers to abhor or hate evil: Abhor what is evil God hates the evil of divorce. b) The second is the unbiblical attitude that God will never forgive believers who have been the initiators of their divorces from their believing spouses for reasons other than their

13 spouses committing adultery or from unbelieving spouses who wished to maintain a proper marriage. Some Christians believe the ridiculous notion that divorce is more serious than murder, sex before marriage and adultery and God will never pardon born-again believers who initiated divorce for reasons other than adultery or their unbelieving spouse leaving. But this is contrary to Jesus Words in Matthew 12:31 and Mark 3: Imagine what Jesus thinks of easy divorce Those church leaders who have adopted the liberal attitude of easy divorce like the pagan world follows, have put their churches back under a system which was even more liberal than the Mosaic Covenant and Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Covenant permitted Israelite men to divorce their wives on the sole condition if they found in their wives some type of sexual uncleanness less than adultery (see Matthew 24:1-4). Adulterous wives were stoned to death and not divorced (see Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10-11). So if Jesus taught that the Mosaic Covenant divorce laws made a concession to the hardness of human hearts (see Matthew 9:7-8), imagine what He thinks of the present day easy divorce teachings of many churches. The effects of divorce on children Many single parent families do an admirable job raising children. Some two parent families fail to love and discipline their children properly. But having taught thousands of primary school children and many high school children and young adults who have left school, I have found that most children who are maladjusted and troublemakers at school and causing problems to their parents and to the police come from single parent families or from divorced families in which the children do not get along with their step-father or step-mother. The latter situation with step-parents does not always happen but happens more frequently than many wish to admit. I have spoken to many schoolchildren who spoke of their poor relationships with step-parents. I came from a divorced family. Also one of my sisters has been divorced twice and the other three times. I have two nieces who have been divorced twice and two cousins who have divorced once. So I have seen the effects of divorce. Even though my sisters, nieces, cousins, their children and I have not been involved in crime, we all have borne the scars of divorce. For example, when I was first married I did not understand properly what was the role of a husband. This is because I had never closely observed a good father role in my own family. What do children think about divorce? Many humanists argue that it is better for the children s sake for their parents, who quarrel with each other frequently, to divorce. But is this just a Satanic lie used to destroy families? Read the following relevant newspaper article: Suffer the little children of war Do children prefer warring parents to stay together? A major British study says they do, report Steve Doughty and Vanda Carson.

14 The dilemma will be familiar to any parent trapped in an unhappy marriage. Is it better to separate and spare the children the trauma of parents at war? Or is it better for the parents to put the feud aside and keep the family together? Now, at last, the children have spoken in an exhaustive London University study. Overwhelmingly they reject the argument that they would be hurt most by conflict in the home and that parents should split up amicably. The three-year Health Department-funded project by the university s Institute of Education also identifies the isolation and difficulties faced by children of single parents. They have only half as many friends as children in two-parent families. The survey involved almost 1,000 children aged two thirds in families with both birth parents and a quarter in single-parent homes. It also included interviews in depth with 63 youngsters. Researchers found that 44 per cent thought parents should talk over their problems rather than part. A further 28 per cent thought any separation should be temporary and parents should try again. Those from broken homes were deeply unhappy when their parents split up, were suspicious of step-parents and slow to accept them. Many children who had experienced parental break-up stressed their own vulnerability at the time and sense of powerlessness. Some found the experience too painful to talk about, suggested the report. Of a story about argumentative parents, the majority said the departing father should not leave, it said. They all emphasised the negative impact of his departure on the child. Step-parents were not often accepted as new parental figures straight away and step-family children were particularly attached to their grandparents. They stressed the significance of blood ties. Children of single parents appeared to find it most difficult to make friends while, on average, those in two-parent households reported the most friends and those in the lone mother group reported the least half as many as those with both their parents. The children also said they wanted to find parents at home when they returned from school. They considered it a fact and appropriate that they should be the parents first priority, said the report. An almost equal number of boys and girls in the survey thought they would work part-time when they were grown up in order to make time, especially for younger children. Researchers said that although messages about equality in parenting appear to have had an impact, it came across from some children that mothers fulfilled their emotional needs more than fathers did. Our members believe children lead more stable lives when their parents stay together, he said. We find that children in single-parent families can become psychologically and socially disturbed. 14 Years ago, I have had much contact with thousands of primary school children at their different schools in the state of New South Wales in Australia. I have asked many of these children who have separated parents, Would you prefer to have your parents stay together even though they quarrel and argue regularly or separate? Nearly all children have chosen the first alternative. These children confirm the results of the London University study. 14 The Daily Telegraph, Monday January 29, 2001, Sydney, Australia, page 16.

15 Bible Study Questions 1. Describe what Gitten 9:10 in the Mishnah and Josephus revealed about the attitudes of many of the Pharisees to divorce. 2. What is wrong with the following excuses in relation to divorce: a) the incompatibility excuse b) the hardness of heart excuse c) the Holy Spirit guided me excuse d) misapplying Mosaic Covenant teachings to the New Covenant e) the situational ethics excuse f) the psychology and sociology excuse g) the human need excuse h) using Matthew 18:6 and Malachi 2:16 as excuses i) the excuse of spiritual adultery. 3. What did Jesus teach in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9 about divorce? 4. Explain what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 about divorce. 5. What can easily happen if we broaden the meaning of the word depart in 1 Corinthians 7:15? 6. Can God forgive the sin of divorce? Which verses prove this? 7. Explain the two wrong extreme attitudes to divorce that churchgoers can have. 8. What effects can divorce have on children?