Divorce Assumptions

Sunday Sermons

Mark Dunagan
07/24/05 - Sunday Morning

Divorce Assumptions

In the last 40 years our culture has experienced a rapid increase in divorce rates. To Christians this is a sign of a decadent civilization, but others argue that it is a sign that people are now more honest. That is, while in the past people endured unhappy marriages, now they simply admit its not working and move on. “When they realize that a marriage is a mistake they do not senselessly continue it creating more psychological damage all the way around” (The Right, the Good and the Happy, Bernard Ramm, p. 84). Yet this reasoning is based on the assumption that divorce was rare when the biblical instruction concerning divorce was written, actually the opposite is the case. Why would the Pharisees ask Jesus “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matthew 19:3), if divorce was virtually an unheard of occurrence. “The Jews had a low view of women. In his morning prayer there was a sentence in which a Jewish man gave thanks that God had not make him ‘a Gentile, a slave or a woman’. The situation was worse in the Greek world. Prostitution was an essential part of Greek life. Demosthenes had laid it down as the accepted rule of life: ‘We have courtesans for the sake of pleasure; we have concubines for the sake of daily cohabitation; we have wives for the purpose of having children legitimately’. The Greek expected his wife to run his home, to care for his legitimate children, but he found his pleasure and his companionship elsewhere. At the time of Paul, Roman family life was wrecked. Seneca writes that women were married to be divorced and divorced to be married” (Barclay pp. 168-171). Secondly, the argument that a divorce stops the “psychological damage” is extremely shortsighted and naïve. Divorce actually creates a tremendous amount of emotional damage (that is one reason why God regulates it so tightly). During the days of Malachi, Jewish men were divorcing their wives and the prophet observes, “Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously” (Malachi 2:14). “Treachery” is not a term that one uses for something that is beneficial or helpful. I believe it is noteworthy that the comment about ending “psychological damage” as a reason to divorce came from a book written in 1971. At this time in our society the divorce revolution was just beginning and divorce was viewed as something liberating. As we stand back some 30 years later, we can see the limited nature of human wisdom.

Only the bare minimum

A common view in the denominational world is that the New Testament does not give an exhaustive treatment of the subject of divorce, but rather only a bare minimum, and the idea that the New Testament gives us everything we need on this subject is a naïve and overly strict view. The argument is that now we know far more about marriage and divorce from medicine, psychology, and sociology and that to adhere strictly to what Jesus said on the subject of divorce is to hold to an unrealistic position that does not work in the modern world. In fact, Ramm, in 1971 noted that Richard S. Soulen has shown that an examination of the texts in the New Testament about divorce reveal not a uniform teaching but a struggle of the early church to come to terms with the complexities of divorce dating from the very earliest days of the Christian church (‘Marriage and Divorce: A Problem in New Testament Interpretation’, Interpretation, October, 1969)” (p. 86). This is probably a view common view among denominational people, not only concerning the topic of divorce, but many other biblical topics as well. The assumption is that the biblical texts need to be modified, altered, or overruled, because we know many things that they did not know and we face far more complex marital problems.

· Yet Jesus taught us that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all the truth (John 16:13; 2 Peter 1:3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). I do not find Jesus or the apostles ever saying that we have only been given a minimum amount of information in the Scriptures that must be adjusted or supplemented by human wisdom, in fact, the very opposite is stated (2 John 9; Revelation 22:18-19).

· As I read the New Testament I do not find the “church struggling” to come to terms with the complexities of divorce, rather than finding any sort of struggle, I simply find direct and pointed revelation (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; Romans 7:2-3). There was no vote or church convention behind these verses, and neither are the verses worded in a wishy-washy manner, such as, “Well, this is our best guess at the moment”.

· I also must reject the idea that we face situations that they did not face, and thus rendering the Scriptures somehow wanting or not relevant in our time. There have always been unfaithful spouses (Proverbs 7:19 “for my husband is not home”); there have always been spouses who were drunkards (Proverbs 23:29), and who were addicted to drugs, pleasure or sex. There has always been pornography in one form or another, and there have always been men (or women) who were abusive. And, there were women who had married men who were complete fools (1 Samuel 25:25 “Please do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless man, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. Nabal is his name and folly is with him”). Added to this, there have always been men who found themselves married to a woman who drove them crazy (Proverbs 19:13 “And the contentions of a wife are a continual dripping”). Thus, it is not untrue to claim that our situations are more complex than what existed in Bible times.

· Remember, Jesus is God (Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:3; John 1:1-3). So when Jesus gave His instruction in Matthew 19:9; 5:32, He was not giving inadequate teaching or instruction. Being God, Jesus sees everything and can know everything. Yes, He already knew about husbands that beat their wives, emotional abuse, mates that leave and neither commit adultery, husbands or wives who are alcoholics, drug dealers, manufacturing meth, shoplifters, in trouble with the law, and so on. Yet, He still gave only one scenario in which a person could divorce their mate and remarry.

· There is a problem with being naïve, but the problem is not with Jesus’ teaching on the subject. Rather, the problem of being naïve is when we begin with sympathize with someone who wants out of a marriage and argues that their case is special and that their divorce (that does not fit Matthew 19:9) is justified.

Backing away from tough and complex issues?

One accusation against Christians who give Matthew 19:9 as an answer to people who have questions about divorce, is that Christians back away from and are afraid to address real, tough, and complex issues in bad marriages and divorce. Ramm writes, “They do not seem to be able to cope with the modern divorce problem save in a legalistic manner which many times results in cruel decisions or attitudes” (p. 87).

· First, quoting a verse is not being legalistic or cruel, unless one is willing to attach such labels to our Savior Jesus Christ(Matthew 19:3-9). Secondly, by giving someone God’s view on the subject it immediately sets the ground rules. If a person knows that it would be rebellion against God to divorce in their situation, then the choices are clear, either rebel and suffer eternal destruction or obey and work on the marriage. Issues that seem complex from a human or limited perspective can all of a sudden become very simple when viewed from an eternal perspective.

· I do not believe that the Bible backs away from “real” or “tough” issues, rather I would argue that human wisdom often avoids these issues. Even in the case of a mate who is emotionally or physical abusive or addicted to drugs, the “real” issue and the tough issue is sin and whether the person wants to repent. The world tends to dance all around various addictions or deviant behaviors without addressing the truth that such attitudes and practices will send one to hell(Galatians 5:21). Thus, much more is at stake then simply missing out on some earthly happiness.

· There is tremendous wisdom behind Jesus’ teaching, because laying out only one exception, gets people busy in the right direction, that is, working on the present marriage and not fantasizing about someone else who may not even exist. In my experience I have found that people who have divorced and remarried contrary to Matthew 19:9 are not always in a better relationship—even from an earthly perspective. In fact, one spouse will often express the sentiment years later that they regret divorcing the first mate, who had actually been the best choice.

· Another reason why Jesus gave only one exception is the reality that divorce really does not solve anything. Ramm is right when he notes, “Every divorce has a tragic element in it. People do not walk out of each other’s lives. The persons, the problems, and the financial and property matters involved in the divorce do not suddenly evaporate when the divorce is granted. Heartaches, bad feelings, a sense of loneliness, attacks of anger, spells of anxiety, and a continuous rehashing of the past keep on going long after the formal separation. So any couple contemplating divorce must realize that the legal end of the marriage and the emotional ending of a marriage are two very different things” (pp. 89- 90).

Savaging life?

“Such an ethic attempts to work the best it can within Christian presuppositions of knowledge about divorce gained from sociologists, psychologists, doctors, and lawyers. The attempt is to salvage or redeem life rather than to treat people in a strict, moralistic, and legalistic manner” (Ramm p. 88).

· Such an argument is basically saying that Divine revelation (the Bible) must be subject to human wisdom and human experts in various fields. It is equally based on the assumption that such “professionals” are always objective. In addition, never does the Bible recommend such that Jesus’ teaching must be made subservient to human experts.

· In addition, many of the men and women in the above professions are unbelievers and sinners (Romans 3:23). “Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, and what kind of wisdom do they have?” (Jeremiah 8:9).

· The “life” that we need to be concerned about salvaging or redeeming is not some temporary or momentarily happiness, but rather eternal life. Recommending a course of action by a spouse or couple that violates Matthew 19:9 will place them in sin, “makes her commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32); “and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”; “and marries another woman commits adultery” (19:9).

· Let us remember, that Christianity does not need a new sense of compassion or mercy, the person who gave the instruction in Matthew 19:9 is the Lord who died for our sins and who is full of compassion and mercy—therefore, so is everything He said.

Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017