MDR . . . Again

A reader wants to know if getting a divorce for a cause other than “fornication” is scriptural and/or allowed, or is such an action “sinful”?

A few different passages “weigh in” on the question in a couple of different ways. First, 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 is very important. Next, Matthew 5:27-32 and Matthew 19:3-12 are both of interest to some extent. Let's see if we can't make some sense of it all . . .

1 Corinthians 7:10,11 is the most pointed on the matter, but in that context, it seems clear enough that Paul ASSUMES Jesus' teachings on the matter. In fact, he makes this point explicit by the start of 1 Corinthians 7:10. He begins by saying, “I give instructions – well, the instructions aren't really my own or anything new, I'm just speaking what the Lord, in His personal ministry, already said.” Now, the following line, then, aligns perfectly with what Jesus had said: “The wife should not leave her husband” (see Matthew 19:6).

But, Paul is not satisfied to leave that general truth without qualification any more than Jesus was. More certainly needs to be said.

See, both Jesus and Paul are ASSUMING a normal context when writing. Their backdrop of such a remark – “A couple should not divorce” – is with a normal context in mind. BUT, if there are variables or adjustments made to a “normal context,” something else must be said . . .

See, Jesus is addressing group of antagonists, critics, skeptics when he reminds that God arranged marriage in an IDEAL way, where a man and woman should become a “one flesh” union and not separate. So, His remarks are SPECIFICALLY against the context of Jews who are SEEKING TO JUSTIFY THEIR “LUST-DIVORCE-MARRY-REPEAT” APPROACH. That is, the Jews were marrying, lusting after other women, divorcing their women, marrying the next woman that they wanted to “bed” and then repeating the entire process. The whole idea was ungodly, and Jesus branded them for it; He said that they were “hard in heart” (Mat. 19:8). And, Moses didn't do the approach any differently . . . He commanded a “bill of divorcement” NOT to encourage the procedure that was ongoing but so that the women could receive some sort of “protection” and second shot at life. (Without a paper, the woman would be left out to dry, having no right to property, remarriage, children, work, etc.; with a paper, she could “start over” to some extent. AND, this is why Moses prohibits the “reconciliation” idea, it seems. It wouldn't shock me if a Jewish male “put away” his wife without a “bill of divorce,” shacked up (after marriage, of course – the Jew wouldn't dare “break the law” [HEAVY SARCASM] – his whole approach was ungodly and unethical; he WAS “breaking the law” while trying to adjust/fix it so that he was actually a law-honoring Jew while being dark at heart) with a new woman, got tired of her after a few weeks and then wanted to run back to the “ex-wife” and the kids and the rest of his “old life.” Moses' prohibits this behavior (“reconciliation”) in Deuteronomy 24 to prohibit the unethical treatment of women and even further disaster to society. BUT, even with Moses' “bill of divorcement,” hearts were filthy and a piece of paper from the man to his woman didn't change that. What's the point with all of this???

The point is that Jesus is NOT dealing with complex scenarios in marriages. Jesus is SPECIFICALLY speaking to the context of a normal marriage. So, when Jesus tells the audience that “man should not separate what God has joined” (Mat. 19:6), two things are of importance: 1) He is specifically speaking to ANTAGONISTS who are seeking divorce for any reason (specifically, because they have lustful hearts) and 2) Jesus is ASSUMING/POINTING TO an IDEAL arrangement and wishes that we could fulfill an IDEAL MARRIAGE ARRANGEMENT. Jesus is NOT speaking about complex scenarios that arise within marriage.

The point is that it is COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE to tell a woman that gets a “legal” divorce from her physically-abusive husband that she should not leave or get the “legal” divorce. (I'm not commenting on the aspect of remarriage at this point; I'm simply saying that a purely “legal” separation is not spoken against Jesus at this point. That is NOT His context.)

But, in connection to the above two points, Jesus ALSO realizes that the IDEAL MARRIAGE ARRANGEMENT won't be followed, so He gives a little more . . . The IDEAL scenario would be that a man and woman were married for life; this was the scenario/arrangement that Genesis aimed for (see Genesis 2:18-25). BUT, this was the aim BEFORE THE FALL . . . And, “the fall” disrupted everything . . . And, now, THE IDEAL CAN NEVER BE MET. Why, even those of us who have only been married once will never “fulfill” the IDEAL marriage arrangement, since even “death” will disrupt the union. So, it's not only matters like fornication that disrupt the ideal, it is also death. Ever since “the fall,” the IDEAL cannot be met.

So, in light of humanity's inability to meet the IDEAL, what does Jesus insist on? HE ARGUES THAT WE TRY TO GET TO LIVING AS CLOSE TO IT AS POSSIBLE. This is His point to His antagonists. They are INTENTIONALLY FRACTURING THE IDEAL MARRIAGE ARRANGEMENT. They are not even trying to keep their marriages “in-tact.” They are intentionally causing wreckage to lives, women, children and other homes, too.

And, noticing that THE IDEAL is not always to be met, Jesus even provides an “exceptive clause” for the innocent party; He said that the innocent party (not having committed “fornication”) can “put away” the spouse that had committed fornication for that very reason. Here, He's ASSUMING again a normal union, where Bob and Kate are both married “scripturally” for the first time; he's speaking against Jews who are seeking to wreck their marriages by lusting, divorcing and remarrying. Now, that's an interesting thought . . . Jesus speaks AGAINST the Jewish males, the big-hitters in Jerusalem, and speaks up FOR the women, who are the wronged and marginalized. I suppose that's His way! But, it's no wonder that the Jewish power structure couldn't stand the REAL Messiah when He came. He was against their setup of oppression and abuse as much as He was the Greeks and the Romans and the Nazis! He wasn't some Jewish nationalist that allowed oppression and abuse, as long as it was from Jews . . . He was against it all! And, that was just too “Godly” for the Jews . . . The Jewish Messiah was “more like God” than they wanted Him to be . . . They wanted Him to be full of power so that He could overthrow Rome, and that He did . . . But He did more than that, too! He overthrew oppression and abuse FROM ANY-AND-EVERYONE!!! And this meant that He aided the INNOCENT AND ABUSED . . . and He did that in marriage (for the women – and the wronged and oppressed men!) as much as He did for everyone else in every other context.

So, before we move to Paul (in 1 Cor. 7), let's remind ourselves of what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5 and 19 (to some extent). First, Jesus wants “scriptural” marriages to stay in-tact; that's ideal. Second, Jesus understands that “the ideal” is not always met and sometimes calls for adjustment. Third, Jesus provides aid for the oppressed, abused, innocent party in the marriage to some extent.

Now, I'm certain that Paul is ASSUMING all of this in 1 Corinthians 7. He says that he's teaching that which the Lord (Jesus) had taught. And, Paul says, generally, “The wife should not leave her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10). That's nearly the same as Matthew 19:6, isn't it? I think that's what Paul is saying. BUT, in Paul's next verse (7:11), he says, “But if she does leave . . .” and he recognizes that the IDEAL would be that there is no separation/divorce, but that doesn't always happen, does it?

It's worth noting that both Jesus (Mat. 19:6) and Paul (1 Cor. 7:10,11) are NOT speaking of a case where “fornication” has occurred. Jesus, of course, does not say that the marriage with a case of “fornication” involved should stay together; in fact, He says that the innocent party CAN “put away” the guilty-of-fornication spouse (Mat. 19:9). So, when Jesus says that the couple should NOT DIVORCE/DISJOIN, He, again, is speaking to a normal context, specifically to Jews who are contemplating divorcing their wives for no reason other than that they have lustful hearts. If there were a Jew that had a wife that was consistently cheating on him – well, Jesus specifically addresses that scenario in Matthew 19:9 and NOT in Matthew 19:6. THE CONTEXT OF THE REMARKS ALWAYS MATTERS!

And, because 1 Corinthians 7:11 has Paul saying 1) the same thing that Jesus had said (cf. 7:10) and 2) that the spouse has the two options of either a) remaining “unmarried” or b) reconciling back to the husband, it is clear that there has been NO FORNICATION in Paul's context either. (If there had been fornication in Paul's assumed, hypothetical context, because he agrees with Jesus [again, see 7:10], he'd have to say that the spouse COULD “put away” the spouse and be the innocent party, eligible for remarriage to another/third party that was also eligible and in a proper arrangement.) It is clear that Paul is speaking, then, of a scenario where there has been NO FORNICATION.

Now, let's work with the fracturing of the IDEAL arrangement in Paul's context.

What if a spouse wants to get a divorce from the other because of inability to “get along” with each other? What if a spouse wants to get a divorce for financial reasons? What if a spouse wants to get a divorce because of lust or pornography? IN EACH OF THESE CASES, Paul is ASSUMING a prior scriptural marriage and arrangement. So, there is NO CAUSE for a “putting away” at this point. (Jesus and Paul only allow ONE reason for a “putting away” that actually severs the marriage union: it is fornication. Death, of course, severs a marriage, too, but there's no “putting away” with death.) The ONLY reason that one can “disjoin” the marriage is because there has been “fornication.”

So, what does Paul mean when he says that the spouse must either 1) remain “unmarried” or 2) reconcile – AND, it's worth noting that there has been NO FORNICATION at this point. If there's no fornication, how is she “unmarried” and how is “reconciliation” an option?

Here's something like a LEGAL DIVORCE or SEPARATION. In either case, there has been no fornication, so there's no ACTUAL “disjoining” of the marriage. While they may have legal papers from the courthouse, without fornication, God has not disjoined the marriage in actuality. (God always joins marriages in accordance with His marriage laws; He always disjoins marriages in accordance with His marriage laws; only God can join marriages lawfully; only God can disjoin marriages lawfully.) See, if one obtains papers for a homosexual marriage, God has NOT joined it; if one obtains papers for a divorce without fornication, God has NOT disjoined it; THIS POWER RESTS ULTIMATELY WITH GOD. In the case that Bob and Kate got a divorce for a reason OTHER THAN FORNICATION, what are their options? Paul says that they can either remain “unmarried” or “reconcile.”

There are a few points here . . . First, Paul uses “unmarried” in an accommodative or colloquial sense. Without fornication, he fully assumes that the marriage is still ACTUALLY “in-tact” and NOT DISJOINED BY GOD. He's speaking of a “legal divorce,” telling those who have gotten the legal divorce to remain “unmarried.” (Again, if there HAD been fornication, Matthew 19:9 – a putting away, a legitimate severing of the marriage union – would be an option.) Second, the idea of “reconciliation” is a possibility because neither party – without the act of fornication – is a “put away fornicator.” If one of the parties had been “put away” for an act of fornication/infidelity, that'd be a different story and question, but here, Paul is NOT addressing that case. He's speaking on a case where there has been NO FORNICATION (contrary to what a former Bible professor told me and certainly IMAGINED the Greek text to say – the Greek doesn't provide any more on the matter [whether there is the act of fornication in 1 Corinthians 7:10,11] than the English – again, see the argumentation above; Paul is talking of a scenario where there is NO FORNICATION.)

But, there remains a question, what if Bob and Kate get a divorce without fornication? Have they both sinned?

First, VARIABLES ALWAYS ADJUST THE CONTEXT. If both Bob and Kate are flippant about a divorce, I think that they have both sinned. But, what if Bob doesn't want the divorce and Kate is sold on it? What if Kate delivers the divorce papers within the week and Bob is still resenting the notion? How could Bob sin in this matter? It's difficult to see how Bob might be guilty if his heart and approach is right.

But, can Kate just “get a legal divorce” if she wishes and be right? Actually, let's make this a bit more pointed and explicit; does Kate SIN if she divorces Bob without his act of fornication . . .

Depends. Too many variables to know for sure.

What if Kate is getting abused physically by Bob? Maybe, she doesn't need to get a “legal divorce,” but at this point, her “separating” physically by leaving town to be with her parents isn't any different from a mere legal divorce. Certainly, she's not wrong for “leaving” the marriage union – to this certain extent? Paul would certainly, it seems, advise her to 1) remain “unmarried” or 2) be “reconciled,” if they can work it out. But, “remarriage” for Kate isn't an option at this point, I think. There hasn't been any fornication; the marriage with Bob hasn't actually severed; neither Jesus nor Paul give the right to remarriage for her. She is still effectively “joined” to Bob (in spite of what any human court might say).

What if Kate is upset at Bob for buying a new Corvette that cost them more than they could afford? Hmm . . . Is this a “reason” for the divorce? Some might say not, but how does this differ from the previous abuse case?

See, here's the thing . . . Jesus seems to say (NASB on Matthew 5:32) that a “divorce” for a cause other than fornication CAUSES the spouse to commit adultery. (I'm aware that the Greek text needs a second look.) But, is Jesus saying that a divorce for a cause other than fornication more-or-less sets up a scenario that really pushes fornication/adultery to happen? If Kate decides that she's not going to sleep with Bob ever again because he bought the Corvette, is she “causing” Bob to commit fornication? Of course, Bob is NOT justified to sleep with another woman at that point, but it does look like Jesus is saying that the spouse that is NOT operating in the marriage union as he/she should is at least GUILTY of pushing the spouse to cheat – the inoperative spouse is NOT guilty of fornication, of course, but is guilty of sin in this case, I think.

And, there's the whole thing about an intentional fracturing of vows. We agreed to love our spouses like ourselves (Eph. 5). We agreed that it was a “til death do we part.” Can a spouse just “give that all up” and not sin?

I think the variables need consideration. AND, I think that there are hundreds of scenarios that the scriptures don't explicitly answer. I DO think that the scripture gives us enough to be wise and make good, full-of-heart decisions. SO, with that in mind, let me give a few closing thoughts . . .

First, I think we need a better look at sin. If we're only thinking of “sin” as an explicit “breaking of a command,” we're not wrong, but we're certainly short of what God sees “sin” as. There are too many things that the scriptures speak against IMPLICITLY for us to need explicit texts to say what is “right” or “wrong.” 1 John 3:4 and Rom. 4:15 are both clear enough that ONE ASPECT of sin is when one breaks the explicit command of God, but there's more to it than that alone. One whose heart is not inclined towards God is as guilty of sin as much as the fornicator or idolater. See, I'm inclined to agree with McGuiggan who calls “sin” a “relational infidelity” and with N.T. Wright who calls “sin” a matter of “failing to be genuinely human.” Ah, that's it! See, God called us to transform into HIS IMAGE in EVERY WAY; He teaches us about selfless, sacrficial love, and when we willfully decide NOT to transform into that image, which requires more of us than anything in life, we are willfully choosing NOT to be who we need to be in our relationship to Him. Genesis 1:26,27 has it said that “man” (male and female) was created IN HIS IMAGE. That was BEFORE the fall! When we willfully decide NOT to operate as God would in our shoes, we're “sinning.” We don't need an explicit text to tell us all of the variables and scenarios. We need to commit ourselves to God, to try to transform into His character and live out our experiences as if we were in His shoes in such a scenario.

To close, if God were the spouse, married to Bob and he (Bob) bought the Corvette, could you see God pulling away from Bob relationally and cutting Himself and a relationship off? If God were the spouse, married to Bob and he (Bob) were physically abusing God, could you see God just going home every night to take a beating again-and-again-and-again? If God were the spouse and he (Bob) were watching pornography every night, could you see God just “up and leaving,” calling the marriage quits?

I get the impression that if we learn how to sacrifice selflessly out of a deep and committed love, we'll transform more into the image of Jesus, who was THE MAN who was everything that the “image of God” was to be in a human being. I believe Jesus was God, but I think more than that . . . Jesus was God being a man. JESUS WAS GOD BEING A MAN! What if we tried to be human beings, like Jesus, who lived out our experiences as if we were the image of God?!?!?!?!?! How would the implications of such a deep and committed call reshape our behavior in our marriages? The variables are many; let's assess them all, ask ourselves how God might operate if He (the forgiving, self-emptying, sacrificial, loving One) were in our shoes and then live THAT way.