Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce-An Apology

[drew]

I do not think that this view about the absolute exceptionless prohibition of divorce is correct.

In Matthew 12, Jesus holds David guiltless even when he breaks a rule from God (the showbread rule is clearly described in the Old Testament as being from God):

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

Later in the same chapter, Jesus basically states, despite what God's own law states, work on the Sabbath can be justified in certain circumstances.

He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

The law concerning working on the Sabbath is not "man's law", it comes from God:

Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: 2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

People try to preserve the notion that God's laws are "exceptionless" by claiming that pulling a sheep out of a pit is not "work". It sure seems like work to me. Either way, there is the very strong implication that Jesus would have approved of doctors performing emergency surgery on the Sabbath - it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. And performing surgery is certainly work. So things are not as cut and dried as some would have you believe.

And we also have the example of David. Jesus condones his actions even though God's own law forbad anyone but the priests from eating the showbread.

The obvious conclusion: The prohibition against divorce should not be seen by us as an "exceptionless" rule. Jesus gives us multiple examples of times when it can be justifiable to break even the laws that come from God's own mouth.

[drew]

An adulteress and an adulterer.

True love respects what Jesus declares to be truth.

As per my precvious post, I doubt very much that things are as simple as this. Jesus tells us in Matthew 12 that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. I know people feel uneasy with any claim that Jesus broke God's laws but I can see no other way to make sense of the Matthew 12 teaching.

Here is my reasoning:

1. The Torah clearly states (Exodus 35) that God (not man) has created the Sabbath Law - if you work on the Sabbath, its stoning for you.

2. Jesus declares that doing good on the Sabbath is lawful. He backs this up with an example. And you really can't get out of this by saying "pulling the sheep out of the pit is not work". Why? Because Jesus makes the much more general statmenet: It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

3. Are there ways in which "work" can do good? Of course! So, if we are to take Jesus at his word, this work is OK on the Sabbath. But then that breaks the Sabbath law.

You can't have it both ways. Let's assume for the moment that Jesus never taught an "exception clause" - that the teaching on divorce is as per Mark 10 (no except for pornea stuff):

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.

So, the argument goes, there are no exceptions. Fine.

The problem is that the Sabbath Law gave no exceptions either. It did not say "no work except pulling sheep out of pits". So unless Jesus is screwed up. we have to conclude that there are indeed unstated exceptions to the divorce teaching.

Please note: the Sabbath Law is God's law, not man's.

And if one tries to argue that Jesus abolishes the Sabbath, there is still the example of David and his men who eat the shewbread - a clear violation of God's own law that Jesus condones.

Given the Matthew 12 teaching, I do not think any "exceptionless" rule about divorce is scriptural.

[MommyTee]

1 Corinthians 7:15
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.

amen! and my sister, she remains unmarried at this point, why? First of all she has a trust issue where men are concerned.......hmmmmm our dad and her husband. She loved her husband so much she tried to get him to work it out.........but she was God fearing and he did not want to serve God anymore.........walked away from her and his faith. She is now raising my brother's children as her own(that is a whole different story). She is a single mom of children not of her flesh, and she is judged as a single mom and a divorcee by some Christians. Yet there are others that show her love and respect. She would like to be married again should God allow a God fearing man into her life, one that REALLY and truly wants to serve God. My sister did all she could to save her marriage and she was deeply wounded by what her ex did and at her most vulnerable she had people in the church judge her and condemn her......in essence shooting their own wounded. Jesus binds up the brokenhearted........and the compassion of Jesus is beyond anything we can ever imagine.

I know very God fearing people who serve Him in mighty ways and are greatly used by Him that have been divorced and remarried.....I dont know their whole story but I see God's hand on their lives.

[threebigrocks]

Drew, exceptions to the law aren't as you say. To pick heads of grain or save a sheep is to do good in the Spirit of the law not the letter. We cannot say that since there are exceptions to do good that there are exceptions to go against God and make them up as we go, saying God does so here under these circumstances why not there in these.

In those passages, Christ was addresing things they were already doing, and reinforcing the fact that it did not go against the letter of the Law to do so. It wasn't an exception.

Divorce was never an intention of God's. Either the unbeliever leaves of their choice or because of adultery two may divorce. Otherwise, although they may be physically seperated they may not go on to live as though they are no married. That covenant remains.

[drew]

Drew, exceptions to the law aren't as you say. To pick heads of grain or save a sheep is to do good in the Spirit of the law not the letter. We cannot say that since there are exceptions to do good that there are exceptions to go against God and make them up as we go, saying God does so here under these circumstances why not there in these.

In those passages, Christ was addresing things they were already doing, and reinforcing the fact that it did not go against the letter of the Law to do so. It wasn't an exception.

Divorce was never an intention of God's. Either the unbeliever leaves of their choice or because of adultery two may divorce. Otherwise, although they may be physically seperated they may not go on to live as though they are no married. That covenant remains.

This is a very common position to take, but I do not think it really works. Let me be clear: when I say that Jesus condoned breaking the law in Matthew 12, I am saying He condoned breaking the letter of the law, not the Spirit. But, the law is what it is. And so if Jesus condones breaking the letter of God's law (remember, the Sabbath law is God's law, the showbread law is God's law), then it is entirely plausible that He would, in certain circumnstances, condone divorce even though that would break the letter of Jesus' own teaching.

The letter of the Sabbath Law is what it is - no work on the Sabbath on pain of death. So if "doing good" takes the form of "work" - pulling a sheep out of a pit, or performing emergency surgery - then to do so is to break the letter of God's Sabbath Law. And we know that Jesus condoned the breaking the letter of God's Sabbath law. We would therefore expect that He might condone the breaking the letter of His very own teaching on divorce if certain circumstances applied.

My argument is basically this:

1. The letter of the Sabbath Law prohibits work on the Sabbath;

2. Jesus says its OK to "do good" on the Sabbath, without adding "as long as its not 'work' ";

3. Some forms of doing good obviously entail work (e.g. performing open heart surgery);

4. Therefore, Jesus has condoned the breaking of the letter of the Sabbath law;

5. Therefore, unless there is some reason to assume that the divorce law is in a special "exceptionless" category of law which the Sabbath law isn't in, then it is reasonable to assume that the divorce teaching has exceptions as well (just like the Sabbath law).

If I were attempting to argue that there are no exceptions to the divorce teaching (over and above the debatable "adultery" exception), I would try to pursue the category distinction of point number 5.

Otherwise, I think the argument I have provided is pretty sound - there are probalby circumstances under which God would condone exceptions to His own law prohibiting divorce and / or remarriage.

[threebigrocks]

To the Law. Humm.

Matthew 19

7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
8He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

1 Corinthians

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Here Christ explains why the Law allowed it, and He set them straight as to the "exceptions" to it were no longer applicable. "I say to you..."
Can we claim exceptions to what Christ has clearly laid down?

[drew]

Can we claim exceptions to what Christ has clearly laid down?

In Matthew 12, Jesus clearly does this very thing in respect to what his Father has "clearly laid down":

1. He expresses an "unstated" exception to the showbread law;
2. He expresses exceptions to the Sabbath Law.

In my opinion, we treat Jesus and God as equally authoritative. It is clear that Jesus condones exceptions to what God has expressed in the form of various Laws - which had no explcit exceptions attached to them. It seems eminently reasonable to assume the existence of exceptions to what Jesus taught.

I suspect I know how people react to this. They say to themselves "surely Jesus gave us a complete and exceptionless teaching". I understand the inclination to want to believe this. But the scriptures teach something else. They teach that there are unstated exceptions to the Sabbath Law and to the showbread law. These are God's laws and they were given without a list of "except for....." qualifiers.

It is simply inconsistent to assert that Jesus' teaching are "exceptionless" when His Father's are not.

It is true that Jesus and Paul further amplified on the divorce / remarriage teaching. But there are no grounds to assume that this closed the door on unstated exceptions.

[VerticalReality]

To the Law. Humm.

Matthew 19



1 Corinthians


Here Christ explains why the Law allowed it, and He set them straight as to the "exceptions" to it were no longer applicable. "I say to you..."
Can we claim exceptions to what Christ has clearly laid down?

Or he could be giving them the "correct" interpretation of the law instead of the twisted "divorce for any reason" view that some folks of that day were teaching. Don't forget the question the Pharisees were asking Him. They weren't asking Him whether or not the law still applied. Of course it still applied. They were asking Him how He interpreted it. He answered their question with the true interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage.

[drew]

Or he could be giving them the "correct" interpretation of the law instead of the twisted "divorce for any reason" view that some folks of that day were teaching. Don't forget the question the Pharisees were asking Him. They weren't asking Him whether or not the law still applied. Of course it still applied. They were asking Him how He interpreted it. He answered their question with the true interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage.

I think you make a very strong point here. As Jesus stood there arguing with the Pharisees, how can one possibly argue that Jesus is "changing" the law. Even if one takes the position that Jesus' death and resurrection has "done away with" the law (at least in some sense), this discussion takes place prior to that event.

So obviously the Law is still in force. I think the best conclusion is that Jesus elaboates the true interpretation of the law. We have this from Psalm 19:

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul

To the extent that it is possible, even for God, to prescribe human bevaviour in the form of "exceptionless" rules, the existing law of God has to be understood as being perfect. So there seems to be little doubt -there are grounds for divorce. And I think VR has it right when s/he says that Jesus is elaborating on the meaning of the Deuteronomy law, not modifying it.

[threebigrocks]

Or he could be giving them the "correct" interpretation of the law instead of the twisted "divorce for any reason" view that some folks of that day were teaching. Don't forget the question the Pharisees were asking Him. They weren't asking Him whether or not the law still applied. Of course it still applied. They were asking Him how He interpreted it. He answered their question with the true interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage.

Then I am thinking that there is a definate misunderstanding between us somewhere.

I am seeing this from the pov that Christ understood that the Pharisees were trying to see what he would say about divorce compared to what Moses gave them to follow, what they understood the truth to be. But, divorce was never intended to be at all, and I think the Pharasees were so to the letter of the Law - they forgot God's original design.

If it wasn't for the hardened hearts, divorce would not have been as it was under the Law. Christ came to bring us back to full communion with God, fufill the law, and give us grace and mercy.

Are we closer now?

[VerticalReality]

Then I am thinking that there is a definate misunderstanding between us somewhere.

I am seeing this from the pov that Christ understood that the Pharisees were trying to see what he would say about divorce compared to what Moses gave them to follow, what they understood the truth to be. But, divorce was never intended to be at all, and I think the Pharasees were so to the letter of the Law - they forgot God's original design.

If it wasn't for the hardened hearts, divorce would not have been as it was under the Law. Christ came to bring us back to full communion with God, fufill the law, and give us grace and mercy.

Are we closer now?

I understand what you're saying. The Pharisees' interpretation of the law either wasn't correct to begin with, or they were testing Him. Their first question to Jesus was could a man divorce his wife for "just any cause". Jesus then goes on to explain to them that when God created us, He never intended for divorce to be a possibility. However, due to the hardness of man's heart, Moses allowed them to divorce. This permission was given in the law found in Deuteronomy 24.

Now, during this time there were basically two teachings going on with regard to Deuteronomy 24. One teaching stated that a man could not divorce his wife for any reason except for the cause of sexual immorality. The other teaching of the time, which was the more popular teaching (imagine that), was that a man could divorce his wife for any cause he deemed necessary. So, first Jesus addresses what God intended in the begining, which was that man and woman were to be one flesh and remain so. They were not created to separate what God had joined together and Jesus Christ makes it clear that this is the way it is supposed to be. However, He also clarifies that even though this is what God desires (because He hates divorce) man was still permitted by Moses to divorce in the law because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus then corrects this goofy teaching that a man can divorce his wife for any cause and makes clear that the law only permitted a man to divorce his wife because of sexual immorality. If you then refer to Deuteronomy 24 you will see that the cause for a man to put his wife out of his house is "uncleanness", which if you check other passages of Scripture where this term is used you will see that it means "sexual immorality" quite often.

[Fisher]

Hi all,

I was wondering after such an interesting issue where this fits in.......
These are passages from the KJV AND the NIV just to encompass more than one reference.
Now, since we all follow the words of Jesus as He spoke and taught them, isn't this passage entirely clear?

I am not a lawyer or biblical scholar, but when Jesus himself says "EXCEPT or SAVE for the act of marital unfaithfulness", to me, that "language" is crystal clear. I can't find any obscurity in that phrasing.
Take a look:

KJV:
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

NIV:
Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I am not for divorce either, but it seems like he clearly left a clause in there for certain circumstances, no?
What do you folks think about this?

Bless you all and all the best,
Fisher

[VerticalReality]

What do you folks think about this?

Bless you all and all the best,
Fisher

What I believe about this statement by Jesus is the same as my post above. I don't believe Jesus is stating anything new here, and I don't believe Jesus is changing anything either. I believe with this statement Jesus is giving the true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1.

[threebigrocks]

jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

This also would apply in the opposite as well. if you did not know it was a sin, then it cannot be held against you. For how can a rightous God condemn you of a sin you knew not of?

Also, forced love is not true love. This is why Christ is about choice and free will. So in my "opinion", I don't think you were married to a man that you did not love. This is because you did not mean the words of the marraige covenant in which you spoke. Just as a person who says the sinners prayer and does not mean what is said will not be saved. Because having faith in God, which means you mean what you are saying, also means your words are heart felt. And unless the words come from your heart, then Christ cannot live where your heart does not agree.

Love is a heart felt emotion. So the words spoken in covenant have to be from the heart or they have no meaning. So forced marraige is not heart felt so it has no meaning if the words you spoke were not from the heart.

Romans 7

7What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
8But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

Because of the commandment not to commit adultery, we know it is sin.

Luke 14

27"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
28"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29"Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him,

We need to count the costs of what we are entering into, know what the covenant of marriage really is, and not be saying empty words.

The trouble? Many don't claim Christianity, and those that do still don't understand nor take marriage seriously.

[drew]

At the risk of seeming bold, I am going to suggest that the "Matthew 12" argument I have presented has not really been challenged. I believe that the one objection to it has been satisfactorily answered. We know that Jesus condones "unstated" exceptions to God's law. Why would this principle not generalize?

It is my belief that it is not possible, even for God, to explicitly and prescriptively list all the exceptions to any teaching or commandment. We therefore need to look at each "rule" through what I believe Jesus believed was the true essence of the Law:

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

I see this, especially in light of the Matthew 12 stuff, as Jesus asserting that these 2 "great commandments" not only undergird the law, they provide a means for identifying appropriate exceptions. I suspect that most of you do are not happy with such a reading. Well, I would still think you need to explain Jesus' behaviour in Matthew 12.