Christians And Divorce

God's View On Divorce

In the past, according to the bible, God has allowed polygamy and divorce. However it was not part of his plan as the case of Adam and Eve where "the two shall become one flesh." But many of God's faithful servants, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had more then one wife, including concubines. King Solomon, had 700 wives and 300 concubines, in violation of Deuteronomy 17:17. (1 Kings 11:1-3; Gen 2:22-24

Despite these actions, that God allowed to occur, the prophet Malachi wrote, "You people must guard yourselves respecting your spirit, and with the wife of your youth may no one deal treacherously. For God has hated a divorcing, the God of Israel says." Notice that the type of divorce God hated was not a case of mutual agreement between the two parties, but the type of divorce that dealt treacherously with the wife (or either spouse). (Malachi 2:15,16)

With the arrival of the Christ, Jesus clarified God's view on divorce. In his famous sermon on the mount, Jesus stated, "It was said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. (written in Deu 24:1) However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt 5: 31-32)

When further asked why God permitted divorce in times past, Jesus answered, "Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife and the two will be one flesh? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart. The Pharisees then said to him: Why, then did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her? Jesus then said, Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of fornication (physical and spiritual extramarital intercourse), and marries another, commits adultery." So here it can be seen, the innocent mate is permitted, but not required, to divorce a mate who commits fornication. But is this limited to physical fornication (sex) only? What about spiritual fornication? (Matt 19:3-9)

Physical Fornication Verses Spiritual Fornication

The Nation of Israel

God's chosen people, the "offspring of Abraham", the nation of Israel, became a "holy nation of priests and kings" and a "wife" to God, making him the "husbandly owner" of them. A vow was made. The Israelites were to obey God's commandments, and in return, God was to bless them. They were not only to obey God's commandments, but to put faith and reliance in him. They were to look solely to him for all their needs and strengths. (Isaiah 54)

But rather then rely on their "head", "husbandly owner" and God for strength, the Israelites lacked faith and put reliance on other nations for political, economic, military and spiritual strength. Their forming alliances with Assyria, Syria, Egypt and Babylon broke their vow with their husbandly owner God.

How did God view this? As fornication. He continually described their actions as those of physical fornication, describing the nation of Israel as a "prostitute, hoar, who kept lusting in the style of concubines belonging to those whose fleshly member is as the fleshly member of males asses and whose genital organ is as the genital organ of male horses." God further states, "Their breasts were squeezed and there they pressed the bosoms of their virginity." He labeled the northern 10 tribes of Ephraim, with the city of Samaria, as a prostitute named "Oholah" and labeled the southern 2 tribes of Judah, with the city of Jerusalem, as a prostitute named "Oholibah." God described them as disgusting hoars and punished them. God himself then divorced his wife, the nation of Israel. He first sent the nation of Assyria to destroy the northern 10 tribes and later he sent the nation of Babylon to destroy the southern 2 tribes. (Ezekiel chapter 23)

The fact that God compared on equal terms the turning away from his headship and direction, the same as physical fornication, describing this in such detail, certainly has a principle. Spiritual fornication, the turning away from God's headship and direction and putting it elsewhere can be likened to physical fornication and allow the action of divorce to take place, as he himself did to his "wife", the nation of Israel.

A Christian's Spiritual Fornication

Just as the nation of Israel's spiritual fornication gave God the legitimate right to exercise divorce from her, so too does a spouse's spiritual fornication give the allowance for divorce.

As Apostle Paul states, "Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body." So a husband is only the "head" up to a point, in imitation of the Christ, who is head of the congregation and he must be "loving his wife as his own flesh, as the Christ loves the congregation." So a wife, is in relative, not absolute, subjection to her husband. He in turn, must treat his wife with love, in accordance with the teachings of Christ, otherwise his "prayers will be hindered." (Eph 5:21-33; 1 Pet 3:1-7)

With this in mind, it can be compared to God's headship and direction. When a wife refuses to submit to her husband's relative headship, providing he is in agreement with God's word, she commits spiritual fornication, by following her own ways or relying on other persons for spiritual, physical and emotional strength. To put reliance on a religious organization, body of elders, governing body or self appointed "slave class" that restricts her from spiritual, emotional or physical relations with her "head", her husband, is spiritual fornication. This in turn, gives the husband the scriptural right to divorce his wife, as God divorced his wife, the nation of Israel.

This standard is for the husband as well. He must "treat his wife as his own flesh." Certainly he will fall short of this at times, just as the wife will fall short of her subjection at times. However, each spouse must willing submit themselves to God's standards of headship and work together as "one flesh." For a husband to neglect his wife, and children, due to the advice, reliance or pressure from a man's religious organization, is to commit spiritual fornication, allowing the wife to scripturally divorce her husband.

Apostle Paul's Words

Apostle Paul's words at Romans 7:1-3 bring out, that when a person dies, the law no longer holds him in it's power. For example, when a woman marries, the law binds her to her husband as long as he is alive. But if he dies, she is no longer bound to him; the laws of marriage no longer apply to her. Then she can marry someone else if she wants to. That would be wrong while he was alive, but it is perfectly all right after he dies." Now that the brothers have died, as it were, with Christ on the cross and are now dead to the Law, they are no longer "married" to their "husband", the Mosaic Law. So as a general rule, there is to be no divorce and remarriage while either spouse is still alive. But is this a blanket command, towards all persons, that cannot be broken under any circumstance? (Romans 7:1-6)

Not Apostle Paul's Advice - But God's Command
For: Two Christians Already Married

"To those already married (both Christians), my command , or rather the Lord's command, is that the wife should not leave her husband. But if she is separated from him she should either remain unattached or else be reconciled to her husband. A husband is not, in similar circumstances, to divorce his wife." - 1 Corinthians 7: 10-11 (Phillips MT)

Paul's Advice - Not God's Command
For: Marriages With An Unbeliever

"To other people my advice (though this is not a divine command) is this. For a brother who has a non-Christian wife who is willing to live with him he should not divorce her. A wife in a similar position should not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is, in a sense, consecrated by being joined to the person of his wife; the unbelieving wife is similarly consecrated by the Christian brother she has married. If this were not so then your children would bear the stains of paganism, were as they are actually consecrated to God.

But if the unbelieving partner decides to separate, then let there be a separation (divorce). The Christian partner need not consider himself bound in such cases. Yet God has called us to live in peace, and after all how can you, who are a wife, know whether you will be able to save your husband or not? And the same applies to you who are a husband. - 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 (Phillips MT)

The Main Point

"I merely add to the above that each man should live his life with the gifts that God has given him and in the condition in which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the Churches" - 1 Corinthians 7:17 (Phillips MT)

The Context of Paul's Words

In the context of instruction on marriage, singleness, and remarriage, Paul says to the Corinthians,

"And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you" - 1 Corinthians 7: 35

From Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, where he insists that the believing spouse should not depart, the context shows that this only applies to two married Christians. If one of the spouses were in a different religion or sect/cult, then divorce is permissible according to Paul's further words at 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.

Notice, that if one of the spouses were to follow a body of elders, governing body or "slave class" of men, who instruct this spouse to "separate" spiritually or physically from the other spouse because they interpret that spouse as an unbeliever, when in reality he or she is not, then they are the ones who have caused the separation. Now since this spouse has separated, either physically or spiritually, from the other because of following a man's religious organization's instructions, the other spouse is "not bound" and is allowed to divorce, according to Apostle Paul's words above.

Anotherwards, if a wife were to separate, either physically or spiritually, following the headship of the Watchtower or another church organization's instructions, she has separated from her husband's headship, thus freeing her husband from being "bound", "calling him to peace", permitting him to divorce her.

The point is, there are different circumstances in each marriage and Paul states, "each one must walk as God has called him." A blanket, legalistic command is not what Paul conveys, but rather a thought provoking argument for both spouses to reason on, making the decision to separate or divorce only as a last possible alternative.

Marriage, Divorce and The Appointment of Overseers

In regards the subject of divorce and remarriage of Christians, Paul's above words, along with the stated requirements and qualifications for elders of the Christian congregation, in 1 Timothy chapter 3, are believed by some to be, that Paul prohibits a remarried, divorced man from the office of overseer because of the potentially embarrassing situations his ex-wife (or ex-wives) creates for the elder and the congregation.

The correctness of this interpretation seems impossible to prove one way or the other. "In fact the problem with this interpretation as well as the previous ones is that they create more problems than they solve. The interpretation, married only once in a lifetime, particularly raises a hornet's nest of mind-puzzling theological and marital questions. Regarding the issue of whether or not a divorced or divorced and remarried man (whether the divorce took place before or after the conversion) can become an elder, the New Testament doesn't directly comment. Commentator Philip H. Towner is on target when he writes,

"The point is not how often one can be married nor precisely what constitutes a legitimate marriage (that the marriage of the candidate is legitimate is assumed), but rather how one conducts himself in his marriage." (1)

Commentator Alexander Strauch adequately sums up the issue of divorce and the appointment of overseers in the Christian congregation, when he states

"What does 1 Timothy say about sexual and marital sins committed before a person's conversion to Christ? What about people who have legally divorced and remarried (assuming the local church allows for such)? What about the forgiveness and restoration of a fallen spiritual leader? These and many other painful and controversial questions are not answered directly here. They must be answered from the whole Scripture's teaching on divorce and remarriage, forgiveness, grace, and restoration, as well as its teaching on leadership example and the full spectrum of elder qualifications.

All deviations from God's standard of marital behavior confuse and perplex us. Sin always confuses, distorts, and divides, so there will always be diverse opinions on questions such as these. This in no way however, diminishes the local church's obligation to face these issues and make wise, scripturally sound decisions. In all these heartbreaking situations, the honor of Jesus' name, faithfulness to His Word, and prayer are the supreme guides." (2)

Mercy Overrides The Sacrifice

After David escapes from King Saul's attempt to kill him, Saul's son, Jonathan secretly meets David to see if he can help him. David hides in in a field and Jonathan arranges a secret code of shooting arrows and a boy to fetch them, thus meaning whether David should flee or return to Jerusalem. After speaking with his father in David's behalf, all to no avail, Jonathan meets David and informs him of his father's serious intentions to kill him.

David, the anointed king of Israel, now goes to the city of Nob and enter the tabernacle to see Abimelech, the priest. David and his comrades then lie about their mission and asks for five loaves of consecrated (holy) that only the priests can eat, but no others. But since there was no other food available, the priest gave him the holy bread, that is the "bread of the Presence that was placed before the Lord in the Tabernacle", despite the restriction of Leviticus 24:5-9. It is also likely that this event further broke the law by taking place on the Sabbath since the consecrated bread had just been changed. (Each Sabbath twelve fresh loaves replaced the former ones) (1 Sam chapters 20, 21)

What importance is this? According to the Mosaic law code, this holy bread was strictly reserved for the priests, the sons of Aaron, and no one else. Yet because of the circumstances of David, it was allowed. The law was broken and it was allowed. Mercy overrode sacrifice. (Lev 24:5-8)

Technically, the priests broke the Law every Sabbath by performing their tasks, but no one regarded them as Sabbath breakers. The nature of their work as God's worship leaders demanded that they violate Sabbath laws. There are, therefore, valid reasons to "violate" Sabbath rules. Thus today's police officers become "law breakers" when they run red lights in order to carry out their duties and protect people from harm. (3)

Jesus Christ and His Disciples

As Jesus and his disciples went through the grain fields on the Sabbath, they became hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But the Pharisees, who saw this, said to Jesus, "Look, your disciples are doing what is NOT lawful to do on the Sabbath (According to Exodus 20:10; 31:15; 12:16; Deu 23:25) But Jesus then quoted from the book of 1 Samuel, how King David and his men did what was NOT lawful, by eating the holy bread reserved only for the priests. Again in this situation, mercy overrode the sacrifice of laws and commands. (Matt 12:1-8; 1 Sam 21:1-6)

On another occasion, a woman with a blood flow entered a public place with the crowds of people seeking healing from Jesus. Under the Mosaic law, a woman with a menstrual blood flow was considered unclean and forbidden to enter the camp. The penalty for violating this could mean death. However, not only did Jesus not punish this woman for her breaking God's command, but instead healed her 12 year blood flow and commended her faith. Again it was mercy, that completely overrode the commandment of God, due to the circumstances involved. (Matt 9:19-22; Luke 8:42-48; Lev 15:25-33)

There are other accounts of the breaking of God's legal commands because of the circumstances that require mercy, such as Jesus healing a Gentile woman's daughter, when he was specifically sent only to preach and heal the Jews. The touching and healing of lepers who approached him in a public area without keeping a far distance and calling out "unclean, unclean." Mercy always overrides sacrifice. (Matt 9:13; Hosea 6:6; Luke 5:12-14; Lev 13:45-46; Matt 15:22-28)

Different Circumstances Require Flexibility

These above examples are only a fraction of the thousands of laws, rules and regulations that were directly broken by God's people and were approved by God. Even murder ! (As with the case of the priest Phinehas, who went, with God's approval, inside one of the Israelites tent and stabbed both an Israelite man and Moabite woman in the genitals, putting them to death, ending a deadly scourge that God sent on Israel for their immorality - Numbers 25:7-9) The point is: rules are made to be broken when love and mercy are concerned. Unless God directly speaks and commands to show no mercy to an individual, nation or group of persons, then "mercy and love are what God wants, not sacrifice."

This same principle applies to God's commands on marriage and divorce. Each marriage has it's own circumstances. There are many different factors that require God's mercy to override his commands of remaining married or attempting reconciliation as the only alternative. To put the restrictions of no divorce, except physical fornication, on each and every case of marriage without carefully weighing the individual circumstances, is to put the sacrifice of legal requirements over mercy and ahead of God's loving kindness.

It is as looking at the trees without seeing the forest, the whole picture and grand scheme of God's plan and dealing with man. Legalism blinds persons from seeing the whole picture, preventing discernment of the spirit that is behind the laws, thus the laws become the religion rather than God. (Isaiah 29:9-14; Matt 15:1-14; Luke 6:39)

As Hosea noted, the Israelites were performing many of God's commands, performing sacrifices and following his laws, however they lacked insight on the big picture. They worshiped the sacrifices, commands, legal requirements and religion itself, but not the person God, who is a "God of love." Their sacrifices were worthless, because they lacked "loving kindness." Instead along with their sacrifices, "they were practicers of what was harmful." Certainly this included emotional and spiritual unkindness as well as physical. And for this they were divorced by God. (Hosea 6:4-7; Matt 9:13)

The Male Dominated Patriarchal Society

The Male Dominated Patriarchal Society

The Role of The Woman She was created for marriage and motherhood. She was to be the keeper of the hearth, the reader of children, obedient and loyal to her husband. If she did not marry she was viewed as a failure, disparaging called "an old maid," and generally pitied. Before marriage, at least in the dominant strand of the social order, she was expected to be chaste. Elaborate control or chaperone systems were developed to guarantee that chastity. The typical male expected his spouse to be virgin at marriage and faithful after marriage. her goodness and success as a woman were determined by how well she satisfied these expectations. The Role of The Man His task was to be the breadwinner. His masculine power was defined largely by the effectiveness with which he competed in order to carry out this assignment. He was the patriarch, the king of his household, the decision maker, and his wife and children were expected to serve him. A male occupation was usually chosen for him, within very specific limits set by his father. Most often it related to the task historically performed the the males in his unit of society, wh ich up to the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century was usually agricultural in nature, the land being the backbone of the economy. When particular skills were required, an apprenticeship program was developed. That too, had a patriarchal shape based on the relationship of master and servant. All of life was molded by the hierarchical values of the patriarchy.

John Shelby Spong relates in his book, Living In Sin, the nature of our once male dominated society, from education, employment, living opportunities, all based on a patriarchal system, of obedience to the owner, the man, in the marriage, as the "man and wife." In a relatively very short time, so many ways, taboos and restrictions of our society have been transformed to the equaling of the sexes, and rightly so, yet the church's position has retained the conventional mold based on the former patriarchal society.

Spong comments,

"Women are discovering that not only are they free to leave a destructive marriage without ruining their lives-they may choose not be be married at all. Further , women who want children may opt to raise them as a single parent. Marriage is no longer the universal vocation. Women are discovering in their careers the emotional fulfillment that men have long known could be there. Those women able to achieve economic independence may find marriage a career detriment and a financial liability. Should they be forced by the expectations of a society into marriage for the sake of companionship and for the gratification of sexual needs.? Similarly, motherhood is no longer a woman's biological destiny. Her choice not to bear or raise children, or to do so apart from a primary relationship. further shakes the rationale that undergirds the institution of patriarchal marriage.

This issue of whether to marry is posed poignantly for those divorced women and men in whom the hurt of a failed marriage remains. Such persons are more aware than most of the trauma of divorce. There may be an unwillingness to become vulnerable to that hurt again, yet no one loses the need for companionship, admiration, and affection. What might the nature of a relationship be if a divorced woman or man is neither able nor willing to make an avowed commitment? Is marriage the only relationship in which the intimacy of sexual love can be shared at every stage of life? Suffice it now to say that marriage is not in the life plan of many single adults, for a wide variety of good and sufficient reasons. That fact needs to be affirmed.

These unmarried adults are not and will not be bound by the moralistic judgments of the past that guaranteed a dependent status for woman. They do not fit into conventional molds nor are they willing to try to. For the most part they are not promiscuous; promiscuity is the lifestyle of a very small percentage of people. A responsible relationship is more frequently the case. Can this not be held up as good by a just society and a church committed to moral standards?

The pursuit of separate but equally demanding careers has brought a new tension to marriage. When that tension cause a marriage to break up, who is to say that the divorcing couple is wrong and the repressive system of the past is right? What moral issues need to be faced? Does the group of people for whom marriage is an asset have a right to impose the standard that enhances their lives upon those people who have chosen a different path? Is there only on lifestyle that is moral? What makes it so? From whence comes the assumption that sex inside marriage always holy? Marriage does not make sex holy, the quality of the relationship does. Is sex outside marriage always sinful? What happens when we apply the biblical standard of judging the tree by its fruit? Suppose the manifestations of a committed but unmarried relationship are love, joy, and peace, while bitterness, pain, and hurt are the products of a legal marriage. In what qualities does holiness reside? Can traditional morality be adapted so that the good things it sought to ensure with its particular prohibitions and affirmations might still be accomplished inside a new set of affirmations and prohibitions that are appropriate to the contemporary values that have been embraced by both men and women?

For the church to have no word for this significant group in our society except a word of documentation is unworthy. For the church to speak judgmentally and moralistically, without giving the slightest indication that the positive and good forces that fuel the changing mores have been grasped or understood, is itself immoral. For the church not to recognize that its traditional moral codes rise out of enforce, and interpret a system of male oppression of women is irresponsible." (4)

	Footnotes:
1	Philip H. Towner, The Goal of Our Instruction: The Structure of Theology and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 34 (Sheffield: JOST Press, 1989), p. 232
2	Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: an urgent call to restore biblical.church leadership (Lewis and Roth Publishers), pgs. 192-193
3	Tom Hovestol, Seeing Ourselves in the Pharisees Extreme Righteousness (Moody Press) , pg 127
4	John Shelby Spong, Living In Sin, (Harper Collins Publishers), pg. 64-66