HOME | BOOKS/BOOKLETS | THE MAGAZINE
SITE MAP | EMAIL

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT

PAGE 42

THERE are four passages in the gospels which refer to the subject of divorce: two in Matthew, one in Mark which is parallel to the second in Matthew but with important differences, and one in Luke (Matt. 5:27-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18).

We might have thought that on such a vital matter the passages of scripture which deal with the subject would be simple and clear; but the controversies that have been waged throughout the centuries make it evident that the issues are neither simple not clear. 0. D. Watkins in a book of over 700 pages entitled Holy Matrimony begins the chapter dealing with "The indissolubility of Christian Marriage; and of Divorce" with the words: "Perhaps the most important, certainly the most difficult, of the questions which have been raised with regard to Christian marriage is the question whether under any circumstances short of death it admits the dissolution of the marriage bond. The evidence of Holy Scripture is difficult to understand, the appeal to Christian tradition is not quite uniformly answered, and from the standpoint of reason it may be conceded there are arguments of weight on both sides." Smith's Bible Dictionary, now ninety years old, declares: "With regard to the general question of the re-marriage of divorced persons,

PAGE 43

there is some difficulty in ascertaining the sense of scripture ... In the New Testament there are no direct precepts on the subject of re-marriage of divorced persons. All the remarks bearing upon the subject had a primary reference to an entirely different subject, namely the abuse of divorce. For instance, our Lord's declarations in Matt. 5:32, 19:9, applying as they expressly do to the case of a wife divorced on other grounds than that of unfaithfulness, and again Paul's, in 1 Cor. 7:11, presupposing a contingency which he himself had prohibited as improper, cannot be regarded as directed to the general question of re-marriage."

It is not surprising to find that some writers frankly declare that the question whether Jesus allowed divorce for unfaithfulness or prohibited divorce absolutely, cannot be definitely settled; and that the conclusions reached by many are influenced by their own presuppositions and ecclesiastical practices rather than by an enquiry into the evidence. The broad divergences on the subject are briefly indicated in the following sentences from A. T. Macmillan in What is Christian Marriage?

"The history of the Church's teaching on divorce and whether the marriage after divorce is permissible, is a long one, and shows very great divergence of views at different periods and in different branches of the Church. Speaking very generally, divorce with right of re-marriage was from an early date admitted in the East; gradually came to be forbidden in the West -- quite definitely so from the time of Gratian, twelfth century; and at the Reformation was admitted by Protestantism. The position of the Church of England differed from that of Protestant Churches, as, after a certain amount of wavering, she stuck to the catholic teaching in respect of the indissolubility of marriage."

PAGE 44

Possibly some readers will say that all that church historians and commentators have written can be ignored and that we can appeal to the Scriptures and there get our answer. It is true that appeal must be made to Scripture as the final and indeed the only authority, but when questions of the reliability of texts, of the meaning of words, of the background of customs to which statements of Scripture refer, are involved, we must then get the best evidence we can, and if it should be conflicting we must exercise the best judgment possible upon it. We all recognize that the broad teaching of Scripture is always a help to the interpretation of particular passages. But it has to be recognized that not only do outside scholars differ, but brethren who have sought to determine the Scripture teaching on the subject have also reached different conclusions. Why is this? Must it even here lie in the difference of approach? Or must we conclude that a final answer eludes us?

The first apparent difficulty arises from a fact obvious on the face of the texts mentioned. Whereas Mark and Luke appear to give emphatic testimony that all divorce and re-marriage is contrary to Christ's teaching, the two statements in Matthew give an exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce: but not only so, the records in Mark and Matthew is concerning the same episode present such an apparent difference of approach that reconciliation is not easy. A short and easy way of dealing with the problem is taken by many scholars today. Modern theories concerning the origin of the gospels contain speculation about documents behind the gospels. A source document described as Q (from Quelle-a source) is postulated as being used by Matthew (or his editors) and by Luke (or his editors) in

PAGE 45

addition to Mark whose priority is widely accepted. These speculations lead to very varying views concerning the value of particular verses, and also provide occasion for rejecting a verse if it conflicts with a particular theory. Mark, regarded as an earlier writing than Matthew and Luke, is accepted as more reliable and the exceptive clauses in Matthew are regarded as interpolation, inserted out of regard for Jewish feeling or for some other reason. Whereas textual criticism is based upon the evidence of existing manuscripts and versions, and of quotations by early writers, the modern critical approach to the Scriptures allows unbridled licence to speculation, and to theorizing about the text of Scripture. We may read in some recent book a definite statement that a particular verse is an interpolation and accept it without realizing that there is no evidence for what is affirmed. Gore's Commentary, for example, on Matt. 19:9 says:

"But did our Lord really say this? The case against it is overwhelming, and almost all scholars are now agreed that the exceptive clauses here and in 5:32 were never spoken by him."

A number of reasons are then given; but the simple fact is that there is no textual warrant for omitting the verse, and the reasons advanced for so doing are very largely subjective. If a scholar has decided that Jesus could not make an exception on this question of divorce, then the text must go; and the passage is then attributed to an editor of the gospel or to a source which cannot be trusted.

We will look at each of the four statements in turn, beginning with the one verse in Luke 16:18 which reads: "Everyone that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,

PAGE 46

committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery" (R.V.).

This verse in Luke is often regarded as an isolated saying not having a real connection with the context. It is, however, possible to trace a line of thought. The verse is part of an indictment of the Pharisees who derided Jesus. They were covetous, says Luke, and scoffed at the saying that men cannot serve God and Mammon. Jesus replied that they judged by human standards, seeking human approval; but God had standards also, and by these men's actions were seen to be an abomination. God had revealed His will by Moses and the prophets in the past, but now Jesus was announcing a new dispensation, and the common people were eager to hear of it:

"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

This must not be understood to mean that there was antagonism between the Law and Prophets and the Kingdom: the law would not fail, but would be fulfilled in the Kingdom.

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail."

This evidently met a criticism that the teaching of Jesus was opposed to the law: this Jesus denied: but as he often did, he turned the criticism on his opponents. They who professed a zeal for the law were breakers of the law: and Jesus might, as he did on another occasion, have cited the corban

PAGE 47

law by which they made void the word of God by their tradition; or he might have laid bare their evil inclinations and murderous intentions towards himself as evidence of failure on their part, as more than once he did. Here he refers to the flagrant relaxing of the moral code by their teaching on divorce, and by this indicts them of being the destroyers of the law. There may have been some reference to the matter about that time which Luke does not record; or it may be that the deriding Pharisees before him were themselves well known practisers of the fullest licence allowed by the school of Hillel. We can only speculate on the circumstances that led to the remark. What is clear is that a charge against them of such a character could only be expressed in the broadest terms. The conditions did not call for a reference to the one qualification made in Matthew, and the absence of the qualification here in no way casts doubt upon its genuineness in Matthew. What is evident from this statement is that Jesus regarded the Edenic law as the general rule of married life and that deviation from that law was wrong. The freedom of divorce for all kinds of reasons other than unfaithfulness make it probable that divorce for unfaithfulness would form only a small part of the total number. Since that one ground of divorce was generally accepted, a reference to it was not necessary; the conflict raged around what other grounds made it possible for men to put away their wives. There is no doubt that on the issue in dispute Jesus declared that the will of God was against divorce generally.

But that being said, what is the precise meaning of the words of Jesus? We leave the answer for fuller discussion later, when we have examined the problems attached to the parallel record of Matthew 19 and Mark 10, merely

PAGE 48

pointing out now that there is a paradoxical element in the language of Jesus, what we might call a tension in the words he uses. He speaks of a second marriage following divorce, and of a marriage to a divorced person, as "committing adultery". The tension lies in the fact that the relations between a man and a woman who are married are not adulterous: they can only be called adultery when they are not married. One or other of the terms then must be used in some other than its literal meaning. According to which word we interpret in a figurative way we reach one or other of two answers. We may interpret the saying as meaning: he that goes through a form of marriage and lives as though married with a divorced person is really not married at all but living in adultery. Or we may interpret his words in the sense that such persons, while married, nevertheless have by that action under those circumstances risen no higher than men who do commit adultery -- their action is comparable to it, while not literally being an illicit relationship. Without question, on either interpretation the language of Jesus is a stern condemnation of such re-marriage. While absolute certainty may not be reached we shall find that an examination of the method employed by Jesus in his pronouncements on other subjects, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, gives much help to the interpretation of the similar statement (but with the exceptive clause) in Matthew 5, and 19. But the difficulties which encounter us in harmonizing the reports of the conflict of Jesus with the Pharisees in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, must be examined first, together with some words Jesus used in that conflict the meaning of which has been and is much disputed.

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT