“You have heard the law that says, ‘A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.’ But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.
Context and Commitment
Bigoted Words! How could Jesus lay the adultery charge at the feet of women? If a wife commits adultery her husband may legitimately divorce her but if he divorces her for all the wrong reasons she’s still the adulterer! Either way she’s damaged goods that no other man dare marry.
Ignoring the context of Jesus’ words leads to no other conclusion. Yank anyone’s words out of their cultural and conversational context and those words cease to have the meaning the speaker intended. This is one of those teachings that usually get yanked out of context and reworked into something totally foreign like “I commit adultery if I divorce my spouse for any reason other than his or her adultery.”
Really? Does the context support this conclusion?
Let’s assume a high view of Scripture; that God inspired the disciple Matthew to infallibly remember and record this Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus has just taught that, should I remember a broken relationship in the middle of a church service, I must mend it immediately and if I ogle a woman I should gouge out my eyes. He’s about to forbid all vows (including marriage vows) and insist that when someone slaps me I should give an opportunity for a second slap on the other cheek. Is it possible that Jesus is using hyperbole to teach very important truth? And if this is true for the teaching that surrounds what he says about divorce, is it possible that he uses hyperbole here too?
Stepping behind the text and into Jesus’ religious culture, we discover that two sets of ideas battle for predominance. One teaches that men (that’s men!) can divorce if a wife displeases them in any way, the other that men can divorce only if she is sexually unfaithful. In either case, in that cultural context, the woman is “damaged goods” and is effectively consigned to spend the rest of her life in poverty.
Seems to me that Jesus isn’t issuing a rule about marital dissolution but takes another step to lift women out of second class status. Not only are men not to objectify women as objects for their own imaginary enjoyment, but neither are they to leave a woman “out in the cold” because of their displeasure. Women are to be related to as persons just as much as men.
Sounds like a no-brainer. It wasn’t then. Is it really a no-brainer today?
God whose image is in male and female, continue to build into me a high view of marriage and a high respect for my wife. Forgive me when I allow my petty wants and preferred ways to define how I relate to her. Grant that I would love her as I love myself and, more, as you love her. - Mike Leamon
Step-dad
There is no doubt Jesus set a high standard for marriage. But what are we to do about Jesus’ words against marrying a divorced woman? Did every divorced woman have to remain unmarried the rest of their life? Is that what God wants for divorced women today?
I am married to a divorced woman. I do not believe I have sinned in marrying my wife. I believe that a divorced person should remain unmarried as long as there is a chance of getting back together with their former spouse. In my wife’s case, her ex-husband remarried thus giving her the opportunity to marry again as well since the door to reconciliation was firmly closed.
For some people the door to reconciliation closes before their spouse would remarry. Perhaps the other person continues in a long-term relationship with no intent to marry or cut that relationship off. Perhaps the issues of substance abuse create a dangerous environment and the person has no desire to get help. I do not have a magic timeline for how long a person must wait, but I do feel like every conceivable chance for reconciliation must be exhausted before remarriage.
It appears to me Jesus is rebuking the trend in the day for men to “wife-swap” by divorcing and remarrying each other’s wives. Marrying a divorced person after all avenues of reconciliation have failed is OK. Paul instructed young widows to remarry in 1 Timothy 5. The difference between a widow and a divorcee is real, but the results are the same. To me, the instructions Paul gives can be applied to both.
Original relationship creator, I confess I am not always good at navigating relationships. I pray you would give me wisdom as I counsel others and help me to live out complete love for my wife today. Keep me from lust, selfishness and neglect in my marriage. - Dan Jones
2 comments:
Obviously we do not take Jesus' statements literally to the point of "action"...like gourging out one's eye or cutting off one's limbs/tongue and yes, a camel can not fit through the eye of a needle either. Believers are sinners saved by grace.
These overstatements are to drive the point on how destrctive sin is for us. I think if we take the "mindset" of it being literal, then we take both outward & inward sin more seriously and not become non-chalant about it.
God's word says ALL SIN is forgiven, not all sin except for divorce. (exception rejection of Jesus)
God's plan was for us to be married until death. So in effect remarrying is adultery, but there are adulterers all around.(in heart) We all fall short and need a Savior! This is the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount.
Leslie McFall has an interesting way to deal with the so-called exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appears to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness.
He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.
I also wrote an article on all most popular reasons that people give for Divorce and Remarriage.
Post a Comment