Divorce & Remarriage
Content
DEEPER INVESTIGATIONS INTO DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE Divorce and remarriage have been controversial issues for a long, long time. We know for sure that it was already a cause of disagreement between the religious leaders at the time of Christ. In Matthew chapter nineteen the Pharisees tried to corner Christ by asking him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” In other words, was it permissible to divorce for trivial grievances or disagreements? Now the next question that arises is, Why did the Pharisees ask Christ this question? Were they looking for further, or clearer light? Basically there are three reasons, Reason #1-The Pharisees wanted to lay a trap for Christ and catch Him in His answer, and use it against Him-regardless of which way He answered. Reason #2-God had given permission for divorce and remarriage as is recorded in Deut. 24:1-4. (This did not refer to young couples in the betrothal, or engagement period-that is dealt with in Deut. 22:1421) God allowed divorce and remarriage because of unconverted hearts, but it was not His ideal. In fact He said in Mal.2:16 that He hated “putting away”, or divorce. Reason #3-At this time there were two main schools of thought among the Jews. The one group maintained that a man could only put away his wife legally for whoredom or adultery. The other group taught that a man could put away his wife for not only adultery, but also for a multitude of other causes. This included such things as if he saw another woman that pleased him better, or if the wife had a bad temper which made the husband’s life uncomfortable, etc. etc. (See “Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Holy Bible” on page 807 under Matthew 19) TMB 63-“Among the Jews a man was permitted to put away his wife for the most trivial offenses, and the woman was then at liberty to marry again. This practice led to great wretchedness and sin.” Logically the man who put away his wife for trivial reasons could also remarry. As an illustration of separating or divorcing for trivial reasons I would like to refer to a situation that I heard about back in the 1950s. As it was related to me it was supposed to be a real life experience. I never investigated into it to find out if it actually happened or not, but it serves to illustrate our point. A couple had been married for quite sometime, and then one day while cooking a kettle of beans, the beans got burnt. To many people a kettle of beans is only worth a little bit of money, and it would not be any big deal! However, this couple got into such an argument as to whose fault it was that the beans got burnt, that they ended up separating! After living separately for some time, they happened to meet somewhere one day. After talking things over for a little while, they both agreed that it was kind of ridiculous to separate because of burning a pot of beans, and they decided to get back together again. However at the supper table the first evening that they were back together, the subject of the pot of burnt beans came up again. He said to her, “Actually, it really was your fault that the beans burnt”. And she said to him, “Actually, it really was your fault that the beans burnt”. This went back and forth for awhile until they both got so upset that they separated again. I never did hear if they afterwards came to their senses or not. All I can say is that, “One was bad and the other was worse”. But this experience illustrates the unreasonableness of some people to have their way, or it is the highway! Instead of focusing on the appropriateness or permissiveness of different remedies or solutions for what to do with a broken marriage, Christ referred back to God’s original purpose at creation, for a man to leave his father and mother and to be joined to his wife. That is why God said “It is not good that the
1
man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Gen. 2:18 Thus the home was to be a little taste of Paradise as long as both spouses were still living. What God had joined together, man was not to put asunder. (Matt.19:6) However Christ did recognize that because of the hardness of the unconverted heart sometimes unfaithful spouses do break their marriage vows and thus put asunder what God had joined together. Then the faithful spouse is left stranded and alone, and with only half of a broken contract that has been torn in half. That is why He put an exception clause for divorce and remarriage as is recorded in Matt. 5:32, and 19:9. Considering the circumstances, remarriage was as much included and intended as was divorce. Because back in Deut. 24 to which the Pharisees referred, divorce gave full right to remarry. Almost always, if not always, when people applied for a divorce, it was because they wanted to marry someone else. And furthermore without the right to remarry, divorce was pointless, as there was generally no alimony in those days. On the one hand, if we would only take the verses in Deut. 24 we could easily come to the conclusion that any couple could divorce and remarry for any reason-be the offences big or small. On the other hand if we would only take the verses in Mark 10 and Luke 16 we could easily come to the conclusion that there are no grounds at all for divorce and remarriage-regardless of the magnitude of the offences. So lets put all the cards on the table to get a balanced view. Understandably the question arises, why didn’t Mark ( ch.10:11-12) and Luke (ch.16:18) in their accounts mention anything about the exception clause for divorce and remarriage? Obviously the answer is that Matthew gave a much more detailed report than the others had. In fact John didn’t even mention the incident at all in his gospel. Matthew had been a tax collector and he had learned to pay attention to details, thus he would not let any tax dollars slip through the cracks. If we go through his gospel we find that he referred back to Old Testament prophecies to verify Christ’s earthly mission, more than all the other three gospels put together. Now the next point to be considered is: Why did Jesus use the exception clause of “fornication”? (Technically speaking, fornication is not mentioned in the ten commandments, the seventh commandment only forbids adultery.) What did He mean by the word “fornication”? What is included in this term? Does it include more misconduct than we usually understand by our modern use of the word? Why didn’t He say, except for “adultery”? Was it because in Old Testament times the adulterers were to be stoned? (Lev.20:10) We have an example of this kind of treatment for those guilty of adultery as is found in John 8:3-5 (But we also have Christ’s response of forgiveness and restoration in verses 6-11) Rapists were also to be put to death in Old Testament times. Deut.22:23-4, Or, why didn’t He say, except for “homosexuality”? Was it because in Old Testament times homosexuals were also to be put to death? (Lev.20:13) On the one hand, we cannot understand everything about God and the reasons why He does or does not
2
do certain things. Isa. 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” And yet on the other hand He says in Isa.1:18-“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:” So God is reasonable and fair in His dealings with us human beings whom He created. I used to conscientiously believe that Christ’s answers in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 would only refer to situations where there had been misconduct prior to the wedding. Because I understood that adultery was strictly a married person having sexual relations with someone else who was not their spouse, be the other person married or unmarried. And that fornication was strictly sexual relations between an unmarried person and someone else who could be married or unmarried. As an illustration of this, we have the example of Joseph and of what he thought Mary had been doing as is recorded in Matthew 1:18-20. (Interestingly none of the other three writers of the gospels mentioned these details.) Or this kind of misconduct may have happened prior to the betrothal or engagement period, or even with someone else before this couple’s friendship started. For details on how these situations were to be handled in Old Testament times see Deut. 22:13-21. Now lets ask the question--Which would be more disastrous to a marriage relationship-#1-If one of the spouses had had an affair with someone else before they were married to their present spouse, and the faithful spouse only found out about it after the marriage, or#2-If one of the spouses had an affair with someone else while they are married to their present spouse? Be this extramarital affair an adulterous affair or a homosexual affair. For example, one young bride-to-be told her prospective husband that she did not care what he had done in the past, nor did she want to know. But she advised him that if he cheated on her, that he would only cheat on her once-because then she would be gone! I think this illustration reveals how most of us would view an extramarital affair. Now in case such an affair should happen to our spouse, let’s not be too quick to point fingers and blame the “guilty” spouse! Because Jesus said in Matthew 7:3-5 and Luke 6:41-42 that we should pull the beam out of our own eye before we try to pull the mote out of our brother’s eye. And Paul in 1 Cor.7:5 dealt with the issue of husbands and wives looking after the needs of each other so that Satan would not have an open door to come in to tempt and destroy the marriage. Ellen White also wrote in P.K. 94-“And if by our deeds we strengthen or force into activity the evil powers of those around us, we share their sin.” Now back to our consideration of why Christ used the term “fornication”. When we investigate deeper into the meaning of this word we find that it has a much broader meaning than we usually think of. In “The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary” on page 17 it says: “While fornication (the wider term for sexual offences) is frequently and severely condemned in the OT…..” “Adultery is a special and aggravated case of fornication.” In Noah Webster’s 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” we find the followingADULTERY1-“violation of the marriage bed;… “By the laws of Connecticut, the sexual intercourse of any man, with a married woman, is the crime of adultery in both: such intercourse of a married man, with an unmarried woman, is fornication in both,…”
3
FORNICATE“To commit lewdness, as an unmarried man or woman, or as a married man with an unmarried woman.” FORNICATION, 1-“The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman. 2-Adultery. Matt.V” FORNICATOR, “An unmarried person, male or female, who has criminal conversation with the other sex; also, a married man who has sexual commerce with an unmarried woman.” From these definitions we can see that fornication has a broader definition than does adultery. I believe this is why the word “fornication” better explains what Christ intended to be understood, than does the word “adultery”. If a spouse has an affair with a third person, it doesn’t matter much to the faithful spouse if the third person was married or single, and fornication could include all affairs, whereas adultery technically would not include some cases when the third person was not married, or homosexual affairs. In the 1833 edition of Noah Webster’s translation of the Bible he uses the phrase in Matthew 19:9 as“Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness,…” And then in his 1828 English dictionary he defines lewdness as “The unlawful indulgence of lust; fornication, or adultery.” Noah Webster included it all, not just between married, or unmarried people. So here again, the weight of evidence strongly indicates that Christ’s exception clause would refer to more than just during the betrothal or engagement period. As an illustration, in Acts 15:28-9 the apostle’s intention was to include all sexual sins, not just unmarried people As we discussed earlier it was a common practice for the Jews to divorce for trivial reasons and remarry. So when the disciples heard from Christ that the divorce provision that God had given back in Deut. 24 had been abused and overdone, their immediate response was “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” Matt.19:11 Paul had the same personal impression, because he wrote in 1 Cor.7 – Verse 1-“It is good for a man not to touch a woman”. Verse 7-“For I would that all men were even as I myself”. Verse 8- “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I”. However looking back we can see if this desire had been followed for the last 2,000 years there would have been no Christian homes for children to be raised in. And after a few years the Christian church would have to depend solely on converts from the outside world or else it would become extinct. Christ’s answer to His disciples clarified His earlier statement. Matt.19:11-12“But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
4
Christ used the three classes of eunuchs to illustrate His prior statement about divorce and remarriage. Evidently there are three classes of divorce: #1-There are those who divorce for trivial reasons, like who burnt the beans, in such cases they are both equally at fault. #2-There are those who divorce because their spouse has broken their marriage vows, #3-And there are those who divorce for other major reasons-perhaps physical abuse and cruelty. If Christ’s intention was that there were absolutely no exceptions to allow for divorce and remarriage, then it doesn’t make sense that He would say, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given…He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Christ also gave us some important counsel in Matt.5:27-8 where He said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Now let’s go to Paul’s answers to the questions that the Corinthians had written to him about in 1 Cor. Chapter 7. Unfortunately we do not have the questions recorded as we had of the Pharisees questions. It always helps us to better understand the setting and the context if we have the questions and the answers together. Paul recognized that celibacy, as he felt comfortable with, was not for everyone. (See verses 2 & 9) Evidently in Corinth various believers were having a difficult time because their spouses were not believers and were not very cooperative. Two things are very clear in Paul’s answers, #1- he strongly urges the spouses not to separate if at all possible, verse 10. #2-if one spouse separates, let them remain single or be reconciled to their spouse. Verse 11. However, he seems to make a difference between the spouse who departs and abandons the home, and the spouse who is abandoned and left alone, because in verse 15 he says, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:” If both husband and wife were true believers, or true Christians-there would be no need for any separations or divorces. They may have differences of opinions or cultures, or even difference of understanding as to what is right or wrong. But if they would follow Christ’s instruction in the “golden rule” as is recorded in Matthew 7:12 they would still be able to get along. He said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Following this advice goes a long ways in making our human relationships run smoother. As to what Paul would have advised if one spouse completely abandoned their responsibilities to the home without actually physically leaving, it doesn’t say. Evidently the Corinthians never asked that question, so he never addressed it. Now let us consider a few statements from Sr White in regards to divorce and remarriage. TMB 63- “In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus declared plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie, except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow.” Websters dictionary defines “dissolution” as “Termination of a legal bond.” If a legal marriage bond is terminated or dissolved it is no longer binding on the other spouse. S. of P. vol 2:221-2-“Those who have looked upon the guilty characters who lead lives of sensual
5
dissipation as sinners above all others, are astonished to hear Jesus assert that those who cherish lascivious thoughts are as guilty at heart as the shameless violators of the the seventh commandment. Jesus condemned the custom then existing of a man putting away his wife for trivial offenses… Christ would have the marriage relation hedged about with judicial restrictions, so that there could be no legal separation between husband and wife, save for the cause of adultery.” And then there are various other statements in the compiled books like The Adventist Home and Selected Messages, that support the right to remarry under certain conditions. These were taken from different letters and manuscripts that she wrote. These were usually written to specific individuals who she knew were involved in specific circumstances. If it was a straight “cut and dried” fact that there should be absolutely no remarrying after one marriage broke up, why was Ellen White so reluctant to write anything in regards to one situation, that could be used as a rule to follow in all situations with varying circumstances? At that rate she should have just said “no” and finish! For example in 13 MR 296 she wrote, “But I am not fully prepared to give any judgment, whether in a Bible point of view you could marry again. (THE INDIVIDUAL ADDRESSED WAS A EUNUCH) My mind is so fully occupied that it is not possible for me to consider this vexed question of marriage and divorces. I wish I could help you, but that, I fear is not possible.” And then in MS 2,1913 she wrote, “I do not think, that any such letters as that ought to be placed before me. I do not think it is my work to deal with any such things, unless the case has been plainly opened before me. There should be brethren in the church who have wisdom, who can speak decidedly regarding this case. I cannot understand such things.” Furthermore in a letter to a worker, dated Jan. 6,1931 Willie White wrote-“After reading the documents I today send you, you will say, ‘Well, he has not given me anything authoritative from Sister White that directly answers the question.’ But I think you will see from what I am sending you that it was Sister White’s intention that there should not go forth from her pen anything that could be used as a law or a rule in dealing with these questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery.” Unscriptural Divorces and Social Relationships, pp47,48. This is a trick that lawyers from both sides like to use in litigation. Instead of just going by the laws of the country, they like to refer to certain cases where a Judge has ruled in a previous case. And of course each lawyer will refer to certain cases where a former Judge’s decision is more in line with what they are asking for in the present case. However in these “referred to” cases there may be certain circumstances that the Judge at that time was aware of that are not recorded in the files, or he may have been biased for whatever reason. And a judgment for the present case that is based on only partial evidence from a previous trial may not be fair. I believe that is why Sr White did not want to make statements in a certain case that could be misused in other cases that had not been opened up to her. Her main focus was on the general principles of the plan of salvation, Christian living, and these type of issues. Therefore she did not have the time to get involved in all the various personal marital problems that varied from case to case, unless the Lord had given her light on a particular situation. Often to change the disposition will do a lot more good than to change the marriage status. Because there are two things that we can never run away from in this life. The one is ourselves, and the other is the devil. If we have been the cause for one marriage to break up, we would likely be the cause for
6
another marriage to break up. Seeing that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, let us all take to heart the counsel that is found in AH 345— “If your dispositions are not congenial, would it not be for the glory of God for you to change these dispositions? A husband and wife should cultivate respect and affection for each other. They should guard the spirit, the words, and the actions so that nothing will be said or done to irritate or annoy. Each is to have a care for the other, doing all in their power to strengthen their mutual affection. I tell you both to seek the Lord. In love and kindness do your duty one to the other. The husband should cultivate industrious habits, doing his best to support his family. This will lead his wife to have respect for him… My sister, you cannot please God by maintaining your present attitude. Forgive your husband. He is your husband, and you will be blessed in striving to be a dutiful wife. Let the law of kindness be on your lips. You can and must change your attitude. You must both study how you can assimilate, instead of differing, with one another…. The use of mild, gentle methods will make a surprising difference in your lives.” TMB.64-Like every other one of God’s good gifts entrusted to the keeping of humanity, marriage has been perverted by sin; but it is the purpose of the gospel to restore its purity and beauty.” However in spite of the above mentioned good down to earth counsel, there still are those who are determined to have their own way at all costs, or it is the highway! And yes it is the purpose of the gospel to restore marriage to its original purity and beauty, but this cannot be done by legislation, it can only be done by both partners yielding to the transforming power of the gospel. Dale Rogers Mayfair, SK July 28, 2011
7
1
man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Gen. 2:18 Thus the home was to be a little taste of Paradise as long as both spouses were still living. What God had joined together, man was not to put asunder. (Matt.19:6) However Christ did recognize that because of the hardness of the unconverted heart sometimes unfaithful spouses do break their marriage vows and thus put asunder what God had joined together. Then the faithful spouse is left stranded and alone, and with only half of a broken contract that has been torn in half. That is why He put an exception clause for divorce and remarriage as is recorded in Matt. 5:32, and 19:9. Considering the circumstances, remarriage was as much included and intended as was divorce. Because back in Deut. 24 to which the Pharisees referred, divorce gave full right to remarry. Almost always, if not always, when people applied for a divorce, it was because they wanted to marry someone else. And furthermore without the right to remarry, divorce was pointless, as there was generally no alimony in those days. On the one hand, if we would only take the verses in Deut. 24 we could easily come to the conclusion that any couple could divorce and remarry for any reason-be the offences big or small. On the other hand if we would only take the verses in Mark 10 and Luke 16 we could easily come to the conclusion that there are no grounds at all for divorce and remarriage-regardless of the magnitude of the offences. So lets put all the cards on the table to get a balanced view. Understandably the question arises, why didn’t Mark ( ch.10:11-12) and Luke (ch.16:18) in their accounts mention anything about the exception clause for divorce and remarriage? Obviously the answer is that Matthew gave a much more detailed report than the others had. In fact John didn’t even mention the incident at all in his gospel. Matthew had been a tax collector and he had learned to pay attention to details, thus he would not let any tax dollars slip through the cracks. If we go through his gospel we find that he referred back to Old Testament prophecies to verify Christ’s earthly mission, more than all the other three gospels put together. Now the next point to be considered is: Why did Jesus use the exception clause of “fornication”? (Technically speaking, fornication is not mentioned in the ten commandments, the seventh commandment only forbids adultery.) What did He mean by the word “fornication”? What is included in this term? Does it include more misconduct than we usually understand by our modern use of the word? Why didn’t He say, except for “adultery”? Was it because in Old Testament times the adulterers were to be stoned? (Lev.20:10) We have an example of this kind of treatment for those guilty of adultery as is found in John 8:3-5 (But we also have Christ’s response of forgiveness and restoration in verses 6-11) Rapists were also to be put to death in Old Testament times. Deut.22:23-4, Or, why didn’t He say, except for “homosexuality”? Was it because in Old Testament times homosexuals were also to be put to death? (Lev.20:13) On the one hand, we cannot understand everything about God and the reasons why He does or does not
2
do certain things. Isa. 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” And yet on the other hand He says in Isa.1:18-“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord:” So God is reasonable and fair in His dealings with us human beings whom He created. I used to conscientiously believe that Christ’s answers in Matthew chapters 5 and 19 would only refer to situations where there had been misconduct prior to the wedding. Because I understood that adultery was strictly a married person having sexual relations with someone else who was not their spouse, be the other person married or unmarried. And that fornication was strictly sexual relations between an unmarried person and someone else who could be married or unmarried. As an illustration of this, we have the example of Joseph and of what he thought Mary had been doing as is recorded in Matthew 1:18-20. (Interestingly none of the other three writers of the gospels mentioned these details.) Or this kind of misconduct may have happened prior to the betrothal or engagement period, or even with someone else before this couple’s friendship started. For details on how these situations were to be handled in Old Testament times see Deut. 22:13-21. Now lets ask the question--Which would be more disastrous to a marriage relationship-#1-If one of the spouses had had an affair with someone else before they were married to their present spouse, and the faithful spouse only found out about it after the marriage, or#2-If one of the spouses had an affair with someone else while they are married to their present spouse? Be this extramarital affair an adulterous affair or a homosexual affair. For example, one young bride-to-be told her prospective husband that she did not care what he had done in the past, nor did she want to know. But she advised him that if he cheated on her, that he would only cheat on her once-because then she would be gone! I think this illustration reveals how most of us would view an extramarital affair. Now in case such an affair should happen to our spouse, let’s not be too quick to point fingers and blame the “guilty” spouse! Because Jesus said in Matthew 7:3-5 and Luke 6:41-42 that we should pull the beam out of our own eye before we try to pull the mote out of our brother’s eye. And Paul in 1 Cor.7:5 dealt with the issue of husbands and wives looking after the needs of each other so that Satan would not have an open door to come in to tempt and destroy the marriage. Ellen White also wrote in P.K. 94-“And if by our deeds we strengthen or force into activity the evil powers of those around us, we share their sin.” Now back to our consideration of why Christ used the term “fornication”. When we investigate deeper into the meaning of this word we find that it has a much broader meaning than we usually think of. In “The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary” on page 17 it says: “While fornication (the wider term for sexual offences) is frequently and severely condemned in the OT…..” “Adultery is a special and aggravated case of fornication.” In Noah Webster’s 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” we find the followingADULTERY1-“violation of the marriage bed;… “By the laws of Connecticut, the sexual intercourse of any man, with a married woman, is the crime of adultery in both: such intercourse of a married man, with an unmarried woman, is fornication in both,…”
3
FORNICATE“To commit lewdness, as an unmarried man or woman, or as a married man with an unmarried woman.” FORNICATION, 1-“The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman. 2-Adultery. Matt.V” FORNICATOR, “An unmarried person, male or female, who has criminal conversation with the other sex; also, a married man who has sexual commerce with an unmarried woman.” From these definitions we can see that fornication has a broader definition than does adultery. I believe this is why the word “fornication” better explains what Christ intended to be understood, than does the word “adultery”. If a spouse has an affair with a third person, it doesn’t matter much to the faithful spouse if the third person was married or single, and fornication could include all affairs, whereas adultery technically would not include some cases when the third person was not married, or homosexual affairs. In the 1833 edition of Noah Webster’s translation of the Bible he uses the phrase in Matthew 19:9 as“Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness,…” And then in his 1828 English dictionary he defines lewdness as “The unlawful indulgence of lust; fornication, or adultery.” Noah Webster included it all, not just between married, or unmarried people. So here again, the weight of evidence strongly indicates that Christ’s exception clause would refer to more than just during the betrothal or engagement period. As an illustration, in Acts 15:28-9 the apostle’s intention was to include all sexual sins, not just unmarried people As we discussed earlier it was a common practice for the Jews to divorce for trivial reasons and remarry. So when the disciples heard from Christ that the divorce provision that God had given back in Deut. 24 had been abused and overdone, their immediate response was “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” Matt.19:11 Paul had the same personal impression, because he wrote in 1 Cor.7 – Verse 1-“It is good for a man not to touch a woman”. Verse 7-“For I would that all men were even as I myself”. Verse 8- “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I”. However looking back we can see if this desire had been followed for the last 2,000 years there would have been no Christian homes for children to be raised in. And after a few years the Christian church would have to depend solely on converts from the outside world or else it would become extinct. Christ’s answer to His disciples clarified His earlier statement. Matt.19:11-12“But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
4
Christ used the three classes of eunuchs to illustrate His prior statement about divorce and remarriage. Evidently there are three classes of divorce: #1-There are those who divorce for trivial reasons, like who burnt the beans, in such cases they are both equally at fault. #2-There are those who divorce because their spouse has broken their marriage vows, #3-And there are those who divorce for other major reasons-perhaps physical abuse and cruelty. If Christ’s intention was that there were absolutely no exceptions to allow for divorce and remarriage, then it doesn’t make sense that He would say, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given…He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Christ also gave us some important counsel in Matt.5:27-8 where He said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Now let’s go to Paul’s answers to the questions that the Corinthians had written to him about in 1 Cor. Chapter 7. Unfortunately we do not have the questions recorded as we had of the Pharisees questions. It always helps us to better understand the setting and the context if we have the questions and the answers together. Paul recognized that celibacy, as he felt comfortable with, was not for everyone. (See verses 2 & 9) Evidently in Corinth various believers were having a difficult time because their spouses were not believers and were not very cooperative. Two things are very clear in Paul’s answers, #1- he strongly urges the spouses not to separate if at all possible, verse 10. #2-if one spouse separates, let them remain single or be reconciled to their spouse. Verse 11. However, he seems to make a difference between the spouse who departs and abandons the home, and the spouse who is abandoned and left alone, because in verse 15 he says, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:” If both husband and wife were true believers, or true Christians-there would be no need for any separations or divorces. They may have differences of opinions or cultures, or even difference of understanding as to what is right or wrong. But if they would follow Christ’s instruction in the “golden rule” as is recorded in Matthew 7:12 they would still be able to get along. He said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Following this advice goes a long ways in making our human relationships run smoother. As to what Paul would have advised if one spouse completely abandoned their responsibilities to the home without actually physically leaving, it doesn’t say. Evidently the Corinthians never asked that question, so he never addressed it. Now let us consider a few statements from Sr White in regards to divorce and remarriage. TMB 63- “In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus declared plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie, except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow.” Websters dictionary defines “dissolution” as “Termination of a legal bond.” If a legal marriage bond is terminated or dissolved it is no longer binding on the other spouse. S. of P. vol 2:221-2-“Those who have looked upon the guilty characters who lead lives of sensual
5
dissipation as sinners above all others, are astonished to hear Jesus assert that those who cherish lascivious thoughts are as guilty at heart as the shameless violators of the the seventh commandment. Jesus condemned the custom then existing of a man putting away his wife for trivial offenses… Christ would have the marriage relation hedged about with judicial restrictions, so that there could be no legal separation between husband and wife, save for the cause of adultery.” And then there are various other statements in the compiled books like The Adventist Home and Selected Messages, that support the right to remarry under certain conditions. These were taken from different letters and manuscripts that she wrote. These were usually written to specific individuals who she knew were involved in specific circumstances. If it was a straight “cut and dried” fact that there should be absolutely no remarrying after one marriage broke up, why was Ellen White so reluctant to write anything in regards to one situation, that could be used as a rule to follow in all situations with varying circumstances? At that rate she should have just said “no” and finish! For example in 13 MR 296 she wrote, “But I am not fully prepared to give any judgment, whether in a Bible point of view you could marry again. (THE INDIVIDUAL ADDRESSED WAS A EUNUCH) My mind is so fully occupied that it is not possible for me to consider this vexed question of marriage and divorces. I wish I could help you, but that, I fear is not possible.” And then in MS 2,1913 she wrote, “I do not think, that any such letters as that ought to be placed before me. I do not think it is my work to deal with any such things, unless the case has been plainly opened before me. There should be brethren in the church who have wisdom, who can speak decidedly regarding this case. I cannot understand such things.” Furthermore in a letter to a worker, dated Jan. 6,1931 Willie White wrote-“After reading the documents I today send you, you will say, ‘Well, he has not given me anything authoritative from Sister White that directly answers the question.’ But I think you will see from what I am sending you that it was Sister White’s intention that there should not go forth from her pen anything that could be used as a law or a rule in dealing with these questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery.” Unscriptural Divorces and Social Relationships, pp47,48. This is a trick that lawyers from both sides like to use in litigation. Instead of just going by the laws of the country, they like to refer to certain cases where a Judge has ruled in a previous case. And of course each lawyer will refer to certain cases where a former Judge’s decision is more in line with what they are asking for in the present case. However in these “referred to” cases there may be certain circumstances that the Judge at that time was aware of that are not recorded in the files, or he may have been biased for whatever reason. And a judgment for the present case that is based on only partial evidence from a previous trial may not be fair. I believe that is why Sr White did not want to make statements in a certain case that could be misused in other cases that had not been opened up to her. Her main focus was on the general principles of the plan of salvation, Christian living, and these type of issues. Therefore she did not have the time to get involved in all the various personal marital problems that varied from case to case, unless the Lord had given her light on a particular situation. Often to change the disposition will do a lot more good than to change the marriage status. Because there are two things that we can never run away from in this life. The one is ourselves, and the other is the devil. If we have been the cause for one marriage to break up, we would likely be the cause for
6
another marriage to break up. Seeing that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, let us all take to heart the counsel that is found in AH 345— “If your dispositions are not congenial, would it not be for the glory of God for you to change these dispositions? A husband and wife should cultivate respect and affection for each other. They should guard the spirit, the words, and the actions so that nothing will be said or done to irritate or annoy. Each is to have a care for the other, doing all in their power to strengthen their mutual affection. I tell you both to seek the Lord. In love and kindness do your duty one to the other. The husband should cultivate industrious habits, doing his best to support his family. This will lead his wife to have respect for him… My sister, you cannot please God by maintaining your present attitude. Forgive your husband. He is your husband, and you will be blessed in striving to be a dutiful wife. Let the law of kindness be on your lips. You can and must change your attitude. You must both study how you can assimilate, instead of differing, with one another…. The use of mild, gentle methods will make a surprising difference in your lives.” TMB.64-Like every other one of God’s good gifts entrusted to the keeping of humanity, marriage has been perverted by sin; but it is the purpose of the gospel to restore its purity and beauty.” However in spite of the above mentioned good down to earth counsel, there still are those who are determined to have their own way at all costs, or it is the highway! And yes it is the purpose of the gospel to restore marriage to its original purity and beauty, but this cannot be done by legislation, it can only be done by both partners yielding to the transforming power of the gospel. Dale Rogers Mayfair, SK July 28, 2011
7
