Mark 10:2-12 & 1 Corinthians 7:1-17
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The World’s View
The topic of divorce and remarriage is a subject that continues to be an issue in society today. Apart from the high divorce rate, there are those who cannot accept divorce on any terms; there are those who walk in and out of marriages at the drop of a hat; and there are those who may not like divorce, but see divorce as a reality they need to accept.
2. A Personal View
From a personal view, having experienced being divorced and remarried myself, and having had a job which required me to interview people who had separated from their partners, I guess I have had many occasions to give the matter a lot of thought.
Indeed, having faced, on an almost a daily basis, the reasons for the breakdown in relationships—from people from all walks of life—I’ve had the opportunity to get a good understanding of the issue from the perspective of many who have gone through it.
3. Comment
Of course, the reasons that people have given me, range from the most trivial to the really serious. Some separations were obviously only temporary, while others were very permanent. And in some cases I wondered how they managed to put up with all the physical and verbal abuse.
But, despite all of that, the reality is that divorce and remarriage is a feature of modern life. And it is not one that we can ignore easily.
4. The Church’s View
Complicating all of that, of course, is that the issue of divorce and remarriage is still a contentious issue from a Christian perspective. Indeed, for centuries, the church has frowned on both practices. So much so that it placed barriers stopping people from being remarried in church. And it has only really been the last hundred years, that it has softened its stance; and, perhaps, only in the last thirty years that the church has taken a more conciliatory attitude.
5. The Big Question
The question today, therefore—bearing in mind the kind of world we live in and society’s attitude to divorce and remarriage—is, ‘What should the church’s position be on the topic? Was the church right to take such a hard stand in the past, and should we be maintaining that hard line now? Or is the softer approach far more appropriate?’
B. JESUS’ TEACHING (Mark 10)
Well, a good starting point, to the debate, is this passage from Mark’s gospel. Because it provides us with Jesus’s teaching on the subject. However, before we get too entangled in the rigid application of what Jesus said. I think it would be helpful to remember the perspective from which his statements were made.
1. The Biblical Practice (2-4)
Because the situation, as described, was that Jesus was being tested by some Pharisees. And he was being tested to agree with their understanding of Moses’s teaching on the subject of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). And that understanding was that divorce was acceptable, provided a man found ‘something shameful’ in his wife. And if he did, he could write a certificate of divorce relieving the wife of her marital obligations.
Indeed, all good Old Testament practice. And the need to find ‘something shameful’ in the wife in early Old Testament times would have allowed divorce on the grounds of either marital infidelity, or through deliberately failing to keep God’s law. And the certificate, the piece of paper, was important too. Because without it, it left the woman in no-man’s land, abandoned by the husband and unable to remarry.
By New Testament times, however, what was meant by ‘something shameful’ had been expanded to include not only adultery, but the most trivial of things as well. Indeed, anything which caused annoyance or embarrassment. And regarding the certificate of divorce . . . Well, by New Testament times a man simply had to write out the approved formula on a piece of paper, get it witnessed, and then present the document to his wife.
So, when we read Jesus’s words, we need to be careful that we take into account the situation in which his words were spoken.
2. Jesus’ Public Teaching (5-9)
And, in those circumstances, it’s perhaps easy to understand Jesus’s reply. With all their trickery, and the abuse of the practice of divorce and remarriage, Jesus cut to the chase. He reminded the Pharisees of the purpose of marriage. That when God created the world in six days, he created man—male and female—to live together. Full stop. (Genesis 1:27).
He reminded them that when Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs, God made Adam and Eve to be united—to be one flesh (Genesis 2:24). And he reminded them that Moses’s instructions on divorce were given, not to give the idea that divorce was acceptable, but to regulate an existing widespread practice where certificates of divorce were not provided. And that effectively meant that the wife was not released from her marriage obligations, that she was not free to remarry and, as a consequence, it placed her in a situation where she would have to live as a prostitute in order to survive.
Is it any wonder, then, that Jesus’s teaching as recorded in this passage by Mark, was a resounding ‘No’ to the practice of divorce and remarriage.
3. Comment
And, of course, if that sounds very black and white, and inflexible, it is.
However, we also need to remember that Jesus was debating the theological side of the debate, not the pastoral—if you can understand the distinction. He was trying to make the point that marriage is forever, and should not be trivialised as it had been. Jesus was responding to the then current practice where a marriage could be dissolved at any time and for any reason. And he was responding to the practice where a husband could simply write out a few lines, have it witnessed, and present it to his wife.
Is it any wonder, then, that in this instance he makes no attempt to define under what circumstances, from a pastoral perspective, a divorce could take place. (Although in Matthew’s account it is recorded that Jesus conceded that marital unfaithfulness was one such reason (Matthew 19:9).
4. Jesus’ Private Teaching (10-12)
But later, once out of gave of the public, the disciples raised the issue of divorce, with Jesus, again. And, in the circumstances of what had just happened, Jesus simply reiterated his teaching. For Jesus, the keeping of God’s commands, including the permanency of marriage, was of vital theological importance. And, as a consequence, marriage was not to be treated lightly, unlike the common everyday practice of the time.
C. COMMENT
Now of course, if we were to take Jesus’s words at their face value, without considering their context, it would be very easy to wonder just where we could go from here. In Jesus’s words, the issue of divorce and remarriage was so black and white. So, from this perspective, maybe the church was right to take such a strong stand.
However, I did suggest that, from their context, Jesus’s comments were of a theological debate and, at the time, Jesus needed to have a strong say regarding the permanence of marriage because of the abuses in the practices of the day.
But then Jesus’s words, as recorded in the gospels, are not the only words that the Bible has to say on the subject. Indeed, the Apostle Paul wrote on the subject too.
And importantly, part of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7) was written on this very subject. It was written before any of the gospels were published (including Mark’s, which we have just been looking at). And it deals with Jesus’s teaching on the subject—in an, apparently, expanded or clarified version which did not get recorded in any of the four gospels. And, this time, Paul was responding not just to the theoretical and theological side of the issue, but to real pastoral problems that were present in the church at that time.
D. PAUL’S TEACHING (1 Corinthians 7)
And the problem that Paul was responding to . . . Well, it was that despite the fact that people had married for better or for worse, there were some who felt that they didn’t need to be married anymore; there were some who thought they had made a mistake in getting married; and there were some who thought they would be far more effective in the service of the Lord without the responsibilities of their marriage to tie them down.
Now there’s no doubt that Paul was acutely aware of the strains in many homes in Corinth. He was also aware of several external factors that were influencing people’s decisions.
There was his own preference for the single life, putting very strong pressure on those married to unbelievers to call their marriage a day; there was the tendency by some in the church to look down on, and even write off, their unconverted spouses; and there would have been all the normal marriage tensions besides.
So what was Paul’s teaching? Well, it comes in several steps. And each step is more liberal than the one before.
1. Permanency of Marriage (10)
And the very first position that Paul stated is that marriage is forever. In other words, exactly the same idea as Jesus’s teaching as recorded in Mark and the other gospels. As far as Paul was concerned, the ideal was for the permanency of marriage. Divorce was not an option. And that is consistent with Jesus’s public teaching to the Pharisees, as recorded by Mark.
2. Separation but not Remarriage (11)
However, having set the basic ground rules, Paul recognised that from a practical and pastoral basis that a marriage even between two committed Christians could reach a dead end. And Paul suggested, therefore, that when the marriage between two Christians was on the rocks two courses of action could be considered. Either, to separate and each of them to remain single. Or to separate and, after a reasonable period, reconcile. In other words a bit of ‘time out’ in the hope of building a better and stronger relationship.
Now this, too Paul, claimed to be the teaching of Jesus—even though it’s not recorded in any of the gospels. Indeed, he considered it to be consistent with Jesus’s expanded private teaching to the disciples, of which, no doubt, we have only a summary.
3. Grounds for Divorce (12-16)
Having said that, Paul then introduced a third position. And that was in regard to believers who were married to unbelievers. And his teaching was that if the unbeliever wanted a divorce or a separation then that was fine. However, it was not something that the faithful member of the church was to instigate themselves.
Now, on this issue Paul’s was no longer sure of his ground; he was no longer sure whether it was consistent with Jesus’s teaching or not. But he did offer it on the basis of pastoral consideration, recognising the difficulties that a Christian faced living with an unconverted spouse.
However, side by side with that, he also gave grounds for the Christian to stick with the relationship as well. And Paul offered four reasons:
a). The fact of consecration (14)
Firstly, because in some way the faith of the believer rubs off on the unbelieving partner. And therefore even the unbeliever would enjoy a special relationship with God to some degree.
b). The status of the children (14)
Secondly, the children of a relationship could also enjoy that special relationship, and for the same reason.
c). The possibility of conversion (16)
Thirdly, whatever trials the believer faced, there was the real possibility that, one day, a miracle conversion would bring the family into true oneness with God.
d). The sanctity of marriage (15)
And fourthly, the Christian, despite their situation, should remain committed to their marriage vows, and uphold the sanctity of marriage.
4. Divorce and Remarriage (15)
But Paul didn’t leave the topic even there. Because Paul offered a fourth, and final, position. And that was the overriding principle on which his whole teaching on divorce and remarriage stands. And that was the call for all believers ‘to live in peace’.
It was a reminder, by Paul, to the Corinthians who were experiencing real stress and distress at home that, regardless of their situations, the essential nature of God’s calling was an invitation, indeed a summons, into a peace in which he wanted them to dwell daily.
This peace was not just to be the absence of strife and bickering, but it was to extend to cover the wholeness and the healing of all our relationships. And, tragically, if there were certain intractable relationships where a Christian’s peace in God could not be realised, Paul suggested that, in such cases, a brother or sister should not be bound to continue that relationship.
For God’s children to know the creative peace of the Lord was a final and absolute priority for Paul. And far more important, than for two people to continue their struggle together continually at each other’s throats. Paul’s emphasis, then, was not based simply on whether a couple were having difficulties staying together, but rather on whether their deteriorating relationship was affecting their relationship with God.
E. COMMENT
As you can see, then, the teachings of Jesus and Paul provide different responses targeted to different situations. They neither support the hard stand of the church of the past, but nor do they support the much softer approach of the present. From a Christian point of view, there is no such thing as a one size fits all. And the church certainly should not embrace the no-fault divorce which is currently practiced in our society.
Because while Jesus is recorded to have admitted that adultery was grounds for divorce—and divorce would enable the woman to remarry—Paul taught that in certain situations people should separate and remain single; other times, that the Christian should stick with it, in the hope that the unbelieving partner would see the light; and, at other times, the over-riding priority was that the Christian needed to put themselves in the situation where they could live at peace with God.
Now, of course, this kind of mixed response leaves the church in a very difficult situation. Because the subject of divorce and remarriage is not a black and white issue. And that fact is one that the apostle Paul makes very clear.
And complicating that, is that the church has been actively involved, over the last five hundred years or so, in the marriage of couples, including divorcees who do not fit the acceptable criteria described in the pages of the New Testament.
Now, of course, the reality is that the church should never have adopted the practice of conducting weddings. It’s not part of Jesus’s charge to his disciples; and having any sort of ceremony was totally unknown in biblical times. Celebrations, yes; ceremonies, no.
What we have inherited, then, is a tradition that only dates back to the late middle ages. And, as a consequence, it is a situation we need to respond to, in one way or another.
F. CONCLUSION
And that of course, brings us back, full circle, to the world, and to the attitudes to divorce and remarriage today.
Because God’s creation ordinances relate to everyone—believer and unbeliever alike. And as a consequence, as Christians and as members of God’s church, we should not only uphold God’s laws, but we should be encouraging others to uphold them too.
But, as we’ve seen, the matter is not a black and white issue. It’s not a simple matter. Because even though, theologically, marriage is for ever, the overriding principal of the need for God’s people to enjoy God’s peace is at the very heart of Paul’s teaching. And being at peace with God is the principal, above all others, we need to try to uphold.
Posted: 10th October 2023
© 2023, Brian A Curtis
www.brianacurtis.com.au
