Hello everyone,

Several years ago I came across some information that revolutionized my understanding of Jesus' statements concerning divorce.  As I researched further, I soon found many scriptural inconsistencies in the traditional doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (MDR).  Thus I wrote a book on the subject entitled, "God Is A Divorce' Too!  A Message of Hope, Healing, and Forgiveness".  Much of it can be previewed on amazon; however, I will be presenting a condensed version of it on this thread. 

I realize that this is a very controversial heated subject, but I pray that we can reason together without attacking each other.  Personal attacks typically reveal a weakness in the argument, communication skills, and/or character of the attacker.  It takes strength of character and argument to be gentle.  So please, let us do proceed with respect for each other and do our best to refrain from personal attacks. 

The doctrine of MDR is a mammoth, elephant-sized discussion, far larger than can be dealt with in an article, or even a series of articles.  And many of the things that I will present will challenge long-held beliefs and assumed meanings of phrases and interpretations of scripture.  Thus, I propose that we eat this elephant one bite at a time.  To start with, let me define what I mean by the traditional doctrine of MDR.

The traditional doctrine of MDR asserts that Jesus disagreed with Moses, and intended to repudiate (reject as invalid) the bill of divorce, making marriage indissoluble.  Some ministers amend this to say except for adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (the Pauline privilege).  Marriage came to be considered a sacrament, under ecclesial authority, and indissoluble – resulting in a “No Divorce” and certainly “No Remarriage for Divorcées”.

Based upon my understanding of Jesus’ statements on divorce, I believe that each of the aforementioned elements of the traditional doctrine of MDR is erroneous.  Of course, my understanding of Jesus’ statements on divorce is vastly different than what one would get from a cursory superficial reading of the text.  In fact, I’ll readily admit that if one reads the “plain” text (apart from its cultural, literary, and authorial context) that it would seem to endorse the traditional doctrine.  However, I believe that a contextually based understanding yields a far different interpretation.  And the key to understanding any Text is Context! 

Considering this is such a big topic, I propose that we look together at a small sections at a time, almost verse by verse at these scriptures; Deut.24:1-4, Mt.19:1-9, Mark 10:1-12, Mt.5:32, Lk.16:18 and eventually 1 Cor. 7.  Please share what you know of the pertinent historical, cultural, and authorial elements of the context.  And hopefully we will all come to a very well informed understanding of what Jesus meant by what he said. 

If you would like to discuss the doctrine of MDR, please respond with your personal story as to why the topic of divorce is so important to you.  I’ll start it off by telling you about myself on my next post. 

Please remember, this is a very controversial topic.  So let's do our best to present what we believe and why we believe it without degrading into personal attacks or inflammatory speech. 

Thank you!

In His service and yours,
Sherman Nobles

P.S. On this post I will also keep a post I'll keep a record of the various topical posts that I'll make as we proceed.

page 1: Introduction
             Why this is important to me?
             The Divine Ideal - The Goal,  and meaning of "One Flesh"
             Civil Law Designed by God, A
             Civil Law Designed by God, B
             Is Marriage a Sacrament?
             Marriage is a Covenant
             Intro to Jesus on Divorce
             The "Plain" Text
page 2: Mt.19.1-3
             Mt.19-4-6 Jesus' Desire For Us - Heaven on Earth
             Mt.19.4-6 Marriage - Indissoluble or Breakable
             Mt.19.7-9 The Pharisees' 2nd Question and Jesus' Reply
             Mark 10.11-2
             Doesn't God Hate Divorce
page 3: Luke 16.18 Divorce in the context of the Parental Love of God
             1 Cor. 7.1
             1 Cor. 7.11-12 Paul Quotes Jesus on Divorce
             1 Cor. 7.15  Meaning of "Under Bondage"
             1 Cor. 7.27-28a  If you are divorce and you marry, you do not sin.
             Bound by Law (1 of 3)
page 4:  Bound by Law (2 of 3)
             Bound by Law (3 of 3)

The Divine Ideal - The Goal,   Becoming One Flesh,

How one defines marriage is foundational to the theology of marriage.  What is marriage?  I believe it is a covenant-based relationship whereby a man and woman are legally and socially united for the purpose of establishing a new family.  It is “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family”(Marriage, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary).  Clearly, the “divine ideal” for marriage is that of a monogamous, mutually faithful and loving, life-long union of a man and woman in an interdependent, legally sanctioned, familial relationship (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5); and what God has joined together should not be broken apart by man (Matthew 19:6)!

As we get into this discussion, please note that I completely believe in the divine ideal for marriage.  However, is Adam and Eve’s relationship to be understood as the “Standard” by which we all fall short, or the “Goal” towards which we should strive?  Adam and Eve were two perfect people in a perfect relationship living in a perfect environment.  But today my wife and I are two sinful broken people, from two dysfunctional broken families, in a far from perfect relationship, in a sinful environment that seems to seek to destroy our relationship and family.  So for me to think of Adam and Eve’s relationship as being a “Standard” is almost nonsensical and just condemning, and this is our first marriage.  I can only imagine how deabilitating it can be for those who have been divorced.  But I can readily think of it as a “Goal” towards which I strive and I help others to seek, though they've had several failed relationships.  In fact, I believe this was the spirit and intent of Jesus referencing the Garden in his teaching on divorce. (More on this later when we look specifically at those verses.)  I thus understand the "Divine Ideal" of marriage as a “Goal” towards which we should strive personally and corporately as a church (ecclesial) and as a society (civil). 

The primary purpose of marriage is to help fulfill mankind’s most basic of all psychological, spiritual, social, and emotional needs—companionship!  “The LORD God said: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him’” (Genesis 2:18 NAB) (emphasis mine).  Adam’s need for companionship was the primary reason that God created Eve.  It may be inferred from this that the most common state of mankind is to live in marital relationships.  For an adult to live alone for an extended indefinite period of time takes a special grace-gift from God—celibacy, a gift that relatively few have.

The second purpose of marriage is to fulfill the desire to have children—procreation.  “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28 KJV).  Another purpose in marriage is to provide a healthy outlet for sexual passion, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (I Corinthians 7:2 KJV).  And it is certainly “better to marry than to burn with sexual desire” (I Corinthians 7:9b NCV). 

Marriage is an interdependent relationship whereby these and other needs and desires are fulfilled in a healthy manner.  Interdependence is an interesting concept, especially as opposed to codependence.  In an interdependent marital relationship, both parties maintain healthy personal boundaries and yet share their lives together.  Neither party is consumed or overrun by the other.  Both have strong independent identities, and yet together they create a corporate identity–a healthy family.

In a codependent relationship, personal boundaries are consistently overrun.  People lose their individual identities and become lost in the identities of their spouses or their marriages.  Sadly, rather than dining from the same bowl of life-cereal, they feed off of each other.  One spouse’s emotional, physical, or mental pain gives the other spouse pleasure, gratification, or a sense of release.  In codependent relationships, “control” is often a big issue; one spouse is usually dominant and abusive, whereas the other often takes on the role of a “suffering saint” and actually empower the evil of their spouse.  Codependent relationships are sick at best, and lethal when taken to the extreme.  Concerning establishing personal healthy boundaries, I highly recommend the books entitled, “Boundaries: Gaining Control of Your Life” and “Boundaries in Marriage” by Henry Cloud and John Townsend. 

“And they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24b NKJV).  Unfortunately, having strong personal boundaries in marriage is not taught in most churches, especially in churches that strongly promote the traditional patriarical family stucture.  The error of not teaching strong personal boundaries is under-girded to some degree by a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the phrase idiomatic (culturally specific) phrase, “one flesh.”  This phrase is commonly interpreted to mean that through marriage two people undergo some kind of a metaphysical metamorphosis and become “like one person.”  The Contemporary English Version even translates the aforementioned passage, “and the two of them become like one person” as if they experience a supernatural joining or union that blends them into a single homogenous mass. 

I have even heard a famous television minister say that when a couple leaves the altar of marriage, “God either sees both of them or neither of them!”  What a tragic misinterpretation of scripture!  In what way does the couple become “like one person,” physically, legally, socially, emotionally, spiritually, or mentally?  In no way do they become “like one person.”  In the Bible, in Hebraic and Aramaic cultures, the term “flesh” was used to refer to one’s clan or family group.  For example, a law concerning slavery in Leviticus 25:49 says, “or their uncle or their uncle’s son may redeem them, or anyone of their family who is of their own flesh may redeem them” (NRSV) (emphasis mine). 

To “become one flesh” is synonymous with becoming one family.  The meaning and emphasis of Genesis 2:24b, “and the two shall become one flesh,” is the creation of a new and separate family unit, not the creation of a new creature or state of being.  The man leaves his father and mother, his original family, and cleaves to his wife; the two then become “one flesh,” creating a new family, the most basic social unit of human society.  “One flesh” does not imply in any way that two individuals become like one person, loosing any aspect of their individual identities.  Nor does it imply that the two are inseparably joined like Siamese Twins who share the same vital organs.  It is more like two horses that have been yoked together in order to work as a team.  The yoke that binds them together is real, tangible, and weighty; but their personal identities are not compromised. 

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul uses the phrase “one flesh” as an analogy to condemn immoral sexual relationships and does seem to expand its meaning to include some type of metaphysical psychic, maybe spiritual "bonding" or "linking".  He says:

The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.  And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.  Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?  Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!  Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.”  But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.  Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself.  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?  For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. (I Corinthians 6:13b-20 NRSV) (emphasis mine)

The cultural context of this passage is significant.  In Corinth, more than one thousand prostitutes performed their trade in “honor” of Aphrodite, servicing the sexual lust of the “worshippers,” and raising financial support for the temple to their false god.  This passage is therefore a passionate plea for Christians to be sexually pure, especially in regards to these cultic prostitutes.  Fornication is sinful enough without joining the body, the “family” of Christ, with the “family” of Aphrodite! 

Paul also seems to expand the common cultural meaning of the phrase one flesh by pointing out that sexual immorality is a sin against your own person as well.  It is a sin that is uniquely evil in its scope and ramifications–physically, spiritually, and emotionally!  Modern science is just now beginning to reveal the ramifications of sexual intercourse upon the psyche.  Medical research indicates that when a couple engages in sex, hormones and neurological bio-chemicals are released in their brains that bond the couple mentally and emotionally together. 

This “bonding” is both emotional and mental, and possibly spiritual.  Within marriage, this is wonderful, awesome, and healthy.  However, outside of marriage, a lifestyle of sexual immorality leads to the bonding and breaking of multiple relationships.  This seems to be especially devastating to women (as a generality), though it could be just as devastating to men, just not as apparent.  This bonding and tearing of one’s heart can lead to serious scaring; and scarred hearts just don’t function quite as well as whole hearts. 

I believe Paul alludes to a similar phenomenon when he writes of wounding a brother’s conscience through simply influencing them to do something against their conscience, even though the action itself was not sinful.  He also speaks of those who have their consciences seared like with a hot iron.  Let’s do all we can to spur one another towards lives filled with the Love of God.  Let’s protect each others’ hearts, especially those we claim to love!  And let’s encourage one another to be sexually pure and thus fulfill the law of love.

Sexual immorality is a sin against your own person as well as a sin against the body of Christ.  It is a sin that is uniquely evil in its scope and ramifications–physically, spiritually, and emotionally!  However, “to become one flesh” does not imply that a “man and prostitute,” or even “husband and wife” become like one person before God! 

On the other hand, “one flesh” has often been used to underscore the need for and power of unity in marriage.  And it is true that the more unity a married couple attains in beliefs, values, purpose, and mutual respect and love, the healthier they are as a couple and as individuals; this is a very important principal of marriage!  However, the phrase “one flesh” does not mean that they become like one person in any way.  “One flesh” simply means to create a new family, and also relationally join two previously separate families.

In conclusion, I believe that the “divine ideal” for marriage is that of a monogamous, mutually faithful and loving, life-long union of a man and woman in an interdependent, legally sanctioned, familial relationship (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5); and what God has joined together should not be broken apart by man (Matthew 19:6)!  This is the “Goal” towards which we should strive as individuals, as a church, and as a society. 

Akrabbim, that's a very good assumption to hold and thanks for sharing.  When it comes down to it, MDR is primarily a personal moral issue, though with limited civil oversight forbiding specifically immoral relationships and acts.  One of the most important issues that we must determine biblically is which authority structure is MDR under; is it personal, domestic (familial), ecclesial, or civil authority that governs MDR?  I'll cover that more later. 

Concerning your friends, I encourage you to continue to be there for them as a support.  Concerning Christian musicians who have or are going through divorce, the last thing they need is for everyone to boycott them.  How about let's pray for them and maybe find some way to bless them and encourage them in the Lord. Now that's a novel idea -- being loving and caring instead of judgmental and condemning!

Civil Law Designed by God  part B

Concerning specific guidelines for marriage, divorce, and remarriage, relatively little is mentioned in Moses’ teachings or the remainder of the Bible, especially considering the importance of the subject.  Moses forbids sexual intercourse and thus marriage with a close relative (Leviticus 18:6-17), marrying a woman and her sister (Leviticus 18:18) or a woman and her mother (Leviticus 20:14), and a priest marrying an expelled wife or prostitute (Leviticus 21:7).  A daughter in line to inherit property was not allowed to marry outside of her tribe (Numbers 36:8); and if a man took a slave girl as his wife and then married another, he was not to diminish the slave wife’s food, clothing, or conjugal rights.  If he decided to divorce her or refused to meet her needs equitably in comparison to his other wives, she was to be given her freedom at no cost (Exodus 21:10 & 11).

Concerning divorce, a man who rapes a virgin must marry her if her father demands/allows it; and that man is never allowed to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:29).  A man may never divorce his wife whom he wrongfully accused of not being a virgin at the time of their marriage (Deuteronomy 22:19); and a man that divorces his wife may not remarry her if she has subsequently married someone else even though she is widowed or divorced by her second husband (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). 

Note the clarity and specificity with which Moses dealt with these issues.  Moses does not forbid divorce; nor does he establish guidelines for acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce.   Apparently, the common practice of the guilty party in a divorce losing the dowry was sufficient and that Moses, as inspired by God, saw no need for further civil legislation.

Moses clearly does not forbid divorce or a divorcée to marry again.  In fact, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 makes provision for a divorcée to remarry legally with no fear of social or legal retribution.  Even polygamy was not outlawed; and Exodus 21:10 & 11, Leviticus 18:18, and Leviticus 20:14 all assume that polygamy would continue. 

Having briefly reviewed the Ancient Near Eastern and Old Testament biblical culture of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, let us examine closely the passage concerning divorce that Jesus is questioned about in the Gospels by the Pharisees, Deut. 24:1-4.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.  (NKJV)

This passage is a prohibition of a man remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man, regardless of whether her second husband dies or divorces her.  One must ask why?  Why would Moses write this law?  What problem did this law address?  These questions cannot be correctly answered without an understanding of ancient Near Eastern cultures.  Recall that one of the primary reasons something is mentioned in the Pentateuch is to highlight beliefs and practices where the Israelites were to be different than the surrounding cultures. 

In ancient Near Eastern cultures, if a man dismissed or abandoned his wife, he could reclaim her several years later though she had married another man and had children with her second husband (Dr. David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 28-33).  Not only was her first husband able to reclaim her, but he could also claim, as his own, any children from her second “marriage.”  In agrarian societies, children are a valued asset.  This could be a significant financial motive for the first husband to take her back.  Thus, a primary reason for the bill of divorce mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was to mitigate the oppression of women, giving expelled wives the legitimate and legal right to marry again and to remain married without fear of their first husbands reclaiming them.  The bill of divorce was a legal document that severed the marital bond and freed the divorcée to remarry without civil or religious sanctions.  “It provided a clean and proper end to a broken marriage.”(Dr. David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 30)

There is also significant evidence indicating that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions two different kinds of divorce.  Notice the contrast between the first and second divorces.  The first divorce, mentioned in verse one, was because the wife found no favor in her husband’s eyes, because he “found some matter of uncleanness in her.”  “Uncleanness” comes from the Hebraic word, er-vaw’, meaning nakedness, shamefulness, blemish or disgrace.  This divorce would likely have ended in the woman losing all or part of her dowry because she had transgressed the marriage covenant in some manner.  There was presumably a legitimate and morally acceptable reason for the husband to divorce his wife—a shameful or disgraceful act or lifestyle. 

This “legitimate” reason, matter of uncleanness,  could have been a refusal to fulfill her end of the marriage covenant (specified and understood obligations) in food preparation, bearing children, caring for their children, taking care of the household, refusal of the husband’s conjugal rights, etc.  This was understood in their culture and governed (to a limited degree) by local civil government.  Rabbinical judges based this on Exodus 21:10-11.  Extended family members would have also significantly influenced such decisions concerning divorce.

Some try to make much of the word uncleanness (er-vaw, nakedness) in Duet.24.1, trying to equate it with some form of sexual immorality.  However, the phrase “matter of uncleanness” or a “matter of nakedness” is connected with the concept of finding favor in her husband’s eyes.  And it does not carry the weight of an offence of sexual immorality before or after the establishment of the marriage covenant or consummation of the marriage; both of which cases were specifically dealt with in the Law and punishable by death.  Furthermore, the intent of the law in no way is focused on the reason for either the first or second divorce; rather the law is specifically forbidding a man remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man.

Now, the second divorce, mentioned in verse three, is due to the husband detesting or hating his wife.  It was a “hateful” divorce, apparently due to the bad attitude and/or selfish motives of the husband and not the errant actions or detestable traits of the wife.  This divorce would have ended with the wife retaining her dowry because there was no “legitimate” reason for the divorce.  Similarly, the wife would have retained her dowry if she were widowed.  In either case there could have been a significant financial motive for her first husband to desire to marry her again.

Moses, by the inspiration of God, established the law of divorce in order to protect women from being treated sadistically and to elevate women’s rights allowing them to legally remarry and remain married!  The law of divorce also kept women from being seduced back into relationships through which they had already suffered rejection.

King David’s marriage to Michal, King Saul’s daughter, is a biblical example of a man reclaiming his wife after having abandoned her and she having married another man.  David married Michal after paying the gruesome bride price demanded by King Saul of killing one hundred Philistines (I Samuel 18:20-28).  Requiring the death of one hundred Philistines was one of the initial indirect attempts of King Saul to have David killed.  King Saul’s jealousy and hatred of David continued to grow until Saul set aside all pretence and openly conspired to kill him. 

Michal helped David escape; but in the course of events, he abandoned her, leaving her to suffer the wrath of her deranged father, King Saul (I Samuel 19:9-17).  Over the next ten to fifteen years, Saul made several attempts at trapping David, but they all failed.  During this time David married Ahinoam and Abigail; and Saul arranged for Michal to marry another man, Palti (I Samuel 25:43 & 44). 

King Saul eventually died along with Jonathan, his firstborn son.  Another son of Saul, Ishbosheth, was made King of Israel, but civil war erupted and the tribe of Judah broke away from the union and made David their king.  Following this, Israel consistently lost battles against Judah for seven and a half years.  Toward the end of this period of time, Abner, Ishbosheth’s top general, conspired with David to reunite Israel and make David king over all.  During their deliberations, David demanded that Michal be given back to him as a prerequisite for him taking the throne of Israel. 

The Bible does not state David’s motive for this demand.  From the way the incident is recorded, though, it sounds like it was primarily a political move for David, positioning himself to be King of Israel.  Michal was King Saul’s daughter, a princess of Israel.  Thus, from a political perspective, her husband would be a rightful heir of the throne.  One must also take into consideration that David was separated from Michal for ten to fifteen years or even longer, and she was “married” to Palti for almost that entire time.  During that time, it is not recorded that David ever attempted to regain her as his wife, either by force, abduction, or negotiation, either before Saul’s death or after. 

On the other hand, Palti’s love for Michal is evident as revealed in that he shamelessly wept as he followed along behind the caravan that took her away.  “So Ishbosheth took Michal away from her husband Palti son of Laish. Palti followed along behind her as far as Bahurim, weeping as he went. Then Abner told him, “Go back home!” So Palti returned” (II Samuel 3:15&16 NLT).  Apparently, Palti loved Michal passionately.  He followed her all the way to the border of Judah, where Abner, the captain of the armies of Israel, commanded him to go back home.  To go any further could have caused problems in the exchange and been embarrassing for Ishbosheth and Abner.

What a tragic story!  Michal loved David enough to suffer the wrath of her father, King Saul; and yet it is not recorded that David ever attempted to get her back before or after she was given to another man.  Apparently, David’s primary and possibly only motivation for reclaiming her as his wife was political—to help establish him in the opinions of others as the rightful heir of the throne of Israel.  By then Michal had been married to Palti for ten to fifteen years, and it is obvious that he loved her dearly; but David had her forcibly taken away from him.  David did this, though he had already married two other women.  It is probable that Michal never fully embraced David again and even came to despise him.  Sadly, she remained childless for the remainder of her life (II Samuel 6:16-23)–a tragic ending for a Princess and Queen of Israel.  If a Princess of Israel, God’s people, was treated this way, one can only imagine the horrors that the common woman faced in the ancient Near East!

In conclusion, it is important to note that Moses was INSPIRED by God to legislate/enact the bill of divorce to mitigate the oppression of women, to stop the ancient near-eastern practice of a man expelling his wife and yet retaining right to and over her.  The bill of divorce stopped men from expelling their wives, causing them to commit adultery and the men that marry them to commit adultery.  It did this by legally freeing such expelled wives to legally marry again and remain married. 

Furthermore, Moses did not in any way attempt to legislate acceptable or non-acceptable reasons for divorce.  However, there is significant evidence that the Jews divided divorces into two categories, those motivated by morally acceptable reasons and those by non-acceptable reasons called "hateful divorces."

Is Marriage a Sacrament?

Marriage is the legal and social union of a man and woman in an interdependent familial relationship established by the contractual exchange of relational vows—a marriage covenant.  But is marriage a sacrament?

A sacrament is “a formal religious act that is sacred as a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality; especially one believed to have been instituted or recognized by Jesus Christ.”  (“Sacrament.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. 1009)  A sacrament is a means of grace; it is a conduit of the spiritual blessing and empowerment of God.  Sacraments are administered by, to, in, and for the church.  Unbelievers are naturally excluded from the blessing and empowerment of Christian sacraments by a lack of faith.  Sacraments are made effective by faith.  Without faith, sacraments are powerless and effect no positive change in the unbeliever.  At least, that is the Protestant/Evangelical understanding of sacraments.  Catholics believe that sacraments carry within themselves the grace of the Lord, apart from the faith of the participant.  Regardless of our specific understandings of the efficaciousness of sacraments, is marriage as sacrament?

Baptism and the Eucharist are readily understood as sacraments throughout Christendom and even among non-believers.  However, marriage in no way fits the definition of a sacrament.  Marriage is not a formal religious act, especially for non-believers; it is a legal and social union of a man and woman creating a new family.  Furthermore, marriage is an earthly union, one not experienced or continued in heaven.  Jesus said that “When people rise from the dead, they will not marry, nor will they be given to someone to marry” (Matthew 22:30 NCV).  Marriage ends at death.

Marriage does have significant spiritual ramifications and can be a spiritual experience for those so minded; but it is not, in and of itself, a religious act; and it is certainly not a strictly Christian act.  Irreligious, non-spiritually minded couples get married and their marriage covenants are just as binding, meaningful, and real as the marriage covenants of Christian couples!  Furthermore, the marriage ceremony performed by an atheistic mayor, judge, or notary public is just as binding before God and as legally enforceable by civil authority as a marriage ceremony performed by a pastor, priest, rabbi, bishop, or the Pope himself!

Unlike the Eucharist, Jesus did not institute marriage, as is customary for a sacrament; nor did He command Christians to be married or perform marriage ceremonies as He did with baptism; and marriage was certainly not considered a sacrament in New Testament times.  If marriage were a sacrament, then single Christians would be missing out on a spiritual blessing from God and could be considered second rate citizens in the Kingdom of God. 

The statement that “marriage is not a sacrament,” does not mean that marriage is not important or of value.  Marriage is of tremendous importance, socially and spiritually, worthy of respect, and honorable.  “Marriage should be honored by everyone” (Hebrews 13:4 NCV).  To the Christian, marriage can be and should be considered a sacred and holy covenant!  But marriage is not a sacrament, as the word “sacrament” is commonly defined and understood throughout Christendom. 

Where did the concept of marriage being a sacrament come from?  St. Augustine, writing “To Plllentius – On Adulterous Marriages” in AD 419 was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to argue that marriage was sacramental in nature.  However, it was not until AD 1164 that marriage was ecclesiastically declared to be a sacrament in the fourth book of the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard.  Biblical scholar Dr. Instone-Brewer notes the following.

“Roman Catholic canon law was based on Augustine, as systematized by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.  Although he faithfully summarized the teaching of Augustine on divorce and remarriage, he did not always share the same emphases, and he did not take into account the more subtle nuances, which were hinted at in, Augustine’s later rethinking.

"Aquinas built on Augustine’s view of marriage as a sacrament.  This view was aided by the Vulgate translations of μυστήριον, mustēriŏn, in Ephesians 5:32 as sacramentum.  Before Aquinas, marriage was not considered as a cause of grace, like the other sacraments, but Aquinas confirmed the full sacramental character of marriage.  This was the final foundation for understanding marriage to be ontologically indissoluble.  From this basis it was possible to state conclusively that any reference to divorce in the NT referred only to separation, and that the freedom of 1 Corinthians 7.15 did not include the freedom to remarry.  Separation was ‘from bed and board’ (a mensa et thoro) but not the end of the marriage.” (Dr. David Instone-Brewer. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 255-256.)

Marriage being declared a sacrament was incorrectly founded upon the Latin translation of the Greek word  μυστήριον mustēriŏn, moos-tay´-ree-on,  in Ephesians 5:32 as sacramentum.  In the following quote of Ephesians 5:28-33 (NKJV), the English translation of μυστήριον mustēriŏn is the word, “mystery.”

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.  For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.  “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  This is a great MYSTERY, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (emphasis mine)

Mustēriŏn means “a religious secret, secret rite, secret teaching, or mystery” (mustēriŏn A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 530.)  Marriage is not a “religious secret.”  It is not a “secret rite.”  It is not a “secret teaching”.  Marriage is not a sacrament.  Furthermore, in Eph.5.32, mustēriŏn does not even refer to marriage; it refers to the relationship between Christ and the church.  The relationship between Christ and His Church was and is the mystery, the religious secret that Paul was celebrating and attempting to explain.  Paul used marriage as a metaphor to explain the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the church.  Marriage was not even being referenced as a mystery in this passage. 

Some argue that marriage should be considered a sacrament because it is a sign and symbol of the relationship between Jesus and the church, an important spiritual reality.  Is marriage a sign or symbol of Jesus’ relationship with the church?  No, it is a metaphor of that relationship.  Marriage is an earthly union that is used to help us understand a spiritual reality.  A “sign” points to something; whereas a metaphor is a figure of speech which highlights conceptual similarities.  Adultery, divorce, farming, fishing, and shepherding are also biblical metaphors used to explain spiritual realities.  Should fishing be considered a sacrament?  I wish fishing were a sacrament; I would make every effort to do so regularly!

Just because marriage is used as a means of illustrating the organic and personal relationship between Jesus and the church, does not mean that marriage should be considered a sacrament.  Reformation theology rejected this concept.  Martin Luther stated that “marriage is a worldly thing” (George Elliot Howard. “Divorce.” New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia. 3:454.) and did not believe that marriage was a sacrament.  The Puritans also rejected the concept of marriage being a sacrament.  They strongly affirmed that marriage is covenantal in nature; and of course, Puritan doctrine had a significant influence in the founding of the government and social order of the United States of America. 

Marriage does not even remotely fit the definition of a sacrament.  Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for declaring that one vow was more binding than another was (Matthew 5:33-37).  Through this, He taught that we should be people of integrity, people of our word.  Inspiring and enabling individuals to be people of integrity at heart, people whose word is their bond, keeping their vows, covenants, and contracts will make marriages stronger.  Declaring marriage a sacrament does not make the marriage bond stronger.  It only enables the bishopric, church leadership, to usurp civil authority and extend and impose their rule over people’s lives, enforcing the errant doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage!  Enforcing the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage was the ultimate reason marriage was declared to be a sacrament.  But does the church have authority to establish or enforce such an edict?  In post #26 I discussed the biblical evidence why I believe that issues concerning MDR are under limited civil authority and not at all under ecclesial authority.

After declaring marriage a sacrament and indissoluble, the bishopric reinterpreted biblical passages concerning divorce to fit their doctrine, declaring that such passages did not refer to divorce, but only referred to separation from room and board.  Rather than interpreting the text based upon the cultural, historical, and literary context, they read into the text a translation that fits their ideology.  The fact that marriage is not a sacrament but is a covenant is an important foundational element of a biblical doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage! 

Introduction to Jesus on Divorce

As an introduction to a detailed discussion of what Jesus said concerning divorce, I would like to briefly look at Paul’s quote of Jesus on this subject in 1 Cor. 7:10-11 for I believe these two verses summarize well Jesus directives concerning divorce.  A detailed discussion of 1 Cor. 7 will be covered later in this thread; but for now let’s take a brief look at Jesus’ words. 

“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart (χωρισθaναι  chorizo) from her husband.  But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce (aφιέναι  aphiemi) his wife.” NKJV

One should note that Paul quotes Jesus using two words that though related are different, chorizo and aphiemi.  I believe that Jesus actually addressed two different problems related to divorce:

1) The problem of men divorcing (aphiemi) their wives (for selfish reasons like “in order to marry another”), and

2) The problem of men expelling their wives without giving them a bill of divorce (chorizo), or women leaving their husbands and the husbands refusing to give them a bill of divorce; which I will refer to as illegal separation.  In either case the “separated” wives would be legally married and not able to legally marry again. 

Not only does Paul quote Jesus using two different words, but as we’ll see when we look at the Mt.19 passage, though the Greek text only uses one word (apoluo), the Aramaic text has two different words – (nishbrook) meaning “illegal separation” and (nishry) meaning “divorce.”  Of course, (apoluo) literally interprets “put away” and can either mean “divorce” or “illegal separation” depending on the context in which it is used.  As noted in previous posts, in ancient Jewish culture marriage was established by “Covenant”, better understood as a “Relational Contract.”  And though a couple separated, they were still legally married and the woman could not legally marry another man without first receiving a bill of divorce from her husband.  Of course, men were under no such restraints for polygamy, a man having multiple wives, was socially, religiously, and civilly acceptable; and the man also had the prerogative/power of divorce. 

Also, note that according to the structure in the Greek text, Jesus primarily addressed men and not women.  The word “married” (γεγαμηκόσι  gameo) is in the plural masculine case, and thus a literal translation is, “Now to the married men, I command…”  Furthermore, the words “depart” / “illegally separate” (χωρισθaναι chorizo) and “be restored” (καταλλαγήτω  katallasso)are both in the Passive Voice.  “The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, “The boy was hit by the ball,” the boy receives the action.”  (Pierce, L. Tense Voice Mood. Woodside Bible Fellowship.: Ontario)  Thus the men are the active agents, not the women.  The only verb that relates to the woman in an Active Voice is the word (μενέτω  meno) to remain or continue unmarried (aγαμος  agamos).  It is in the Active Voice and the Imperative Mood, thus translated as a direct command for the woman has been separated to “remain” unmarried.  This is the only verb in which the woman is active; otherwise, Jesus is addressing men as the active agent and women are being acted upon. 

Of course, this fits the reality of the cultural situation of Jewish women in the first century.  Men had the power/prerogative of divorce; but women did not.  And men could also have multiple wives, polygamy; whereas, women were bound to their first husband as long as he lived even though they were separated unless he gave her a bill of divorce legally freeing her to marry another.  Equal rights for women were unheard of in either civil or religious affairs. 

Taking these things into consideration, I believe a good translation of 1 Cor.7:10-11 would be:  “Now to married (men), I command, not I but the Lord:  Let not a wife be illegally separated from her husband.  But and if she is illegally separated, let her endure being unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”

As a missionary, Paul then takes what Jesus said in and through the Jewish cultural context and interprets it to speak with authority and relativity to the very different Greco-Roman culture of Corinth, applying it to some very specific needs.  We will discuss this more later when we look at 1 Cor. 7.   

For now it’s sufficient to note that Paul summarizes Jesus’ teaching on divorce by noting two different problems:

1) The problem of men divorcing their wives (likely for selfish reasons as we will see when we look at Mk. 10), and…

2) The more complex and devastating problem of men putting away, expelling their wives without giving them bills of divorce (illegal separation), and thus forcing them to endure remaining unmarried or living in adulterous relationships because they could not legally marry another man.  If such a woman who was illegally separated did marry another man, it was not a legal marriage; thus the woman and the man that married her were both committing adultery because she was still legally married to the husband that dumped her but refused to give her a bill of divorce.

Do you actually type all this stuff, or are you just copying it from someplace?

To be completely honest, I just skimmed your posts. But from what I've seen they look very sound and biblical. When I have more time, I'll devote more reading here. I'm sure I will enjoy your perspective from whats I've already seen.

Thank you for taking the time to share your work with us, especially on this difficult topic.