|
Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
|
|
Particulars
of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
Marital
Separation: Objections 4-6
and the Early Church
The
Importance of Family Part 1: Marriage
The Importance of Family Part 2: The
Family
Divorce and Remarriage: Introduction
and Basics
Separation and Divorce in the Law
of Moses
Marital Separation in the Gospels
Marital Separation after the Gospels
and Conclusions
Marital Separation: Objections
1-3
Marital Separation: Objections
4-6 and the Early Church
Remarriage Addendum: Exception
Clause Comparison
New Testament Protocols Regarding Men
and Women (Part 1)
New Testament Protocols Regarding Men
and Women (Part 2)
Comparative Peer Dynamics Chart
Objection
4: God Never Wills to Break-up A Family
Additionally, some might argue that it is never God's will
to break apart a family, even if that family is created by
a second marriage. In such an argument, the idea is that as
a matter of principle, God has placed such a priority on the
family unit that maintaining the family unit overrides all
other considerations, including adultery. However, this is
plainly not true. There are certainly exceptions in the Old
Testament in which maintaining the family unit was made subordinate
to other principles and moral standards.
Genesis 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian,
which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she
said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her
son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with
my son, even with Isaac. 11 And the thing was very
grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son. 12 And
God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight
because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all
that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice;
for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 13 And also of the
son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is
thy seed. 14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning,
and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar,
putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her
away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness
of Beersheba.
Notice here from this episode with Abraham that although it
is Sarah who originally asks Abraham to send Hagar and her
son Ishmael away, God himself tells Abraham to do as Sarah
has asked. And God gives his own reason. God is not simply
trying to please Sarah, but God clearly asserts that sending
Hagar and Ishmael away is necessary in order to preserve the
promise and intention of God to have Abraham's offspring reckoned
solely through Isaac.
In verse 13 God acknowledges that Ishmael is Abraham's seed
and in recognition of this fact, God will make Ishmael into
a great nation. However, despite the fact that Ishmael is
Abraham's son, God's primary concern here is not to keep the
son with the father. Nor is God concerned with keeping the
child's mother and father together and for both of them to
raise him in the same household. Clearly, in this famous account,
we cannot say that God's priority to preserve the family unit
and keep father, mother, and child together in the same household.
God had higher priorities that took precedent over maintaining
the family unit.
And this is not the only example. We find another case in
Ezra where families were broken up in order to obey God's
required moral standard.
Ezra 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes
came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests,
and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the
people of the lands, doing according to their abominations,
even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the
Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and
the Amorites. 2 For they have taken of their daughters
for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed
have mingled themselves with the people of those lands:
yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in
this trespass. 3 And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment
and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of
my beard, and sat down astonied. 4 Then were assembled
unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of
Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been
carried away; and I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice...9
For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our
bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the
kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house
of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to
give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem. 10 And now, O
our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken
thy commandments, 11 Which thou hast commanded by thy
servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye
go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of
the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have
filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness.
12 Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons,
neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek
their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong,
and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance
to your children for ever. 13 And after all that is come upon
us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing
that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities
deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; 14 Should
we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with
the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be
angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should
be no remnant nor escaping? 15 O LORD God of Israel, thou
art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day:
behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot
stand before thee because of this.
Now, this is a rather lengthy quote from Ezra, but it is necessary.
Notice the problem is given in the first two verses. The people
of Israel had intermarried with the Gentile nations around
them. Notice also that Ezra assembles with those who "tremble
at the words of God." This shows us that Ezra and this particular
assembly were mindful of the commandments given to Israel.
Verses 10-12 are also crucial.
In verses 10-12, Ezra clearly states the problem. The problem
is that God commanded his people not to intermarry with the
Gentile nations around them, yet this is precisely what the
people were doing. And what is Ezra's conclusion in verse
15? Ezra concludes that the result of their disobeying this
command against intermarriage is that they "cannot stand before"
God "because of this" sin. Ezra is serious about how much
this sin will disrupt their relationship and favor with God.
In fact, in verse 14, Ezra indicates that this sin endangers
them of being "consumed" by God's anger until there is "no
remnant" left of them.
But is this actually a command from God, or is Ezra just going
above and beyond what is required? Certainly, Ezra believes
this is the command of God given by the prophets, for he says
so in verse 11. But we can also look back in the scriptural
record before Ezra to find out where Ezra is getting this
command. And we find the command in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver
them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy
them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew
mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with
them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his
daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will
turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other
gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against
you, and destroy thee suddenly.
Amazingly, Ezra's words are a very precise parallel of this
command from Moses. Not only is Ezra clearly quoting verses
2-3 in Ezra 9:11-12, but his conclusion that for this sin
God may indeed destroy the people is also taken directly from
verse 4. Ezra is certainly not raising the standard or going
beyond what God required. He is simply keeping the commandments
of God as it was written and delivered through Moses.
So, what does Ezra require to be done in order to rectify
this disobedience, keep the Israelites from being destroyed,
and restore them to proper fellowship and favor before God?
Ezra 10 continues the story.
Ezra 10:1 Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had
confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house
of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great
congregation of men and women and children: for the people
wept very sore. 2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of
the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have
trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of
the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning
this thing. 3 Now therefore let us make a covenant
with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born
of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those
that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be
done according to the law. 4 Arise; for this matter belongeth
unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage,
and do it. 5 Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests,
the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do
according to this word. And they sware...10 And Ezra the
priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed,
and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of
Israel. 11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD
God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves
from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
12 Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud
voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.
Notice from verses 2-3 that the guilty persons acknowledged
that they had to put away their wives and the children born
by them. However, these guilty persons also state that putting
away these wives and children was done according to the counsel
of Ezra and the leaders and according to the law, which is
the Law of Moses. Then in verse 5, Ezra makes the guilty swear
to put away their wives and children. And even more clearly
in verse 11, Ezra states that to please God, the guilty persons
must separate themselves from their strange wives and children.
So, it is quite evident that not only did the Law of Moses
prohibit the Israelites from intermarrying, but according
to Ezra the Law also required them to put away their wives
and children in order to appease God's wrath in this matter
and comply with the Law.
Therefore, this is a very blatant example where God's moral
standards for his people supercede the notion of keeping fathers,
mothers, and children together in an intact family unit. Instead,
the opposite was necessary. In order to keep God's moral requirements
and avoid being cast out and even destroyed by God, the Israelites
were required to break up their family units and separate
from their spouses and children.
Now, we do not mean to imply that the Law of Moses is still
binding on Christians today or that Christians should dissolve
their second marriages because of the Law of Moses. Our point
is simply this. These examples from the Old Testament books
of Genesis and Ezra demonstrate that we, as Christians, cannot
justify maintaining second marriages by appealing to an assumption
that God never wants to break up any family unit. God does
indeed sometimes require a family unit to be broken in order
for his will to be done or his moral standard to be kept.
(For more on this topic please see our articles on the Importance
of Marriage and the Family in the Church Ethic section.)
And for anyone who might think that God wouldn't actually
ban Christians of second marriages from the kingdom of his
Son, let them consider again the words of Moses and Ezra.
Both of these men understood that those among God's people
who failed to remove themselves from the spouses and children
they obtained by transgressing God's law would certainly and
ultimately be cut off and destroyed from God's people. The
moral standard might be different between then and now. They
obtained spouses and families by transgressing God's prohibition
of intermarriage. Many today have obtained spouses and families
by violating Jesus' teaching concerning marital separation
and remarriage. Nevertheless, we can see from those Old Testament
examples that God does indeed hold accountable and even promises
to punish those who fail to separate themselves from the spouses
and families they obtain by violating his commands. We may
no longer be under the commands given through Moses. But we
are most certainly under the commands given through Christ
Jesus.
Objection 5: This Teaching is Impractical and Unreasonable
Now, at this point, some might object to our conclusions because
they lead to a moral standard that is "too hard" or "unreasonable."
But there are some glaring problems with such objections.
First, doctrines and interpretations of scriptural teaching
must be based upon the scriptural text itself, not our independent
notions of what is "too hard" or "unreasonable."
Second, it would be a mistake to assume or believe that God
determines what to consider right and what to consider wrong
entirely depending on whether or not it will be "sufficiently
easy" or "reasonable" for humans to go along with that standard.
Third, it is Jesus' teaching that the standard in the Law
of Moses regarding divorce was determined by what man would
reasonably be able to go along with and live with. For this
reason, in the Law of Moses, it was permitted for men to divorce
their wives for any reason. However, the clear reality of
Jesus' comments in Matthew 19:3-12 demonstrate the strict
contrast between the Law of Moses on the one hand, which was
made in light of the hardness of men's hearts and on the other
hand, the teaching of Jesus and the standard of God, which
transcended considerations for the hardness of men's hearts.
In other words, according to Jesus, consideration for what
men's hearts could accept and follow resulted in the Law of
Moses' teaching regarding divorce, but God's standard requires
what man's hearts find extremely difficult to accept. Thus,
according to Matthew 19, with regard to divorce, the teaching
of Christ differs from the Law of Moses precisely because
Christ's teaching was NOT determined by what man would find
reasonably acceptable to live with (while the Law of Moses
was).
Fourth, there can be little doubt that God's standard concerning
divorce is for our own benefit. This is not to say that God's
standard is what philosophy calls "utilitarian." It would
be irresponsible to depict God's standards of right and wrong
as though they are arbitrarily determined by what will be
good for us or what will be bad for us. God's standards are
instead based upon his own unchanging, divine, righteousness
character.
Nevertheless, God's standards do benefit us greatly if we
follow them. For what better way to do things could there
be than the way assigned by God in his perfect wisdom according
to his perfect righteousness? As such, the teaching of Christ
concerning divorce is for our benefit as well. And no doubt
part of the difficulty that God wants us to avoid is the difficulty
that comes along with broken marriages, one-parent households,
and awkward relationships with stepparents, etc. Not only
that, but ultimately, God is trying to keep us from the temptations
that will keep us out the kingdom of his Son. In 1 Corinthians
6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21, Paul is quite clear that those
who commit adultery will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Therefore, God's standard on divorce is designed to keep us
from falling into this dilemma in which our hearts fall into
either love or lust for someone who is adulterous for us as
we try to pursue God. Therefore, since God's standard in part
will protect and keep us from such difficulties, it is absurd
to argue that God wants us to stay in second marriages because
leaving them would be difficult. We are in such difficulty
precisely because we ignored the standard of God, which would
have kept us from those difficulties. Would we now use those
very difficulties, which that God's standard intended to keep
us from, to justify not keeping the standard?
Through our sinful behavior, we have come to the temptation
God had sought for us to avoid, will we then ask to continue
because it's too difficult to stop now? Of course not. The
difficulty we bring on ourselves as a result of our sins in
no way makes allowances for us to continue in those same behaviors.
There are many circumstances in which it is easier and less
disruptive to our lifestyle and the lifestyle of those around
us to remain in sin. But the difficulties and often uprooting
aspects of repentance do not justify continuation in the sin,
which may be much more convenient.
And fifth, to those who would argue that our interpretation
of Jesus teaching is incorrect because it results in a standard
that is "too hard" or "unreasonable," let them consider that
this is precisely how the apostles themselves responded to
his teaching. Their reaction to Jesus' teaching with regard
to divorce and remarriage can only be explained if the standard
he was raising was exceedingly difficult and hard to accept.
Consider their words.
Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth
her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples
say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife,
it is not good to marry.
Here in verses 8-9, Jesus asserts that the discrepancy between
his teaching and the Law of Moses is caused by the fact that
Moses made an allowance out of recognition of what the people
would be willing to accept and live with. Then, Jesus reinforces
what God requires is higher and more restrictive than what
was permitted by the Law of Moses.
The key to our current point is verse 10, where the apostles
respond to Jesus' teaching prohibiting marital separation
and condemning second marriages as adultery. Their response
clearly indicates that they think Jesus is lifting up a standard
that will be extremely hard for men to keep or even accept.
With the idea in mind that marital separation is forbidden
and second marriages are adulterous, the apostles quickly
respond that it would be better never to marry.
Now, if the apostles perceived that second marriages could
be made acceptable simply by acknowledging it was wrong and
saying "sorry" for it, would they have responded so strongly
as to conclude that it is better never to marry? What is so
difficult about that? You admit you did wrong. You say you
are sorry. You keep your second spouse. Your kids from the
second marriage get to stay with both their parents. What
is so hard about this that would make remaining unmarried
an easier choice?
The only reason the apostles would have concluded that it
was better to remain unmarried was if they understood Jesus'
teaching to make married life exceedingly difficult by way
of not allowing spouses to separate and categorizing second
marriages to more favorable spouses as forbidden.
One cannot object to our interpretation of Jesus' teaching
on divorce on the grounds that our conclusions create a standard
that is "too hard," "unreasonable," or "impractical." The
apostles themselves thought that Jesus' teaching on this subject
was so hard that remaining single was preferable to getting
married and having to abide by Jesus' teaching on marital
separation and remarriage. Given the fact that the apostles
themselves thought that Jesus' teaching on divorce was hard
for men to live with, one cannot object to our conclusions
on the basis that they are "too hard."
Objection 6: Only For Those Who Can Accept It
Lastly, some might take Jesus comments in Matthew 19:11 as
an indication that his teaching regarding divorce and remarriage
was only for those who could accept it.
Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which
is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto
him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not
good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot
receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12
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.
A clear examination of Matthew 19:9-12 indicates that such
an opposing argument is clearly in error. Jesus is not saying
that his teaching about divorce and adultery only applies
to those who are willing to accept it. Rather, Jesus makes
this statement in verse 11 in response to the disciples comment
in verse 10. In verse 10, the disciples state that it is good
for a man not to marry. And it is this idea, the idea that
it is better to remain single, that Jesus is saying in verse
11, only applies to those whom it is given.
The fact that Jesus goes on immediately in verse 11 to discuss
this idea of those who remain unmarried demonstrates thoroughly
that his comments in verse 11 are meant only to apply to the
idea of remaining single. Jesus was in no way indicating that
his teaching regarding divorce and remarriage was only for
those who could accept it. Instead, he was simply stating
that the idea of remaining single was only for those who could
accept it. In this way, his teaching is identical to that
of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:25-40. To assert that second marriages
are adultery only for those who can accept such teaching but
not for those who reject it is a patently absurd interpretation
of Jesus' instructions here. It reduces sexual morality to
a matter of person opinion.
Survey of Early Church Teaching
We will now move on to our survey of orthodox early church
writers on this issue of marital separation and remarriage.
If we find no comments made on this matter in their writings,
then our interpretation of scripture stands on its own, unchallenged
by their words. If we find comments on this topic, which contradict
our own findings, then we will need to explain the difference.
But, if we find a sufficient amount of comments in their works,
which support our findings, then we will have even further
confirmation that our interpretations of scripture on this
topic are the teachings of the apostles.
Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these:...And,
"Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another
husband, committeth adultery."...(5) So that all who,
by human law, are twice married, (6) are in the eye of our
Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust
after her. [Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD.)]
"'I charge you,' said he, 'to guard your chastity, and
let no thought enter your heart of another man's wife, or
of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this
you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own
wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your
heart, then you will sin; and if, in like manner, you think
other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought
is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit
this wicked deed, he works death for himself. Attend, therefore,
and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there
iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man.'
I said to him, 'Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions.'
'Say on,' said he. And I said to him, 'Sir, if any
one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her
in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with
her? 'And he said to me, 'As long as he remains ignorant of
her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with
her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray,
and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication,
and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is
guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.' And
I said to him, 'What then, sir, is the husband to do, if
his wife continue in her vicious practices? 'And he said,
'The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But
if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits
adultery.' And I said to him, 'What if the woman put
away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall
she not be taken back by her husband? 'And he said to me,
'Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins,
and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take
back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For
there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In
case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband
ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away.
In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in
the same way.'"- Pastor of Hermas (A.D. 139-A.D. 155),
Book Second-Commandments, Commandment Fourth, On Putting One's
Wife Away for Adultery, Chapter I
That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no
release from the union is expressly contained in the law,
"You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of
fornication." And it regards as fornication the marriage
of those separated while the other is alive... "He who takes
a woman who has been put away commits adultery." [Clement
of Alexandria (c. 195 AD.)]
The Lord holds it more pleasing that marriage should never
be contracted, than that it should at all be dissolved. In
short, He prohibits divorce except for the cause of fornication.
[Tertullian (c. 197 AD.)]
Christ prohibits divorce, saying, "Whoever puts away his wife
and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries
her who is put away from her husband also commits adultery."
In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry
a woman who has been put away. [Tertullian (c. 207 AD.)]
I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition
that He now made of divorce, the case at hand was that a man
put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another...That
is, [she was put away] for the reason for which a woman should
not be dismissed-to obtain another wife...Permanent is
the marriage that is not rightly dissolved. Therefore, to
marry while marriage is undissolved is to commit adultery.
Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional
one, He did not prohibit it absolutely. And what He did not
absolutely forbid, He permitted on some occasions-when there
is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. [Tertullian
(c. 207 AD.)]
Christ plainly forbids divorce; Moses unquestionably permits...Even
Christ, however, when He commands "the wife not to depart
from her husband, or if she departs, to remain unmarried or
be reconciled to her husband," both permitted divorce (which
indeed is he never absolutely prohibited) and confirmed marriage
(by first prohibiting its dissolution). If separation had
taken place, He wished the marriage bond to be resumed by
reconciliation. [Tertullian (c. 207 AD.)]
The reason why He abolished divorce, which "was not from
the beginning," was in order to strengthen that thing which
"was from the beginning"-the permanent joinder of two into
one flesh...So He permits divorce for no cause, except
one...To us, even if we do divorce them [i.e., adulterous
spouses], marriage will not be lawful. [Tertullian, (c.
217 AD.)]
She must necessarily persevere in that peace with him whom
she will no longer have the power to divorce. Not that she
would have been marriageable-even if she had been able to
divorce him. [Tertullian (c. 217 AD.)]
He who marries a woman divorced from her husband is an
adulterer. So is he who divorced a wife for any cause other
than adultery, in order to marry another. [Lactantius
(c. 304-313 AD.)]
As we can see from the above quotes, our conclusions certainly
have quite prominent representation among the writings of
the early Christians. Our views are shared by Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, and even the Pastor of Hermas, Clement of Alexandria,
and Lactantius. Thus, not only does the scriptural evidence
support our views but the earliest Christians support our
interpretation of scripture on this matter, which provides
additional evidence beyond the scriptural analysis, that the
conclusions presented in this study are the original Christian
teaching of the apostles of Jesus Christ, which they received
from Jesus Christ and which is therefore binding on all Christians
to this very day.
|
|
|
|
|
|