ArchivedDIVORCE - Wycliffe BIble Encyclopedia explanationDIVORCE. In the OT. In Deut 24:1-4 Moses permitted divorce of a husband from his wife if the husband found 'erwat dahar, "some uncleanness" in her (lit., "a case of nakedness," or "nakedness of a thing"). The nature of such an accusation was so general that it led to two interpretations at the time of Christ: a narrower one taught by the school of Shammai, which confined it to unfaithfulness; and a broader view, taught by the school of Hillel, which extended it to include anything that might displease the husband. The requirement that a man give his wife a bill of divorcement gave the act a legal and official status, since it needed the aid of at least a Levite to execute it properly. The further rule forbidding him to take his wife back after she had married another showed the gravity of the act (Deut 24:4).
There were several circumstances, however, in which divorce was forbidden. When a man had openly and wrongfully accused his young bride of premarital unfaithfulness, he must pay damages to her father and thereafter "he may not put her away all his days" (Deut 22:19). Again, if a man had premarital relations with a maiden, he must first pay an indemnity to the father and then marry the girl. Because he had humbled her, he also was not allowed ever to divorce her thereafter (Deut 22:28-29; Ex 22:16-17).
In the case of adultery with either another married person or between a married and an unmarried person, the OT penalty was death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). The same penalty applied even to a wife who had practiced fornication before marriage (Deut 22:21; cf. v. 23). Thus the possibility of divorce was replaced by the penalty of death in such cases. See Fornication.
One more example of divorce remains. The Israelites were commanded to put away unbelieving heathen wives by Ezra (Ezr 9-10) and Nehemiah (Neh 13:23 f.; cf. Mal 2:10-16), since these wives were leading them astray. The command in II Cor 6:14, 17 not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers deals with the same problem, but in both cases would apply only when the strange wife or husband was leading the believer into unbelief or heathenism.
In the NT. The Pharisees approached Christ concerning the views of Shammai and Hillel and asked, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Mt 19:3 ff.). His answer throws light on Deut 24:1-4. Moses did not "command" that a bill of divorcement be given, as they maintained (v. 7). He merely suffered or permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts v. 8. From the beginning, that is, from the first revelation of the nature and meaning of marriage in Gen 2:23-24, man was to have only one wife--"they shall be one flesh" and to have her permanently (Mt 19:6)--"cleave unto his wife" (Gen 2:24). The one exception permitting divorce, which Christ mentioned at this point, was fornication (v. 9; Mt 5:32).
In I Cor 7:10 Paul gives the further teaching of Christ concerning marriage and divorce as he writes, "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord..." Paul is saying that he is writing what Christ taught. The wife is not to leave her husband because he is an unbeliever, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife (vv. 10, 14). To express it in theological terms, the covenantal family relationship made by a believer with God for himself and his children cares for the marriage. If the believing party leaves, he is not to marry again (v. 11) unless the unbeliever breaks the marriage vow by adultery or remarriage (cf. Mt 5:32; 19:9). However, if the unbeliever deserts his believing wife, then the believer seems to be considered free to remarry: "A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" (I Cor 7:15). Some feel that homosexuality is also a reason for divorce since it is listed as an even greater sin than adultery, being "against nature" (Rom 1:26-27).
Two difficulties have arisen over Christ's teaching in the Gospels.
1. In Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 Christ makes no room whatever for divorce on any grounds; only in Matthew (5:32; 19:9) does He mention that divorce is allowed in case of fornication. Here we have to apply the principle that all the details must be gathered and scripture must be compared with scripture before we come to final conclusions. A complete inductive synthesis requires that all Christ taught on divorce, as recorded in both the Gospels and in I Cor 7:10 ff., be assembled before a final decision is made on Christ's teachings. To this must be added all else found on the subject in the NT in order to be sure of the NT doctrine of divorce.
How is Christ's view of divorce to be reconciled with the OT? How could Moses have been instructed of God to give such general permission? The condition of mankind at that time needs to be considered. These instructions were given to Moses because of the demoralized attitudes of man since the Fall. The ideal conditions which existed when God gave the original ordinance of marriage no longer existed. Moses was told to promulgate a civil law which would regulate divorce rather than a divorce law, such as later revealed by Christ, which they could never keep in their unregenerate state. Such being the case, this civil law can well be a guide to man as he deals with unsaved persons and for civil laws even today, but it cannot be set up as the spiritual standard of the church. In the NT Christ removed the judgment of adultery and fornication from the realm of civil law, where they were punishable by physical death, and placed it fully under the judgment of moral law and God Himself. Inasmuch as the moral law is a higher tribunal than the civil. He put it under an even severer judgment.
2. Christ did not mention adultery as a ground for divorce, but only fornication. Is it therefore not included? This can be explained first by the fact that the admission of the lesser sin of fornication implies the inclusion of the greater sin of adultery. Further, adultery was already considered in both Jewish and Roman law as a legitimate reason for divorce, and therefore would not require to be mentioned. To this must be added the fact that though fornication and adultery are separately mentioned in many cases (Mt 15:19; I Cor 6:9; Gal 5:19), fornication is often used alone to cover both (Acts 15:20; 21:25; Rom 1:29; Eph 5:3). The view generally held, therefore, is that by the use of the term fornication our Lord meant to cover the two. This is borne out further by the fact that the sinful conduct of Israel as Jehovah's wife is sometimes called adultery (Jer 3:8; Ezk 23:45) and sometimes fornication (Jer 3:2-3; Ezk 23:43). Again, in I Cor 7:2 fornicatoin is used to cover either sin.
Summarizing the NT teaching, we find that divorce is permitted where there has been fornication or adultery, and in the case of willful desertion; but not because of some whim or even incompatibility. For such, only separation is permitted (cf. I Cor 7:10 ff.).
Some practical questions arise for the church. How is it to regard adultery and premarital relations? The latter is clearly the lesser sin. Paul was probably answering the question, "Is it good for a man to touch a woman?" in I Cor 7:1 ff., when he replied in the imperative mood, "Let every man have his own wife," or as Dr. J.O. Buswell, Jr., translates it, "Each man must have his own wife" (Systematic Theology, p. 386). The OT was very strict concerning fornication--the young people who had committed it must marry, yet it was lenient in comparison with adultery, when the offenders were to be stoned to death. The church should keep this in mind as it acts. See Incontinency.
What shall the church do about marrying divorced persons? Only the innocent party can be considered eligible for a church wedding. Some feel the same holds true for church membership. Others would urge a course of confession and discipline followed by restoration. Many churches refuse to give the divorced communicant membership, though with the open communion service not excluding him from the Lord's table. Churches with a closed communion tend to the former--discipline and restorationnn; those with an open one, the latter.
See Bill; Family.
"Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia"
(c)1975 by THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
This anwers all but one of my questions. What happens if a husband or wife is being abusive to his or her spouse, and the abused person's life is in jeopardy? Would it be all right for the abused person to seek a divorce and remarry, considering the fact that he/she is the innocent party?
And I guess this means that it was all right for my cousin to get a divorce and get remarried? Because as far as I know, he was the innocent party. After all, his wife committed adultery, left him, and moved to Mexico, while my cousin suffered from a serious case of depression.
| View dfilename Return Home |