FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage? (Part 14 of 18)

29.  The Samaritan Puzzle

It remains to clear the puzzle that started this trip: the apparent differences in approach to marriage, by Jesus in Judea and Jesus in Samaria, in the same New Testament.  In other words, what might have warranted Jesus’ implicit acceptance of divorces and remarriages in Samaria, in seeming contradiction to the general conception of His earlier teachings in Judea?  This is not an attempt to answer all “cases” of marital conflicts, marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but an effort at finding the possible missing link between two apparently contradictory positions of Jesus in two different contexts.

It seems that Paul, through his numerous revelations and encounters with God, grasped the essence of Jesus’ stance on marriage, which may clarify the Samaritan puzzle involving a woman who appeared to have been the victim of repeated male abandonment. One ‘unbeliever’ husband after another put her away once they reached a point of irreconcilability.  She lost one man, had another, lost again, had another, and lost again, until there were as many as five ex’s, plus a sixth man in the waiting room. In each case, when the two could no longer agree, and could not ‘walk together’ any longer, she was cast out — not for fornication or death.

It will further appear that Jesus was responding to the specific case of clarifying an abused scripture rather than making a general statement.  If we examine the first instance of that subject in His sermons, it was within the broader context of right and just human relations. He was not answering a question on that occasion but cited marriage as one of the common instances where the misuse of human relations occurs.

In that Sermon, Jesus mentioned, for example, that one should mind their language and temper or risk hellfire – horizontal relations (Matthew 5:21-22); that one cannot bribe God with sacrifice (on the vertical plane) when they are unrighteous with their fellow humans (on the horizontal plane) (vv. 23-24); that brothers should make peace in their horizontal relations before their matters escalate into a legal tussle from which one might not emerge unscathed (vv. 25-26); that forbearance and peace are better than vengeance that seeks a tooth for a tooth – in horizontal relations (vv. 38-42); then generally and very clearly, that you should “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (v.44).

That was the context in which the topic of marriage and divorce arose; that a man (to whom the statement was addressed, in that world of men) should not be unfair to his wife by frivolously putting her away or divorcing her when she has done nothing morally breaching the marital vows according to the guidelines of Moses; that he should not thereby unjustly make her liable of adultery, or make another man guilty of the same sin if that other man should marry that woman not properly divorced (vv.31-32).

The following principles stand out from Paul’s position, as conditions that could warrant a justifiable split:

• If peace is threatened to the point of irreconcilability – for God has called us to peace
• If the wills no longer align – and she is not willing to stay, or he is not willing to stay
• When choices are at conflict – because he/she has chosen to become a believer or has adopted a New philosophy of life, which the other chooses not to join or adopt, and so prefers to depart.

In summary, the following is an overview of the exception clauses from the beginning until Paul:

• In the beginning: man and wife, no divorce, no remarriage;
• Moses: divorce on grounds of uncleanness – that is, conjugal infidelities, validating divorce and remarriage;
• Jesus (Judea): divorce for fornication – that is, a whorish lifestyle validating divorce and remarriage especially by the injured;
• Jesus (Samaria): divorce for insistent irreconcilabilities – consecutive divorces/remarriages
• Paul: death – freedom to remarry at the death of a partner;
• Paul: abandonment – where one partner vacates the home/marriage, thereby releasing the other to remarry or be remarried;
• Paul: irreconcilable differences – arising from “such cases” where one partner’s new faith or new perspective on life or a new lifestyle becomes the subject of the rift between the parties, thereby validating divorce and remarriage;
• Paul: when peace is threatened – for we are called to peace;
• Paul: when wills/choices are at war – when any party is no longer willing to remain

As stated in Chapter 18, on “The Implication of the Gospel Parts,” the confusion in the Church about marriage and remarriage has arisen largely from picking (or selecting) one Bible verse and building a mountainous theology on it, ignoring other scriptures on the subject.  For example, as a friend once remarked, let us take the qualifications for becoming a bishop in the New Testament.  It says that the candidate for that office should be blameless, having one wife, be hospitable, sober, of good behaviour, able to teach, not a fighter, not covetous, etc. (1 Timothy 3:1-7).  If someone with three wives should get up to be a bishop in our day, everyone would throw terrible stones at him for being a very bad example, yet we would not care as much about the man with one wife who is very covetous, very greedy of filthy lucre, unable to teach, very inhospitable, and ready to fight anyone, anytime, anywhere.  For us, then, even if a man is not blameless in many areas of his life, so long as he has only one wife, he is a preferable Bishop than the better-behaved man with more than one wife.  Thus, like the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in Matthew 23:23, we pick one verse or one point and ignore the others.

According to the complete criteria for becoming a bishop, the man who stands proudly piously with his one wife, whereas he is covetous and inhospitable, is not better qualified for the office of a bishop than the well-behaved man with more wives.  Am I then making a case for multiple wives?  No, but merely to state that no one verse is the entire Bible, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).

30.  The Old Testament of Jesus

Some Christians maintain that, since Jesus had not yet gone to the cross when He spoke with the Samaritan woman, everything He said and did at that time was still Old Testament. They usually make that argument by quoting Hebrews 9:16-17, claiming that a testament only becomes active after the death of the testator.  Unfortunately, if we follow their reasoning, even what Jesus is supposed to have said in Judea about permitting no divorce except for fornication, should be dismissed as Old Testament.  For them, all the Gospels, from Matthew to John, are technically part of the Old Testament.

I was invited to speak at a meeting of church leaders in a big city.  The meeting had been called to consider spiritual pathways to dealing with the bloody activities of cult gangs that had caused much bloodshed and destruction in the land.  I spoke on the implications of blood and how to deal with bloodguilt on the land.  By my judgment and that of most participants, it was a very helpful meeting.  A prophetic intercessory key seemed to have been delivered to the people.  But not everyone thought so.

While I took questions after my preaching, one General Overseer had a very important point to make.  First, he was disappointed that they had been invited for prayers when they should have been planning a massive crusade, the kind that he did in his community when they had a similar crisis.  Next, he lectured me that even though I seemed to have taught well from St Luke’s Gospel, that Gospel was part of the Old Testament, because Jesus had not died in the Gospel of Luke.  He stressed that the ‘New Testament’ began only after the death of the Testator.  To that extent, everything I had said was Old Testament stuff, irrelevant to New Testament believers.  To press the point that he was no mean preacher after all, he asked his four young assistants to stand up and show themselves.  Four young men promptly stood up from wherever they were scattered, not far from him in that church.  Then he lectured us a little more and walked out, his four obedient disciples trailing behind him like ducklings behind their mama hen.

At the end of the meeting, the organizers, who had invited me, met me outside the church to thank me.  They told me not to worry about what that man had said, because they understood my message well and were going to respond appropriately.  Of course, they did, and their land was healed.  Peace returned to the city, but I learned a very important theological lesson that day.  I used to think that there were only two sections in the Holy Bible: the Old Testament and the New Testament.  That day, I was to learn that there were indeed three, at least as far as eminent theologians like that General Overseer were concerned.  There was the proper Old Testament (starting from the book of Genesis to Malachi), the New Old Testament (from the Gospel of Matthew to the Gospel of John), and the New New Testament (from Acts of the Apostles to Revelation).

If we should dismiss Jesus’ Samaritan sermon, because it is Old Testament, we should also not take seriously anything that Jesus said or did, unless He said it in Revelation, did it in the book of Acts, or wrote it in the epistles to the Corinthians.  By that argument, Paul would be the first culprit and victim, because he makes references in his New New Testament epistles to the same New Old Testament teachings of Jesus in the New Old Testament books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which should apply more properly to Abraham and Moses and Elijah; not to us.  Strangely, such a position contradicts Jesus Himself, who commanded His disciples to go into the world and teach everyone “to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).   Commanded where?  When?  In Galatians or Ephesians?  The problem is that, to some eyes, and in some ears, sometimes, “all things” actually means ‘some things.’

Someone might argue that Jesus’ remarks about the Samaritan woman’s marital experience were not a commandment, as Matthew 28:20 indicates.  OK, so is John 3:16 not a commandment, but merely a notice.  “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” is also not a commandment, but an announcement.  “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28) is an invitation, not a commandment; and the Testator had not died when He made that statement, so it is an Old Testament creed, not applicable to New New Testament disciples like us under a dispensation of grace.  We should obey only those verses where Jesus specifically says, “I command you…,” even so, only if it was said after His resurrection, beginning strictly from the book of Acts.

In the New New Testament of Acts 21:24-26, long after the death and resurrection of the Testator, Paul, along with four of his ‘church members’ and personal assistants, had to shave and purify themselves according to the laws of Moses.  The ritual of purification involved burnt-offering that included a ram of a year old, a sheep of the same age for a sin-offering, a ram for a thank-offering, a basket of unleavened cakes, and a libation of wine (Numbers 6:13-20).  Why do our zealous ‘New Testamentors’ ignore such post-Testator scriptures, leaving them to rot in their contexts?

Why are some of Jesus’ teachings ‘Old Testament,’ and others New Testament?  This contradiction arises when we engage in selective obedience and interpret scripture based on rigid doctrinal biases, without considering the applicable context. The same Jesus who spoke in Matthew and Luke is the One who spoke in John. If any of the Gospels should be ‘Old Testament,’ it would be Matthew, as it is closer to that section of the Holy Bible than John, which is nearest to Acts of the Apostles, where the ‘New New Testament’ purportedly begins. Additionally, it’s important to note that Jesus did not die in Acts of the Apostles.

At the root of the problem is not so much ‘the word of God’ but rather long-held traditions masquerading as scripture and spirituality.  That was the dilemma faced by Apostle Peter when God confronted him with types of meals he had never eaten in his life. Peter’s reluctance to eat stemmed more from tradition than from the belief that the heavenly offer was forbidden by God.  If God were the reason for his abstention, he should have readily submitted.  Peter did not doubt that it was the voice of God, as evidenced by his response to that voice: “Lord.” However, tradition (religion) had such a strong hold on him that even God could not compel him to do what religion forbade. Ironically, he had been programmed by religion, in the name of God, to place those stubborn traditions above the God in whose name the traditions are purported.  What a contradiction!

Peter said, “Not so, Lord,” which is a great inconsistency.  How could you call Him “Lord” with your lips yet tell Him, “Not so!”  How could He be Lord, yet not be obeyed promptly and absolutely?  Religion versus relationship; tradition versus devotion; God versus sanctified idols.

When ‘rightness’ becomes more rigid than righteousness; when apparent ‘obedience’ to ‘the word of God’ becomes so inflexible that it is careless about the nature of God; when the sabbath law becomes more important than the God of the Sabbath and the humans for whom it was made, spirituality has imperceptibly declined into religion (or the tradition of the elders – the ‘church’).  When what ‘they’ might say matters more to us than what ‘He’ says, what we are defending is no more the word of God but the traditions of men, and that smacks subtly of idolatry.  It is an age-long conflict – between the will of God and the traditions of men (Mark 7:5; Matthew 15:2-3).

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men …

9 … Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition (Mark 7: 8-9; Matthew 15:2-3).

From The Preacher’s diary, 

July 20, 2021. 

• A link to the e-book version of these posts shall be provided in the last ‘Part’ of this series.
• Watch out for “What God has joined together” and “God hates Divorce.”