FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage? (Part 8 of 18)

FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage?

(Part 8 of 18)

17. The Perspectives of the Gospels

Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees on divorce and remarriage is recorded only in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matthew 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-12).  St Luke’s Gospel provides no context to the declaration it makes.  It states in just one verse: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16: 18).   It also makes no mention of the exception clause that Jesus gave, based on marital infidelities.  It makes no mention of the wife’s equal powers to seek the same redress.

The book of Mark, like Matthew, provides a context to the discussion as arising from a query by the Pharisees.  The account in Mark well matches that in Matthew, except for two details: 1) it omits the fact that “fornication” could be grounds for divorce, and 2) it states the possibility that the woman also can put away.

It is noteworthy that both Mark and Luke were secondary reporters, who were not eye- and ear-witnesses of their reports, not having been disciples of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4).  Even though that does not question the authenticity and divine inspiration of their writings, it might explain the extent of their respective details.  Luke got his information through inspired, diligent research (Luke 1:1-4), and Mark, according to reputable sources, from Apostle Peter, whose spiritual son and interpreter he was (1 Peter 5:13).

St John makes no mention of the discourse on divorce at all, except the story of the Samaritan woman by the well, which no other gospel tells (John 4:1-4-42).  That has implications.  Matthew has the most complete account on the topic, except that it is lacking in the mention of the woman’s place to also put away, rightly or wrongly.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the matter first appears as a subject in Jesus’ omnibus Sermon on many topics (Matthew 5:31-32).  In other words, Jesus had preached a Sermon, addressing prevalent societal and spiritual abuses and distortions.  Times later, when the Pharisees confronted Him with the question, He pulled out the Sermon He had preached on the Mount and repeated Himself almost exactly (Matthew 19:3-9).

18. The Implications of the Gospel ‘Parts’

Of the total of 3,779 verses in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), according to the Triple Tradition, the first three gospels share approximately 330 – 350 verses, and according to the Double Tradition, Matthew and Mark share between 180-200 verses, Mark and Luke about 100-120 verses, and Matthew and Luke about 200-230 verses.  Matthew has around 430 unique verses, Mark around 235, Luke 460, and John around 525 verses that occur only in that book.  In other words, no single narrator told the whole story.  Each one reported their inspired ‘part,’ of that which they had seen and/or heard (1 John 1:1).  The book of John, for instance, was written in about AD 100, more than two decades after the other three Gospels had long been established.  Some Bible scholars think that it was done to fill the ‘gaps’ in the other gospels.

At the River Jordan, after being baptised by John the Baptist, the voice of God said to Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17).  Times later, on the Mount of Transfiguration, the same voice came again to Jesus, but it said something more, that was not said in the first instance.  It added, “Hear ye him” (Matthew 17:5).  That addition is reported in all the gospels, except John, which makes no reference to the event at all (Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35), yet Apostle John was one of the three disciples with Jesus on the Mount during that experience.

Peter was another of the three.  In his second epistle, describing himself confidently as one of the “eyewitnesses of his majesty” on that occasion, he attests to “this voice which came from heaven,” which “we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”  Strangely, the ‘eyewitness’ report of Peter does not have the Transfiguration Mount addition reported by the others who were not with them at the Mount that night (2 Peter 1:16-18).  “Hear ye him,” which adds a huge dimension to the mandate of Jesus, is missing from Peter’s account.   Was Peter wrong?  Was he a false witness?  No.  He merely reported the aspect of that heavenly message that emphasized the point he sought to convey in that epistle to his immediate audience.

One eyewitness, John, didn’t talk about the experience at all in his book; the other gives an ‘incomplete’ report.  If we should base our judgment solely on the ‘no report’ of John, or on the ‘part report’ of Mr Eyewitness Peter, without also considering the ‘parts’ provided by the other reporters in the Gospels, we would run into inaccurate conclusions.  That is the crisis of building doctrines on one verse when there are ample other supports provided in the scriptures.

It is apparent, from the foregoing, that it is safer to get as complete a perspective on any subject before taking a position; that it is risky to build a theology solely on one verse when there are further clarifications available from other verses by which one could have shown the complete truth “precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:13).

The point is further made, as Paul would say, that “we know in part, and we prophesy in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9).  In other words, even the best prophet sees only a part of God’s whole.  To make an absolute judgment merely on one ‘part’ is unsafe.  That has been one great setback with the denominational doctrines on marriage: building humongous theologies merely on one verse, as if that were the only Bible verse on such a serious subject.  On the present subject, each Gospel writer provided their valid ‘part’ of the whole, as we might sketch as follows:

• In the beginning, God made them male and female, man and wife, with no option provided for divorce or remarriage.
• Induced by the ‘hardness of heart’ of men, Moses reviewed the original order, providing for the option of divorce by the man, if “he hath found some uncleanness in her.”
• Times later, some interpreters of the law unduly expanded the concession to accommodate whatever they wished, erring not in their belief but in their practice or implementation of “Moses” – or Moses’ law.
• Jesus intervened, noting the Eden order, but also clarifying and conceding to the later development that was not in the ‘original’ package: that is, putting way on grounds of sexual immorality; in other words, acknowledging and expounding on the existing modification made by Moses to the ‘original’ order, as was in Eden.
• Then, in John chapter 4 in Samaria, confronting a unique case in a different context, Jesus provided a fresh perspective, apparently recognizing and reasonably acknowledging (even though not endorsing) consecutive marriages and divorces.

Jesus’ intervention on the subject was reported in parts by respective gospel writers.

• Luke was blunt: divorce by the man made him an adulterer and made the wife an adulteress if she were to be remarried to another.
• Mark says, Not only the husband but the wife also can ‘put away.’
• Matthew adds a perspective that none of the others had: if the conjugal covenant is breached by one through porneia, the other might validly seek a release. Remarriage after a putting-away effected otherwise stands the remarried one guilty of adultery, and the putter-away guilty of relationally causing adultery to be committed.

Between the two points of the Original design at Eden and Paul’s epistles in the New Testament, there were evident ‘modifications,’ not because God changes but because humans do.  In other words, again, one part of a picture does not provide the complete truth on the subject.  Paul’s declarations, in some cases, are a restatement of the law and of the words of the Lord, and in other cases, a fresh position informed by an application of fundamental principles deriving from the earlier cases.

• Paul enters the subject in his epistle to the Corinthians, both restating what had previously been said by the Master, and adding that, if one party were unbelieving enough to depart from the covenant, the other was legally loosed (1 Corinthians 7:12-13). We shall return to this.
• Later, he says, with reference to the ancient law, that death could liberate either party from the bond, otherwise the wife is an adulteress if she marries another while her husband still lives. Although he speaks to the woman there, it is applicable in reverse to the man also (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).

The confusion in handling this subject usually arises from making a general rule out of a specific case.  The general rule is, marriage for life, with no divorce at all.  That is the ideal, but not all cases are ideal, which explains the exceptions provided for different scenarios between the condition as “in the beginning” and the conditions after.

From The Preacher’s diary,
July 20, 2021.

• A link to the e-book version of these posts shall be provided in the last three ‘Parts’ of this series.
• A collection of all remarks to these posts (received online/offline) shall be the last ‘Part’ of the series.

If The Preacher posts have been a blessing to you, please bless others also by sharing.  Help us to reach more.  God bless you.