Here is a copy of an article that I obtained. So many try to make the bible say what they want when they piece together verses from different authors concerning different situations. I think this piece says it all. This gentleman has gone back to the originals for the correct meanings and interpretations.
What does the Bible really teach about divorce?
by David Instone-Brewer
What Does the Bible Say?
The New Testament presents a problem in understanding both what the text says
about divorce and its pastoral implications. Jesus appears to say that divorce
is allowed only if adultery has occurred: "Whoever divorces a wife, except
for sexual indecency, and remarries, commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9).
However, this has been interpreted in many different ways. Most say that Jesus
allows divorce only for adultery. But some argue that Jesus originally didn't
allow even that. Only in Matthew does he offer an out from marriage:
"except for sexual indecency." Beyond what Jesus says, Paul also
allows divorce. He permits it for abandonment by a nonbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-15).
Many theologians add this as a second ground for divorce.
Yet some pastors have found this teaching difficult to accept, because it seems
so impractical—even cruel in certain situations. It suggests there can be no
divorce for physical or emotional abuse, and Paul even seems to forbid
separation (1 Cor. 7:10).
As a result, some Christians quietly ignore this seemingly
"impractical" biblical teaching or find ways around it. For example,
they suggest that when Jesus talked about "sexual immorality," perhaps
he included other things like abuse. Or when Paul talked about abandonment by a
nonbeliever, perhaps he included any behavior that is not supportive of the
marriage or abandonment by anyone who is acting like a nonbeliever. Many have
welcomed such stretching of Scripture because they couldn't accept what they
believed the text apparently said.
But does the literal text mean what we think it does? While doing doctoral
studies at Cambridge, I likely read every surviving writing of the rabbis of
Jesus' time. I "got inside their heads" enough to begin to understand
them. When I began working as a pastor and was confronted almost immediately
with divorced men and women who wanted to remarry, my first response was to
re-read the Bible. I'd read the biblical texts on divorce many times in the
past, but I found something strange as I did so again. They now said something
I hadn't heard before I read the rabbis!
'Any Cause' Divorce
The texts hadn't changed, but my knowledge of the language and culture in which
they were written had. I was now reading them like a first-century Jew would
have read them, and this time those confusing passages made more sense. My
book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (InterVarsity Press), is a summary
of several academic papers and books I began writing with this new
understanding of what Jesus taught.
One of my most dramatic findings concerns a question the Pharisees asked Jesus:
"Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?" (Matt. 19:3). This
question reminded me that a few decades before Jesus, some rabbis (the
Hillelites) had invented a new form of divorce called the "any cause"
divorce. By the time of Jesus, this "any cause" divorce had become so
popular that almost no one relied on the literal Old Testament grounds for
divorce.
The "any cause" divorce was invented from a single word
in Deuteronomy 24:1. Moses allowed divorce for "a cause of
immorality," or, more literally, "a thing of nakedness." Most
Jews recognized that this unusual phrase was talking about adultery. But the
Hillelite rabbis wondered why Moses had added the word "thing" or
"cause" when he only needed to use the word "immorality."
They decided this extra word implied another ground for divorce—divorce for
"a cause." They argued that anything, including a burnt meal or
wrinkles not there when you married your wife, could be a cause! The text, they
said, taught that divorce was allowed both for adultery and for "any
cause."
Another group of rabbis (the Shammaites) disagreed with this interpretation. They
said Moses' words were a single phrase that referred to no type of divorce
"except immorality"—and therefore the new "any cause"
divorces were invalid. These opposing views were well known to all
first-century Jews. And the Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood.
"Is it lawful to divorce your wife for any cause?" they asked. In
other words: "Is it lawful for us to use the 'any cause' divorce?"
When Jesus answered with a resounding no, he wasn't condemning "divorce
for any cause," but rather the newly invented "any cause"
divorce. Jesus agreed firmly with the second group that the phrase didn't mean
divorce was allowable for "immorality" and for "any cause,"
but that Deuteronomy 24:1 referred to no type of divorce "except
immorality."
This was a shocking statement for the crowd and for the disciples. It meant
they couldn't get a divorce whenever they wanted it—there had to be a lawful
cause. It also meant that virtually every divorced man or women was not really
divorced, because most of them had "any cause" divorces. Luke and
Matthew summarized the whole debate in one sentence: Any divorced person who
remarried was committing adultery (Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18), because they
were still married. The fact that they said "any divorced person"
instead of "virtually all divorced people" is typical Jewish
hyperbole—like Mark saying that "everyone" in Jerusalem came to be
baptized by John (Mark 1:5). It may not be obvious to us, but their first
readers understood clearly what they meant.
Within a few decades, however, no one understood these terms any more. Language
often changes quickly (as I found out when my children first heard the
Flintstones sing about "a gay old time"). The early church, and even
Jewish rabbis, forgot what the "any cause" divorce was, because soon
after the days of Jesus, it became the only type of divorce on offer. It was
simply called divorce.
This meant that when Jesus condemned "divorce for 'any cause,'
" later generations thought he meant "divorce for any cause."
Reaffirming marriage
Now that we know what Jesus did reject, we can also see what he didn't reject.
He wasn't rejecting the Old Testament—he was rejecting a faulty Jewish
interpretation of the Old Testament. He defended the true meaning
of Deuteronomy 24:1. And there is one other surprising thing he didn't
reject: Jesus didn't reject the other ground for divorce in the Old Testament,
which all Jews accepted.
Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in Jesus' day
knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before
rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most
common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights
within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected,
the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women
could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out
the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he
resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered!
These three rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows—we find them listed
in marriage certificates discovered near the Dead Sea. In later Jewish and
Christian marriages, the language became more formal, such as "love,
honor, and keep." These vows, together with a vow of sexual faithfulness,
have always been the basis for marriage. Thus, the vows we make when we marry
correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce.
The three provisions of food, clothing, and love were understood literally by
the Jews. The wife had to cook and sew, while the husband provided food and
materials, or money. They both had to provide the emotional support of marital
love, though they could abstain from sex for short periods. Paul taught the
same thing. He said that married couples owed each other love (1 Cor. 7:3-5)
and material support (
1 Cor. 7:33-34). He didn't say that
neglect of these rights was the basis of divorce because he didn't need to—it
was stated on the marriage certificate. Anyone who was neglected, in terms of
emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce.
Divorce for neglect included divorce for abuse, because this was extreme
neglect. There was no question about that end of the spectrum of neglect, but
what about the other end? What about abandonment, which was merely a kind of
passive neglect? This was an uncertain matter, so Paul deals with it. He says
to all believers that they may not abandon their partners, and if they have
done so, they should return (1 Cor. 7:10-11). In the case of someone who is
abandoned by an unbeliever—someone who won't obey the command to return—he says
that the abandoned person is "no longer bound."
Anyone in first-century Palestine reading this phrase would think immediately
of the wording at the end of all Jewish, and most Roman, divorce certificates:
"You are free to marry anyone you wish."
Putting all this together gives us a clear and consistent set of rules for
divorce and remarriage.
Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the
Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:
• Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
• Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul
in 1 Corinthians 7)
• Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians
7)
Jewish couples listed these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage
vows. We reiterate them as love, honor, and keep and be faithful to each other.
When these vows were broken, it threatened to break up the marriage. As in any
broken contract, the wronged party had the right to say, "I forgive you;
let's carry on," or, "I can't go on, because this marriage is
broken."
Therefore, while divorce should never happen, God allows it (and subsequent
remarriage) when your partner breaks the marriage vows.
Reading the Bible and ancient Jewish documents side-by-side helped me
understand much more of the Bible's teaching about divorce and marriage, not
all of which I can summarize here. Dusty scraps of parchment rescued from
synagogue rubbish rooms, desert caves, and neglected scholarly collections
shone fresh light on the New Testament. Theologians who have long felt that
divorce should be allowed for abuse and abandonment may be vindicated. And,
more importantly, victims of broken marriages can see that God's law is both
practical and loving.
David Instone-Brewer is senior research fellow in rabbinics and the New
Testament at Tyndale House, Cambridge. He is married with two daughters.
So now for my thoughts on Divorce and Ministry.
We have all heard the interpretations taken from 1 Tim. 5:2 and Titus 1:6, That
if a man is divorced it disqualifies him for ministry. But is that what these
passages really say? They both say that a man is to be the husband of one wife.
Now those that would say that this prohibits a man from ministry after divorce,
assume that this means one wife for a lifetime. Their same interpretation would
prohibit a widower from serving as well. Along with that, if they were to use
the same standard for all the qualifications listed in these passages, then any
man who has or had unruly kids in their lifetime would be disqualified, any man
who ever followed his own will would be disqualified, who is or who had been
greedy, inhospitable, had or has an anger problem, who had ever been drunk, is
or ever had been drunk, would not be qualified either. Well there goes
the entire human race!
Secondly, this interpretation flies in the face of other major doctrines of the
bible.
Justification (just as if had never happened) is by faith, not works lest any
man should boast. If we are justified by faith, which means just as if it never
happened, then why is what never happened being taken into consideration?
The cleansing power of Jesus? The blood of Jesus cleanses us from
all unrighteousness. So why would Paul be calling what God had called
clean, unclean?
Finally, God throws our sins into the sea of forgetfulness. So once again, why
would God be mandating against something that He Himself has forgotten?
So what is the proper interpretation?
Paul had already made it clear in 1 Cor. 7:32 that he felt it was better to
stay unmarried and be able to focus only on the things of the Lord, than to get
married. So it only makes sense that Paul, who was laying out practical
considerations for those that would lead a church, to not want a man to have
more than one wife. Polygamy was still prevalent in the day of Paul, and a man
who had to care for more than one wife, would not have time to properly care
for the church of God.
So concerning divorce and ministry. If a sinner can receive forgiveness for a
sin, and if a Christian can receive forgiveness for a sin, and then
subsequently enter into ministry, then so can a divorcee'. There are no big
sins or little sins. If a murderer, drunkard, blackmailer, or thief can get forgiveness
and turn from that sin, and enter into ministry, so can someone who has been
divorced. And dare I say it? Even if they made the same mistake more than once!
Look at Aimee Semple McPherson. Married 3 times, divorced twice, widowed
once. She was mightily used by God in ministry. And she is not the only
one. There are thousands across this nation that refuse to bow to
the judgmentalism of self righteous hypocrites. If God can use a
sinner saved by grace, then He can use anyone, including you, and including the
same hypocrites after they repent.
Now that is something to think about!
