|
Luke 16:18 ~ It is not immediately apparent why this verse appears where it does, though it may be noted that the Lord was speaking to the Pharisees (see verses 14/15). These were the ones who had raised the question of divorce in Matthew and Mark. The statement that the Lord makes here, if taken in an absolute sense would mean that a woman put away from her husband would not be able to marry again even if her first husband had died after she was put away. I doubt that this is what Christ intended to convey. There is no suggestion in the passage that the wife had done anything that would justify the putting away. Christ had doubtless in mind to condemn those who put away their wives for there own selfish reasons. This is not just a guess because the following parable-like account of the rich man and Lazarus brings before us the case of a man who was very selfish. The rich man had never given to Lazarus and the latter only desired to get what fell from the rich man's table. Any food he got was as a result of the force of gravity and not from any beneficence on the part of the rich man. The fact that it is wrong for a woman put away from a husband to marry someone else only emphasises the hardheartedness of the one who put her away, for he would be depriving her of the comfort that having a husband could well bring. |
|
It may be noticed that the Lord's statement about putting away follows immediately one about the inviolability of the law so that Christ's statement should not be taken to mean that he was setting aside the law. Further, in speaking of the law he was thinking at least of the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch) and not simply the law as laid down by Moses in Exodus to Deuteronomy. When he wanted to refer to the actual Mosaic commandments he specifically mentions Moses (Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:5) as did the Pharisees. The passage however on which Christ based his statements was that in Genesis 2:24 (see the passages already considered), where we have statements as to the marriage bond based on what God had done in making Eve and bringing her to Adam. |
|
|
|
1 Corinthians 7 ~ Paul in this passage states what the Lord enjoins, that a husband and wife should not be separated, but if they are the wife should remain unmarried (verses 10 & 11). In the verse referred to he does not touch on what may have been the reason for the separation but simply the fact of separation and that the husband should not leave his wife. Paul goes on to enjoin a believing husband who has an unbelieving wife to continue to live with her if she is willing to do so and he says similarly in the opposite case where the wife is the believer (verses 12-14). However if the unbeliever goes away the brother or sister is to let them go and is not bound in such cases. This practically means that they can marry again. The case is one of desertion, not of putting away, that is, the action is that of the one who goes away, not the act of the one remaining. (In Genesis 16 Hagar deserted, but in Genesis 21 Hagar is sent away. This shows the difference in the two cases) Some would say that all the passage means is that if one party leaves, the other party is not bound to remain with her, but this interpretation makes no sense as the party remaining would probably have no power to force the unbeliever to stay and he is in fact enjoined not to do so (verse 15). The case is different from that spoken of in the Gospels where putting away is considered. There is no question here of giving a letter of divorce. In the present day a deserting party may or may not take legal action to get a divorce but that, of course, is not spoken of by Paul. Generally Paul enjoins that if a Christian is in a relationship which is legitimate in itself when he becomes a Christian, that is , one of marriage, bondservice etc. he does well to remain in it. He should not seek to escape from it in the case of marriage, but in the case of bondservice, if the opportunity presents itself to become free he should take it (verses 17-24; 26 & 27). |
|
There is, as will be seen above, a difference between the position of a married person where both are in Christian fellowship and the case where one is not. There is no idea that where both the parties are in Christian fellowship and have separated that the sister can remarry and still remain in fellowship, meeting with the one who was her husband around the Lord's table. However, Paul does not insist that the two unreconciled parties live together with the threat of assembly discipline if they do not. How far should one party go in seeking reconciliation ? In a case known to me a Chinese Christian lady went from England to America seeking reconciliation and then moved back to the far East to live with her inlaws with a view to getting reconciled to her husband. The question really is: "How far would love go ?" |
|
The question also may arise as to what a Christian man should do if has married a Christian divorcee and then feels it was wrong of him to have done so. Should he cease to live with her ? Should he get a legal divorce from her or should he accept the relationship in which he has put himself ? In a case known to me the man now lives separately from his wife, obtained a legal divorce, but still goes to help the one who had been his wife and is now elderly. Has he done rightly ? This would be a question to tax the judgement of the elders of any Christian assembly I expect. |
|
|
|
Christ's teaching on the subject of divorce was directed at the Pharisees and his disciples particularly. Both classes were Jews. Paul's teaching was directed at both converted Jews and Gentiles. Where the hearers were Jews they would doubtless |