One more reason exists for the view that “adultery” can hardly be the intended ground for divorce in Matthew 5 and 19. Mark (in what is certainly a parallel record to the latter) and Luke say nothing of any exception. Their statement is apparently absolute: a man ought not to be divorced from his wife; but if adultery was the sin in issue, Matthew could reasonably be construed as saying, “No one should divorce his wife and marry again, except for the most common reason of all, namely, that the wife has proved unfaithful to him.” We have already seen reason in the disciples’ reaction to be sure that the Lord can hardly have been saying this; and we now see reason why, if He were saying this, it is hard to acquit Mark of misreporting, and the Lord in the Luke episode of inconsistency. For if the Lord were author-zing divorce and remarriage for adultery, He is leaving open a door so wide that the exception cannot be ignored without appearing to teach something quite different.
On all these grounds, upon evidence which seems to him very formidable, the writer has come to the conclusion that here is no exception, in the Lord’s teaching, to the view that when marriage as been accepted before God, it ought not to be dissolved by either party, irrespective of the provocation
-
“All men cannot receive this saying”
The difficulties are by no means over, however It is one thing to say that the Lord never wanted disciples married in the sight of God to be divorced It is suite another to decide (a) what is meant by ‘ married in the sight of God, and (b) what is to be done when anyone falls short of this high ideal
As to the former, the conclusion reached previously is that God cannot be assumed to have joined together a couple married in paganism This He is prepared to do as a matter of grace when the Truth reaches them Paul s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 was understood by Brother John Thomas to mean that if such a pagan marriage broke down because of one partner accepting the Christian faith, then this partner was at liberty to behave as though the marriage had never existed The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases ‘1 would then mean that such people are free of any obligation before God, either to maintain that marriage in formal being when the unbeliever has rejected it, or to abstain from a further marriage in the Lord
This may have been a practical possibility in the days of Paul, but the actual application of it in our day would be a matter involving considerable problems But it does, nevertheless, help to resolve one problem If a pagan marriage could be dissolved when a pagan partner refused to accept the new-found faith, then a marriage contracted and dissolved in ignorance of the ways of God can presumably be left out of account in determining the future conduct of the convert In other words, if one has been married and divorced in ignorance, and perhaps even married again, all this can be forgotten when Christ is known and received in a true baptism
Even this is not without its complications, for there must be some who, even though they were not Christadelphians, had been sufficiently instructed in the teaching of their own churches to know a good deal of what the Christian ideals of marriage were, and it is by no means easy to compare this with the pagan way of life of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and offer a clear escape route in such circumstances But before we can decide such issues as this, we have to decide the greater issue is the Lord in His pronouncements on marriage legislating, or is He setting ideals before men which it is good that they follow, but which, if they fail to follow, will throw them on His mercy as to the ultimate outcome?
All men cannot receive this saying ‘ is the critical phrase To the present writer it means this I am setting before
you an ideal which is admittedly high I know that not all people will be able to rise to it Those who can will set the ideal example, and merit the reward of their loyalty Those who cannot will doubtless need to follow a way of life which falls short of this “
It will not be the only time that the Lord has done this He sets before one young man, and before others too, the desirability of selling all that he and they have, and giving to the poor2 But He does not say that, should they fail to do this, He will reject them He tells the disciples that they should be perfect as their Father in heaven3 but He could not say that those who fail to attain thus far will be discarded, without rejecting all of us He counsels us against taking anxious thought for to-morrow4 but there is no threat of excommunication against those whose minds stray to to-morrow and its problems
Must we not say the same here? If a man be forsaken of an unfaithful wife, and is, as so many of us are, “the marrying type,” it may be very difficult for him to endure a life of effective celibacy (just as many a widower, some widows too, have found solace and new comfort in marrying again) For the kingdom of heaven s sake it would be better if the former abstained from marrying again (the latter too, after the judgement of Paul5), but what is the situation if the problem proves too great for him?
The same might be true of the woman deserted by an unfaithful husband
And the Lord does not directly say He says merely that there are some people born incapable of a fruitful marriage, that there are some who have been in incapacitated by other men, and that there are some who have put the ideal of Christ and His Bride so high in their lives that they have by their own will accepted this privation, and determined not to marry again6 But He does not say what He will do in such cases as cannot receive this saying , and He does not tell us what we are to do either
Herein lies our problem On the one hand we ought to uphold the high ideal as the goal to which all members should strive and this seems to me to be that we should not, as believers at all events, divorce and remarry On the other hand we have to recognize that the same strength is not given to all men, and that to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven s sake is too hard for some of us Which means that the hackneyed saying that all cases should be judged on their own merits is indisputably true, and ecclesias and elders have the unenviable, but unavoidable task, of seeking to balance the maintaining of a principle, with the tempering of justice with the mercy we shall so sorely need ourselves
In this case think again of Joseph He was a just man And justice might have said, had Mary done what he suspected She must be stoned, or at least made a public example But this is not what we are told He was a just man and not minded to make her a public example! This may be a new definition of justice for some of us that righteousness does not consist in exacting the need of restitution to which law entitles us, but in doing the reverse, and exercising our utmost endeavor to shield the supposed sinner from the consequences of her sin !
5. “Committeth adultery”
But, the objection springs up immediately, is not this to make matters too easy? If you put away your wife and marry another, the Lord says that you commit adultery, and therefore, so long as she lives, you are living in a state of adultery while you continue the new association It is one thing to consider with mercy the penitent sinner It is quite another to condone a continued sin while the running sore persists
There is truth in this, of course The fornicator of Corinth could not be received until he had given up his incestuous association It would have been use less for him to have subscribed to a principle that incest was wrong, and still been guilty of its practice
But is the situation really the same in the matter of marriage and divorce? What kind of problems was the Lord really considering?
It seems to me that He was dealing, as He so often did, with the legalists among the people with those who thought that any action was permissible, however morally reprehensible, provided that the cover of law existed for it It was permissible to say Corban to avoid one s duty to parents7 etc, and the trivial formalities of mint, anise and cummin took precedence over the non-codifiable justice, mercy, and faith8
So in this matter of dispensing with a marriage partner Was not the Lord saying (and Luke 16 17 18 seems especially appropriate in this connection) that men existed who said A new romance has come into my life If I were to indulge it in my present situation it would be reckoned adultery But if I were to dispense with my present partner by a legal form, then it would no longer be adultery, and I would be free from penalty! And was not His reply some thing like this in effect Not so It makes no difference whether you take the woman you lust after just as you are, or whether you hedge yourself about with precautions which safeguard you from prosecution It is still adultery in the eyes of God, and so I pronounce it !
The particular case of the man is here considered, but it could obviously be applied equally well to the woman doing the same thing, or to the man persuading a woman to obtain divorce so that he might have her for himself
And this puts the whole matter on the level of motive The motives here considered are obviously indefensible Not only does the Lord condemn them, but the ecclesia would be bound to act decisively against them But other, and less unworthy motives exist There have been men, and women too whose forgiveness to an errant partner would have known no bounds, had that partner not shown perfectly clearly that forgiveness was not wanted And in desperation such people have at last severed the bonds which held the partners together in law when their spirit had parted long ago—not with a view to fulfilling another desire or legalizing any lust of their own, but to regularize a situation which had become in tolerable We do not here discuss whether they were right to do what they did all we are doing is to show that in such a case, at least, no adulterous thought need have been in mind
Is it possible, then, in such a case, to bring within the scope of the Lord s words the situation which would arise if such a person were to marry again in the Lord later? It does not seem to me that it is Jesus is condemning a frame of mind which is clearly present when a person of lustful mind seeks to dispense with one partner in order to secure another, or seeks to provoke a lawfully married person to seek freedom in order to marry him It is these things which the Lord condemns When a forsaken man or woman who has, whether wisely or not, been relieved of the unfaithful partner by divorce, later finds loneliness unbearable, or a new and (in itself) wholesome love irresistible, the frame of mind is utterly different, and if the fulfilment of the new desire is to be denied such a person it cannot be on the ground of adulterous intent9
Indeed, the expression continuing adultery for one who has married again after involvement in divorce, and during the lifetime of the former partner, seems altogether too glib an easy piece of legal formalism which avoids the realities of the case Not only does it equate the sinner and the sinned against in its judgments, which is bad enough, but it does something infinitely worse it encourages thinking which is almost murderous
As soon as one says, I may not marry while my former partner is alive, and I do so want to marry the next thought is likely to be either, So I must give up the idea wholeheartedly and not think of it again, or, So would it not be convenient for me if my former partner were to die And the thought is not far fetched either, if we think how strong the passions in such matters are And, equally, as soon as someone else says,
You continue in a state of adultery in your new marriage as long as your former partner is living, and therefore we can have nothing to do with you! it is not a far cry to say, But if that partner were to die, of course, your sin would cease and we should receive you And if either party—either the presumed sinner or the Ecclesia—really wants that to happen, that is all one with wishing one s former partner dead And what is this but the thought of murder, all save for the courage in carrying out the wanted end?
(The same warning, incidentally, applies as well to any who, lacking the will to engage in divorce for the wanted end, cherish the secret hope that bereavement will soon provide the means to set them free One of the subtlest but harshest evils of unlawful desire is the injury It does to the person already mentally discarded in favor of another and all that the Lord Jesus has to say about the secret adulterous thought and the hatred which would murder if it dared applies here also
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One