Divorce has been with us since the time of Moses over 3,000 years ago. And divorce will be a tragic reality for the duration of the human race. Some super-religious folk would have us believe otherwise. Some very esteemed and otherwise godly leaders would have us believe there is or never should be a divorce if one is truly in the faith.
Informative and painful--nevertheless, your faith and religious beliefs play a part in the pain. What is marriage but a religious institution, though most secular it has become in the last several decades. Your individual pathway through the Black Forest, just like mine, will be (not "might be") defined in some degree by your belief in God, and some of the trees and underbrush through which you will pass will doubtlessly have a religious character to them. This chapter illustrates in part how I dealt with the more rotten trees that fell across my path.
Like turning off a bad movie, some otherwise talented and spiritual folk view the statistics with a grim and condescending shuffle that pushes the issue aside as an irrelevant ministry. For people in the faith they quote that "divorce" is never truly a part of a biblical marriage or the Christian life, so repent and join the faith. If you are experiencing pain in your divorce, then you are the crude backsliden Christian who should have never married or should have taken the marriage seriously and not divorced. "Repent, you sinner," is the sum of the counsel given.
These super-religious pencil pushers have shined their judgment boots bright. Having gotten caught up in their own theological reflection, they have lost sight of where their muddy trail has passed. Divorce has become a crusade and in some cases a scapegoat upon which to vent one's own sexual insecurities. Those who have crossed paths with these callous crusaders are often trampled by some brightly shining yet very muddy judgment boots. A mortally wounded soul results.
Regardless of your biblical convictions about marriage and divorce, there is some very common ground upon which most everyone "in the faith" stands.
Jesus stated that marriage is for life and that divorce was not intended (Mt. 5:31-32 & 19:3-12, Mk. 10:2-12). Since so many quote Genesis as informative of a New Testament marriage, it is consistent with the most fundamentalist of teachings to say that God did not change His ideals and hopes for marriage since Genesis was given. In a like manner that is also consistent with God's character, Jesus did not change or negate the Law of Moses as much as add some dialogue about adultery, some commentary about the Law of Moses. Reread this a few times and let it set in. Read the passages. Jesus did not say Moses was wrong or otherwise condemn or contradict Moses.
Why should a sentence like this even be needed? The way some people mark and stigmatize the divorced, it would seem they read into Moses and Jesus a stretched conclusion: the resulting conclusion from that stretch of reading makes divorce one of the Ten Commandments. For the most extreme, there is an ironic twist that will tolerate a person breaking any number of the Ten Commandments, become redeemed or seek forgiveness, and be welcomed with opened arms‑‑as long as they were not divorced.
But when one reads the New Testament, Jesus hardly smashes a muddy boot on the divorced. Rather than negate the Law of Moses, Jesus simply notes when divorce is a sin and affirms that divorce is a reality‑‑the whole tenor of which seems to say that divorce is a sad reality of the time, never intended, but here nevertheless.
When Jesus spoke on divorce, to whom was he speaking? Was he speaking to the divorced? Or was he speaking to the religious authorities who deal with the grieving? It seems obvious that Jesus never smashed anyone they way some people have been doing in recent decades.
Back to the biblical view of divorce. Note the reasoning here: (1) since Jesus does not negate the Law of Moses (that is in itself quite liberal, Deut. 24:1-5), (2) since Ezra 10:1-44 contains a mass divorce not from adultery but nevertheless mandated by God, (3) since Jesus did not even mention or be very critical of any divorce since the death of Moses (c. 1450 B.C.), (4) since Paul does qualify his commentary (twice) in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding divorce, and (5) since God is consistent and immutable and righteous and loving (etc.)‑‑the very least that we can say is that divorce is a tragic reality that is not severely condemned. At least not in the Bible.
Into part of this discussion comes the lineage of Jesus, even though such is rarely discussed. In Matthew 1 Jesus' origins are traced through Boaz and Ruth, and through David and Bathsheba. The significance of these two marriages in the lineage of Jesus should not be understated, and the marriages should be a part of any discussion about the proper theology of remarriage.
With regard to Ruth and Boaz, Ruth was a Moabitess whose first husband died, and Boaz was her second husband. Ruth was not an Israelite. And her remarriage became a part of the lineage of David. Though that might seem innocuous at first glance, there nevertheless is a sanction for remarriage after the death of a spouse.
The story of David and Bathsheba is a classic tale of the tragedy that results because of poor impulse control. Despite the wrong, there was a marriage between David and Bathsheba that was valid enough for God to bless the union and lineage with Jesus several generations later. Without minimizing the wrong, a valid theology on marriage and remarriage must consider the union of David and Bathsheba.
The history was less than noble. Before Bathsheba, there were other wives in the life of David. David's first wife was Saul's daughter, Michal (1 Sam. 18:20), and we are told that Michal loved David. David flees from Saul, and Saul gives Michal to Paltiel. While on the run from Saul, David takes two more wives, Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:39-42 and 25:43).
While David is consolidating his kingdom, he has six sons in Hebron from six wives, two of whom we have been informed: Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Elgah (2 Sam. 3:2-5). Wives‑‑that is, presuming that the latter four are wives, since they are mentioned with Ahinoam and Abigail and not specifically called concubines.[1]
As the conflict between David and the house of Saul continue, Saul's chief general, Abner, goes over to David. Part of the bargain demanded by David was the return of Michal, which Abner accomplishes. Michal was David's first wife. So in Hebron, David now has at least seven documented wives and several concubines.
In 2 Samuel 5, Israel asks David to be their king too, which marks the beginning of the united kingdom under David and the greatest period of history for God's people. When David moves his reign from Hebron to Jerusalem, we are told that David takes more wives and concubines, and David has eleven more children by these wives and concubines (2 Sam. 5:13-16).
By this time, David has seven documented wives and several concubines. We know there were at least ten concubines. For later in the story Absalom defiles them on the roof in 2 Sam. 16:21-22, and David secludes the "ten" till their death in 1 Sam. 20:3. Seven wives and at least ten concubines are a lot of women before Bathsheba.
As battles rage on the outskirts of the country, David relaxes in the palace. David seduces Bathsheba, has Uriah murdered, and then takes pregnant Bathsheba to be his wife (2 Sam. 11). The prophet Nathan rebukes David, and David's firstborn of Bathsheba dies on the seventh day (2 Sam. 12:1-23). David comforts Bathsheba and gives birth to Solomon, whom we are also told that the Lord loved (2 Sam. 12:24-25).
Interspersed in this story is another irony. Of all of the women, we were told that only Michal loved David. We are not told that any of the others loved David, not even Bathsheba. Furthermore, even though Michal was David's first wife, she bore him no children.
What does this mean? David had seven documented wives and took others. At the very least, this means that Bathsheba was David's eighth wife of record.
But that is not fully accurate, because before Bathsheba David had taken more "wives" beyond the seven documented ones when he took Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:13-16). "Wives" being plural‑‑that means that David might well have taken an eighth, ninth, and tenth wife in Jerusalem before the taking of Bathsheba. But we are not told just how many wives David took.
What is clear is that David had seven wives of record and took several others before the taking of Bathsheba. Whatever that taking of "more wives" meant in 2 Samuel 5, that had to mean at least two more wives. That would make Bathsheba David's tenth wife.
Ten wives are too many women in any culture at any time. By twentieth century Western standard and law, David would be in serious trouble. Or the subject of soap operas. Only the highest profile of profligates get away with very many marriages and little scorn.
Nevertheless, in the biblical record there is some confusion as to just how many wives David had before Bathsheba. That alone has a small bearing on the lineage of Jesus and a proper theology of marriage. Through David came the Son of God as the Son of David, yet the biblical record is not clear on just what number Bathsheba was in the list of wives that David took.
For simplicity's sake, we designate Bathsheba as David's tenth wife of record. For the purpose of exposition, what can we make out of this lineage that is pertinent to a proper theology of marriage and remarriage? What is pertinent to the fact that from lineage of this tenth wife came the designation of Jesus, "son of David"?
From Boaz and Ruth, and from David and Bathsheba, in a full treatment of marriage, remarriage, and divorce‑‑whatever enters into the debate‑‑the following has to be considered. That is, whatever were the past histories of the above couples up to the time of consummation, whatever, there came a point in time where those marriages were considered viable and sanctified enough to be considered a valid lineage: a lineage validated by God. At some point those marriages became sanctified enough for Jesus to be considered an heir to Abraham and David.
This is a very weighty connection that cannot be dismissed lightly. In a full treatment of marriage, remarriage, and divorce the ramifications of this should be enormous. Yet few if any really attempt to deal with the implication of Boaz's marriage of a foreigner or David's wives or David's tenth wife or‑‑most important of all‑‑Jesus' lineage.
The implications are enormous. Even outside of the discussion of bigamy, there is a large issue resounding for attention on the validity of remarriage: how a second, third, and even sixth or tenth marriage was considered valid enough for Jesus to be heir to the throne. Not just heir, but through the tenth wife Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy and the carrier of salvation to Jew and gentile.
Another implication is found in the multiple marriages and remarriages that would according to the New Testament be considered adulterous. Still another implication is how the consistency of an immutable God fits into all of this, especially for those who use Genesis (and much of the Old Testament) as informative of a New Testament marriage.
Though there are other implications, these alone bring into the discussion a large interpretive contradiction so often seen. How does one pick which verses of the Old Testament are applicable and not applicable in a New Testament application, especially in an Old Testament application as important marriage? The validity of the marriages in Jesus' lineage brings up many questions that challenge the standard fundamentalist teaching against remarriage. The challenging questions, oddly enough, derive from considerably more biblical support than do the fundamentalist teaching that excludes all remarriages.
For our purposes here, at the very least this is part of the complexity. There is more. Judge for yourself. A fuller discussion would distract us if it has not already. We are dealing with divorce. Primarily we are dealing with the grief that the divorced person encounters.
Because of Ezra 10 and because Jesus did not condemn the 1500 years of divorces prior to his ministry, one conclusion looms. One could conclude that though divorce is to be avoided and even a sin in some cases, it may be less of a sin than staying in an abusive relationship that essentially slaughters the personality of the victim, abuses children, or otherwise is destructive of life.
At this juncture, someone just might have the gall to bring up the idea that this kind of reasoning might give support to the idea that divorce could be sanctioned because of "inconvenience." To the person with this kind of gall, we might point out that‑‑despite the irrationality of that conjecture in the context of this small book‑‑a divorce from inconvenience is as great a sin as a marriage of convenience. And, regardless, we would point to David again, to his seeming marriage of convenience (apparently so through adultery, pregnancy, and murder) that became validated enough for the lineage of Jesus.
There are those less inclined toward such a judgmental attitude. They would quickly see that any biblical marriage is based upon the highest intentions of love. Divorce from this standpoint then becomes the result of anything but inconvenience. Why? Because love forged a struggle with Herculean efforts through almost every "inconvenience" imaginable. Love fought hard in endurance and suffering.
Because of the gall, because of some very ready and muddy judgment boots, we are only talking about a divorce between parties that married in a biblical love, even if just one party had such love.
Here is the flip side of all of this reasoning. Note the nature of David's house and marriage to Bathsheba: adultery, pregnancy, murder, eight documented wives, some not documented, at least ten concubines, and a house unsuited to build the Temple because of the shedding of blood. I have seen many difficulties and too many bad relationships. I have seen many remarriages throughout the years. Yet in all my years and hundreds of friends and acquaintances‑‑and much newsworthy reading‑‑I still have yet to encounter a relationship based upon such a murderous kind of thievery. Not in history or modern times. I have yet to see a more conspiring and selfish act than David's. Indeed, as Nathan said, David had his choice of sheep, yet murdered to add to his already numerous fold.
Nevertheless, even in spite of a sordid beginning, at some point in time David's marriage to Bathsheba became validated enough to bring Jesus into the world. David's marriage became a validated marriage sanctified enough for God to use in the most important event in the life of the human race.
Said in another way, though the marriage was not biblical in the beginning, at some point the marriage became a validated union and marriage. We are not even told that David loved Bathsheba or vice versa: at no time are we told of love, even after the birth of Solomon. And if it was not a "marriage," then Solomon was a bastard and should by any theology of marriage become disqualified to be heir to the throne. But since the opposite took place and in deriving a theology from the Bible,[2] this means that even a union without the necessary and preferred love of both parties could become sanctified.[3]
There are more implications.
Though Jesus' lineage was not dependent upon David's integrity, the implications of David's marriage upon the institution of marriage itself and upon the validity of remarriage cannot be escaped. In spite of everything and without justifying everything, this fact looms large: Jesus' lineage validated David's marriage to Bathsheba. Is there any other way to validate the marriage?
For our purposes in this book, perhaps the largest implication is this: if David's marriage to Bathsheba was validated, then whatever history an individual or couple may have had, at some point any couple's marriage can become a valid marriage that God can use and bless.[4] This is at least based on the thesis that God is immutable.
Do we then stigmatize a person for their humanity? If we should, then anyone who is not perfect should likewise be condemned and so stigmatized. Because one marriage worked and another did not, that does not in any form or fashion mean there was less love or a lower view of marriage. Similarly, no matter how sordid or evil or adulterous one's past may have been, such does not in anyway disqualify him or her from a marriage that can at some point become validated and sanctified as any other marriage.
But I have become side-tracked.
Biblically and from a legalistically exact point of exposition, the issue is far from the simple conclusions some would have us swallow. In some instances the simplest solution is also the most shallow, containing leaps of logic and fostering dependencies.
Even though a valid interpretive tool would ask for the simple sense of a text to be the first choice, there are many passages that have no simple "ethical" answer. Let us compare the ethical choice of divorce with two other ethical choices that have polar extremes: (1) one not so clear, and (2) another even more clear than divorce.
1. Choosing God's will for a vocation is not
nearly as clearly
explained as divorce
2. Murder & stealing are far easier
to condemn and to condemn with
more vehemence than with a like
indignation over divorce
One is far easier to determine than the other. Between the two polar extremes of vocational choice and blatant crime, somewhere in between lies the clarity of exposition on the divorce issue.
With regard to divorce, we affirm the permanence of every marriage as the ideal and any deviation less than the ideal. With the present imperfection then, every divorce falls short. The complication of divorce and remarriage (as a great or small sin) has to be viewed with the rest of life where we fall short every day.
If the complication of divorce is not severe enough already, the ethical dilemma compounds upon itself when the attitudes of the judges are examined by the same ethical yard stick. What is confusing is how some would judge divorce a worse sin than their own callously arrogant attitude toward the divorced.
Compared with divorce, Jesus had so much more to say about a compassionless attitude toward persons with mortal wounds. And divorce qualifies as a mortal wound as we shall soon see.
But even from wherever that exact position of exposition may be, that position must not include severe condemnation. This is an essential and very significant point. For of all the negative issues that Jesus touches upon in the New Testament, if ranked in severity of condemnation and degree of indignation, divorce ranks near the bottom of that list.
If a ranking was done that listed the sins and attitudes toward which Jesus gave his most forceful indignation, what action or attitude would rise to the top? What is surprising is how much easier it would be to do such a ranking than to irrefutably solve the question of divorce in all scenarios. What is shocking is why those attitudes at the bottom of the list get more attention than those at the top. Just whose example are we asked to follow?
With the biblical theses above and the pain detailed later, rather than trampling with muddy boots of judgment, part of the church has a need to re-evaluate its ministry to these mortally wounded persons. For many of the divorced are among the poor and desolate and hungry. And if a loving compassion for the needy and hurting is a natural part of the Christian heart, then the wounded soul of the divorced would qualify for a sizable allotment of time and sensitivity and care.
More than this though, if hurt and pain and tragedy are the harbingers for disaster relief projects, calling upon the emergency funds and resources of the many to help the few in catastrophes, then where are the mobile food kitchens? Food kitchens to feed the famished souls laid waste in the worst kind of rejection? Where are the homebuilders for those lost in the wasteland?
We rush to hurricanes. Have fire departments for our homes. Run to the scenes of tornados. We will help our neighbors in tight spots and even in physical tragedies. Most churches help the materially indigent get to their next bus stop. We bring food during funerals. Take care of the kids for parents in the hospital. We even have hospitality houses to clothe and feed the poor. We visit those in prison.
Where are the workers to help rebuild the torn hearts? Where are the relief stations for shelter from loneliness and rejection? Does a woman have to have bruises to qualify? Does a man have to be convicted to apply for a room?
God forbid‑‑but why are the divorced trampled and rejected in some churches? How on earth could someone lose his or her job because of a divorce? Do we fire people from their jobs when there is death (deaths?) in their family? Do we fire people from their jobs when their homes burn down? Do we reprimand and scold and offer severance pay when one's children run away or are found missing, molested, or murdered?
Not the least of which‑‑why does the divorced person feel lonely in church?
Divorce is a tragic reality causing deep pain. Anyone who thinks Christian forgiveness is so simple and immediately gratifying that one will be healed overnight with that basic declaration is short on Christian experience, vacant of empathy, and quite out of touch with reality.
If not for any other reason than the pain involved, divorce should become the signal that lights the fires of Christian compassion on behalf of the soul caught in the riptide of bitterness and the soul-sucking maelstrom of rejection.
When the opposite takes place‑‑may God curse the gall. At this juncture it is hard to remember my own words and restrain myself. For at times I am tempted to ask God if He might think about bringing to pass upon those muddy judgment boots the worst of the imprecatory Psalms and the Revelation.
Can my faith survive?
What is your faith based upon? What do you believe about marriage? What do you believe about love? If you are willing to love as God loves, then your faith can survive. Yet even with the affirmation and desire to love, the journey will still be long and hard, as though it has just begun. Read on.
[1] If the latter four are
concubines, then David has three documented wives instead of seven. But since concubines are mentioned in other
contexts, we are inclined to believe that the six are wives.
[2] Not imposing a theology upon the
text.
[3] Though such could become
sanctified, this does not lessen the injuction for the faithful to follow the
more noble course of fidelity in love outlined in other parts of the Bible.
[4] Most notably for Baptists: this means God could even use a second
marriage. Even a third. There are no limitations to God.