A Comparison Between the Pauline and Synoptic Perspectives On
A
COMPARISON ETWEEN THE PAULINE AND SYNOPTIC
PE SPECTIVES ON
MARMAGzi, AND DIIVORC
M J KEKANA A
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PAULINE
AND SYNOPTIC PERSPECTIVES
ON
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
BY
MADIMETJA JOEL KEKANA
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
BIBLICAL STUDIES IN THE FACULTY OF ARTS
AT THE RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITYSUPERVISOR: PROF. J A DU RAND MAY 1996 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to:
Professor J A Du Rand for his patience , encouragement and fruitful advice that he gave me during the compilation of this paper. He read all my manuscripts and made expert recommendations until this paper took shape before my own eyes.
Paul Germond, former lecturer at Wits University, for his advice and permission to use books from his own shelves, which could not be found in any nearby library.
My wife, Miriam, for her unfaltering patience, continued interest and support, during her difficult times _ while pregnant with our first baby.
My congregation, Community Worship Centre, for their encouragement and support in my greatest times of need.
My mother, Rosinah, for her constant encouragement.
My aranny, Miriam, for listening to and praying for me throughout my many hours of study and ministry.
***********
NB. All Scripture quotations from the Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible, unless otherwise indicated. DECLARAflON
I hereby declare that this research is my own unaided work. It is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts to the Rand Afrikaans University. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination to any university. A STARCT
Marriage is neither a Jewish nor a Christian invention. Both religions have one thing in common: their origin is traced back to the God of the Bible, who is also the Creator of the universe. While Christianity does not hesitate to trace its origins to Judaism, Judaism perceives it as a perversion of its heritage. Christian ethics have a rich Jewish background. Actually, the very founders of Christianity were Jewish. Jesus and Paul were, first and foremost, Jews. The former was neither a Christian nor did he intend to start a new religion apart from the Jewish faith. He only perceived himself as a Jewish revivalist, and the long-awaited Messiah. The latter was a Jew who got converted to Christianity. The first four books of the New Testament are an attempt, by both eyewitnesses and their disciples, to present a record of the words and deeds of the historical Jesus. Paul interprets the God's plans of salvation as fulfilled in the Jesus of Nazareth.
This research paper attempts to compare the teachings of both Paul and Jesus on marriage and divorce. Christian marriage is a marriage in which both partners are Christian believers. Jesus' teaching is generally addressed to a homogenous JeWish Christian community, with few excerptions in the Markan and Lukan versions. In view of Christian marriages, the Law of Christ seems to be binding upon both partners. A problem arose when the Gospel crossed the borders of Palestine into the Gentile lands. Paul became the instrument used by God to put the universality of the Gospel into practice. The issue of mixed marriages comes into place in the Pauline community. In such unions, the Law of Christ would be binding on only one partner, namely, the believer.
The apostle finds himself now faced with a real life situation in which there is no direct command of the Lord. His churches looked up to him for answers. Like marriage, divorce is neither Christian nor non-Christian, although many scholars would have us think in terms of their being Christian or non-Christian. Between what is ethically right and wrong, is the twighlight zone of the acceptable or the unacceptable. For the Jew, divorce was custom. The Gentile world also had its own rules governing marriages, which were no better than those held by Jews. Jesus (the synoptics) quotes no code of law for or against the practice of divorce. He bases his argument on the natural order of things - that is, God's original plan at creation.
Marriage may be perceived as a pre-fall divine institution, and divorce a post-fall divine concession. In speaking about marriage, Jesus speaks in terms of principles: marriage was meant to be a permanent bond. Man's sinfulness necessitated a compromise on the part of God: to allow for divorce. We propose that the synoptics speak about the ideal. The state of affairs which Jesus propagates is not practical, and cannot be fully realised in the present age of fallen man. Conversely, Paul deals with the practical - the realistic as opposed to the ideal. His teaching reflects the problems of applications in a rather heterogeneous context. The whole law of God reflects the relativised will of God. In Christianity, Jesus seems to be the first person to relativise the very Law of God.
In order for us to fully comprehend the perfect will of God, we need to look beyond the code of law, to that state of absolute perfection. The state which man cannot attain in this present life, where sin and the devil are still at large. This seems to have been the approach applied by Jesus in answering questions on marriage and divorce. In the whole record of Jesus' ministry, nowhere was a called to resolve a real marital problem. We thus propose that What Jesus he gives is only a theoretical framework which requires further analysis before it can be applied to real life situations.
We also propose both Jewish and Gentile ethical principles need to be readjusted and reinterpreted before they can be adopted into Christianity. The socio-historical context of both the writer and readers will play an important role in our quest for the link between the Pauline and synoptic perspectives on marriage and divorce.
The gulf between the ideal and the real seems to be as wide as one between justice and mercy. The following questions raise some of the major concerns in this research: Are there any links between Paul and Jesus (synoptics) on marriage and divorce? If Jesus speaks about the ideal in his absolutist attitude, is there any link between the ideal and the real; between principle and practice? TA IL LE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PAGE 1.1. Aim 1 1.2. Methodology 1 1.3. Procedure 3
CHAPTER 2
PAULINE THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES.
2.1. Sources of Pauline ethics 11 2.2. The Corinthian Dialogue 16 2.3. Pauline Ethics on Marriage and Divorce.... 20 2.3.1. Marriage 21 2.3.2. Divorce 27 2.4. Summary 29
CHAPTER 3
SYNOPTIC THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
3.1. Audience 36 3.1.1. Matthew 36 3.1.2. Mark 37 3.1.3. Luke 37 3.2. Jewish Perspectives on Marriage and Divorce 39 3.2.1. Marriage 39 3.2.2. Divorce 43 3.3. Jesus and the Mosaic License 47 3.4. Who should initiate a divorce? 55 3.5. This is a hard saying 58 3.6. Summary 61
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSION 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY 73 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIM
The subject of marriage and divorce has been dealt with by many excellent scholars in the turn of the century. Their work has contributed largely to the development of Christian ethics. This research does not purport to be a repetition of the work that has been done. Rather, our intention is to raise certain issues within available work, as regards marriage and divorce. We live in a an era whereby morality is at its lowest ebb, even at the brink of total extinction. The Christian community needs to revisit its basics on the issues of marriage so as to keep up with the times.
Some theories that have been practised within the Christian Community are obsolete. They need either to be discarded in totality or revised. The Bible is the Christian's source of ethical principles. This research will concentrate on the New Testament teaching on marriage and divorce.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The methodology will be a comparison between the teaching of the synoptic gospels and Paul on the theme.Particular attention is paid on Matthew (5:31-32; 19:1-12), Mark (10:1-12), Luke (16:18) as well as 1 Cor. 7:10-16. We intend to present a theoretical framework on which the practice of marriage and divorce will be based. We are not trying to formulate or prescribe a policy, but to lay a possible basis for such a policy. Jesus and Paul are the fulcrum around which the whole Christian faith rotates.
Jesus was not a Christian himself. He was a devout Jew and a Nazarite. He came in accordance with the predictions of the Jewish Scriptures, although the kind of Messiah that the Jews were expecting, did not, according to Jewish perception, find true reflection in the Jesus of Nazareth. Jews were expecting a socio-political as well as religious charismatic leader.' Strictly speaking, the Messiaship of Jesus is fully recognised by the Christian Community. Jesus himself never intended to start a new religion apart from established Judaism. He perceived himself as the one who came to fulfil all the predictions found in the Torah , the prophets as well as the Writings (Mt. 5:17; Lk.24:44-48).
Paul, on the other hand, is the man who broke the racial barriers and preached the Gospel to Gentiles. He claims to be a real Jew, from the sect of the Pharisees, who was called by God to become
See D.S. Russell, The Jews from Alexander to Herod, p.141. He argues that the Jews explained the 'day of the Lord' "in terms of the end of the world when God would intervene, either himself or in the person of the Messiah to set right all the wrongs and vindicate his people Israel." In another book, The Method and Message of the Jewish Apocalyptic, Russell describes the Kingdom of God as "an earthly Kingdom, political in character, nationalistic in outlook and military in expression." (p.265). Even the disciples of Jesus had the same view, that Jesus was the Messiah in the political sense. They thought he had come to set them free from the Romans and return the land of Israel to the rightful owners (Lk.24:21; Acts 1:6). an apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13; Phil.3:58 cf. 2 Tim. 1:11; Acts 9:15). Both Paul and Jesus do not hesitate to proclaim themselves authorities as regards the will of God for their respective audience. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus places himself on the same level with Moses, if not above him. This is made clear in his repeated "It has been said....But I say unto you..." (Mt.5:21,27,31,33,38,43) His authority on ethical principles is not delegated, but original.
In the same vein, Paul claims the delegated authority that has been given to him by Jesus himself, to make rulings on certain ethical matters, on which the Lord said nothing during earthly ministry(1 Cor.7:25). The apostle Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. His conversion comes long after Pentecost (Acts 9). He attributes his knowledge of the doctrine of Christ to the revelation of the Spirit of the risen Christ.
1.3 PROCEDURE
Chapter 2 looks at the Pauline perspectives on marriage and divorce. The reason fOr this decision is because Paul's writing were in circulation long before the gospels were written. We are aware of the traditional order of putting the gospels before the letters. For present debate, we shall reverse the order. However, this approach is not without problems of its own. If Paul's letters were in circulation long before the gospels, how does he come to know-the teachings of Christ? A more detailed answer to this question will be given in the subsequent chapters. Suffice
3 it to say that it is not clear whether Paul was conversant with the Q-source. However, whatever the case may be, Paul's claim to exclusivity of his message, in that he learned it from no human being, is far from the whole truth. There are obvious external influences to his thoughts, in addition to his revelations.
Chapter 2 begins with-an overview of possible sources to Pauline ethics. As both a Jew and Pharisee, Paul was well-read in the Jewish traditions (Acts 22:3). His extensive quotation from the Old Testament is proof to this fact. He was also aware of the Jewish apocryphal writings. Romans 1:18ff has strong resemblances with the Wisdom of Solomon. There are also traces of Greco-Roman thinking in his arguments. Particualr to this is the Greek concepts of dualism. Whether the apostle was himself a bachelor or a widower, is not certain. However it is indisputable that he was celibate. Of paramount importance to the apostle himself, is the revelations that he received from the risen Lord (2 Cor.12:1- 5) .
Primary to an understanding of Paul's teaching on marriage and divorce in the Corinthian dialogue, is the audience.
Historically, Corinth was a successful commercial centre. The city was a Roman colony. Due to its opportunities for a better life, the city attracted people from many walks of life. This includes Jews, Greeks and Romans. Paul is thus, addressing himself to a mixed community. Roman legal system and Greek philosophy were predominant ideologies. The influence of these ideologies upon the Christian communities shall be clear as we
4 do an exegetical analysis of the text of 1 Cor.7:10-16.
This heterogeneous Corinthian Community had another aspect of importance to present research: the cult. As it was common in the First Century AD, there were many ascetic movements. Certain believers had already gone to the extent of rejecting their spouses in search for higher spirituality. Directly opposite to the ascetic movement, was the libertines. There was so much immorality in the Christian Church "such fornication as is not so much named among Gentiles" (1 Cor.5:1). These two extremities, libertinism and asceticism posed a serious threat to the marriage bond.
Unique to the Corinthian Community was the role of women. Greco- Roman women enjoyed more social status than the Jewish. There
were, certain religious cults within the city which were headed by women. Women could also sue for a divorce. When such women got converted to Christian faith, Paul had to face the challenge of assertive women - a thing not very common in Judaism. That the apostle recognised woman leadership in his churches, can be established in his correspondence (Romans 16:1f). However, women
seem to have posed a threat to the 'order' of the services. I 1 Cor.7, the apostle is addressing Christian women who had already divorced their husbands or were planning to terminate long consummated marriages. The issue of mixed marriages also comes into play.
The next section consists of an exegesis of 1 Cor.7:10-16. 1 Cor.7 is the apostle's answer to questions as well as responses to certain ethical situations expei.. ienced by the believers. The apostle does not only address the issues of marriage and divorce, but other relational matters. However, for present debate, marriage and divorce is our focal point.
We conclude this first chapter by looking at possible motivations to the apostle's recommendations. Some scholars argue that in First Corinthians, Paul corrects wrong perceptions of eschatology. Paul's own teaching on 'realised eschatology' might have contributed to the Corinthians' extremist position. 2
Certain believers within the Christian Community had already renounced sexual relations, even marriage, in hope to fully embrace the eschatological presence which implied the end of all mundane institutions.
Chapter 3 examines the synoptic perspectives on marriage and divorce. Here we examine Jesus words during some of his public addresses. The synoptic tradition has preserved four records of
Jesus' sayings on marriage (Mt. 5:31 - 32; 19:1 - 12; Mk.10:1 - 11;
Lk.16:18). The Matthean and Markan versions are set in a similar context, with some modifications. Both are records of Jesus' responses to questions posed by the Pharisees in order to 'test
him'. Matthew 5:31 - 32 and Luke 16:18 are independent records. The former appears as part of the Sermon on the Mount and the latter is one of the public lecture, thrown randomly after a debate with
2 See A.C. Thieselton, "Realized Eschatology in Corinth", in NTS. vol. 4,pp.510-526, for an elaborate study on 'realized eschatology in Corinth.
6 the Pharisees (v.14). The synoptic tradition has its own complications.
First, Jesus, the Jew, consciously confined his ministry to the Jews. He hardly ever crossed the racial barriers to reach out to Gentiles. His perceptions of the Gentiles do not differ much from that of other Jewish leaders, except that he did not reject them (Mt.15:22-28 cf. Lk.15:1-2). His free association with social outcasts made him unpopular. The issue of audience in the synoptics is complex. On the one hand, we have the 'real or
'historical' audience, being the Jews of about 30 AD; on the other hand, there is the Christian community which the gospel writer had in mind ( the 'implied audience') when he compiled the narrative. These levels of audience may not be perceived as identical. While Jesus' followers were a homogeneous group, the
implied audience was probably not. After Pentecost, we may talk about ratio: either predominantly Jewish (Matthew) or predominantly Gentile ( Mark and Luke).
Since the synoptics are an attempt to convey the mind of Jesus, it is imperative to start off by examining the Jewish background to marriage and divorce. While Jesus does not claim any spiritual revelation to his teaching, he does claim authority to interpret the Law of God - authority above that of the contemporary teachers of the Law. His claim to be the Son of God or rather,
God the Son, becomes the basis for his doctrine. The Old
Testament and Rabbinic literature uses no uneven terms in emphasising the indissolubility and sanctity of marriage. In
7 addition to procreation, the spiritual significance of the marriage bond, is of paramount importance. The creation story remains the ideal in Jewish tradition.
The practice of divorce was as real as marriage in Judaism, although it was less common compared to other neighbouring nations. Moses' institution of the 'bill of divorcement' is proof that divorce was accepted as a custom among the Jewish people. It should be clear that this concession was binding upon all persons concerned since Israel was a relatively homogeneous community. Intermarriage was not recognised at all. The attitude of early Judaism to intermarriage was illustrated in Ezra
(10:18ff) and Nehemiah (13:23 - 29). Taking a Gentile woman or man was prohibited by a levitical code (Lev.18).
The real debate among the Rabbis was not whether divorce is wrong or right. That was indisputable. The issue was the ground for divorce. In Judaism, adultery was a capital offense and nowhere was it related to divorce. An adulterer was to be stoned to
death. Rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 24:1 - 4 was cause for serious debate among the schools of Shammai, Hillel and Akiba.
The predominant view during the time of Jesus was that of Rabbi Shammai, which did not permit divorce "except for fornication"
(Mt.19:1-12 cf. Mk.10:1-11). Jesus' position would determine whether he is a friend or foe.
Instead of taking a side, Jesus introduces another, a higher one.
He returns to the original plan of God in Genesis 1 and 2, and
8 cast aside Deut. 24:1-4, as a concession. The Pharisees think in terms of the convenient, Jesus speaks about the ideal. Ideally, marriage is a permanent bond, but in practice, it is better to terminate a marriage that does not produce the intended end of mutual satisfaction, than to live with it. Jesus only rejects divorce in principle because it breaks God's plan.
We conclude chapter 3 with an exegetical analysis of the relevant texts.
Chapter 4 looks for the links between the Pauline and Synptics' perspectives on marriage and divorce. If the gospels and the letters are indeed theologies or interpretations of the will of
God, it is wise to use them as starting points and guidelines in policy-making, rather than dogmas. While the word of God is not dated, interpretations thereof are dated since they are primarily based on the socio-historical contexts of both the writers and the audience. A detailed comparison between the two perspectives closes this research.
9 CHAPTER 2
PAULINE THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
This chapter proposes to set forth the Pauline thought on the issue of marriage and divorce. Since we do not have any concrete Pauline theology on the issues, the best that we hope to do is to derive a framework from his correspondence with his churches. Our study will confine itself to a critical analysis of 1 Cor.
7:10 - 16. The socio-historical context of both the author and his audience shall play an invaluable role in the construction of a possible Pauline doctrine on marriage and divorce.' The basic reason for the choice of the named text is that there is no exclusive consensus among scholars regarding Paul's authorship of some of the letters commonly attributed to him.' The
letters to Corinthians fall into the category of authentic Pauline writings. This chapter does not propose to be an exhaustive exegetical analysis of the text at hand. The main aim to raise issues for further research for the modern student of
3 See L.E. Keck & V.P. Furnish, The Pauline Letters,p.20.• The correctly observe that none of the Pauline letters were universal letters; rather, they were "situation specific" unlike the "Catholic' or general letters (Hebrew,James,1,2 & 3 John, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude) which do not have one particular audience in view.
Most scholars agree on Paul's authorship of only seven of the thirteen letters attributed to the apostle,namely, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. The remaining six, though highly disputed,are attributed to a post-Pauline period. Among them is Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. They are referred to as 'pseudo- or Deutero- Pauline. It is generally agreed that such epistles were written by Paul's disciples after the death of the Apostle. See L.E. Keck and V.P. Furnish (eds), The Pauline
Letters,pp.16 - 17.
10 Pauline ethics.
2.1 SOURCES OF PAULINE ETHICS
Paul is undeniably one of the greatest teachers and theologians the Christian Church ever produced_ It may not be wholly accurate to consider him the masterbuilder of the Christian theology, but his writings, which form a large part of the New Testament, make an invaluable contribution to the development of Christian thinking. In fact, he knows no equal among his contemporaries in his understanding of the revelation of the risen and exalted Lord.'
That Paul was highly educated can be detected from his writings, especially letters to Romans, Corinthians and Galatians.His prominence attracted both friends and foes.' Both Jewish and
Gentile opponents of the apostle must have had a hard time trying to refute his message. He was a man gifted in words and in deeds
(1Cor.2:1-5). His uncompromising temperament made him unpopular among his Jewish and Christian contemporaries. Some even went to
F.W. Beare , St. Paul and His Letters, correctly observes
that Paul , is the "Spiritual Director" of the Christian church. His letters deal with the day to day issues taking place within the Church community.(pp.133f)
L.E. Keck and V.P. Furnish, op. cit. argue that Paul "always has had his ardent defenders as well as his vigorous detractors, and both have been found among Christians and non- Christians...he is the most vilified Christian since Pentecost."(p.12).Cf. Phil. 1:12-19; 2 Cor.6:8.
11 the extent of questioning the genuineness of his apostleship.'
In our brief quest for the sources behind this man's ethical teaching, we shall confine ourselves to just a few of the common ones. First, it is undeniable that Paul had a broad knowledge of the Old Testament. During his time, the Old Testament was the only form of Holy Scripture available. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 most probably refers to the Old Testament of Jewish Scriptures. His deep knowledge and understanding of the Scripture is evident in his extensive quotation from it.' Like Jesus Christ (Mt.5), Paul does not question the authority of the Old Testament, but he does oppose the self-serving and short-sighted interpretations of certain Jewish fundamentalist (see his letters to Romans and Galatians, in particular). The author of 2 Peter gave a warning concerning misinterpreting Paul and the danger that would follow such actions: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them about these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned. and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Pet.2:16.
It was correctly observed that while Paul does not use the Old
Testament "in any sense_as a sourcebook for detailed moral
instruction or even a manual of ethical norms", he does use it
"to gain an understanding of the Christian's concrete ethical
' See 2 Cor.11:lff. Here Paul defends his apostleship against those whom he perceives as impostors. Most probably, this harsh attitude to Paul and his ministry stemmed from his(Paul's) apparent disregard of Jewish traditions. cf . Gal.l:6f.
8 V.P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul,pp.33-67.
12 responsibilities". 9 Ladd' further amplifies that another purpose for Paul's use of the Old Testament is to "show that the redemption of Christ stands in direct continuity with the revelation of the Old Testament and is in fact the fulfilment of that revelation". Paul attributes the ability to conceive such mysteries to the working of the Spirit of Christ. Carnal-minded believers do not have access to such high knowledge (1 Cor.2:7ff).
Second, it is argued that Rom.1:20ff and Rom 9:19ff have a strong resemblance with Wisdom of Solomon 13:1ff and 10-11, respectively.' This leads to the probability that Paul was some how conversant with Jewish apocrypha and pseudocrypha.
Third, the influence of Greco-Roman thinking on Pauline thought cannot be overlooked. The fact that "all of Paul's letters were written in Greek", 12 is reason enough to expect influences of
9 op, cit. pp.33-34.
G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, indicates that certain events in the Old Testament were a lesson for-the present day Church such as those mentioned in 1 Cor.l0:lf. cf. Rom.15:4. While Christianity perceives itself as the fulfilment of OT prophesies, Judaism perceives it as a perversion. This accounts for a number of events in the life of the Christian Church. For example, it took quite some time for the Jewish Christians to accept their Gentile believers unconditionally (Acts 11:1-12; 15:1-2). It is most probable that a large number of Paul's opponents in Rome and Galatia were Jewish Christians who wanted to maintain their cultural identity - not only that - but also to impose them on Gentile Christians.(p.394)
V.P. Furnish, op. cit. p.33.
Furnish, op. cit. p.35.cf. A. Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament. Verhey refers to Paul's use of concepts such as conscience (synedesis), contentment (autarkeia)
13 Greek philosophical thinking. His sober refutations of certain Stoic philosophies shows that he was aware of such beliefs (1
Cor.8:1-8).
Finally, Paul must have been aware of the teachings of Jesus on certain ethical matters. However, it is not certain as to how he got hold of them since all the gospel are post-Pauline writings. As we shall see later, the ethics of Jesus always transcended that of Rabbinic Judaism.Paul associates his teachings with the Lord than Jewish tradition.' Although Paul never met Jesus in
the flesh, he boasts of his knowledge of the risen Lord "kata pneuma" ( 2 Cor.5:16). The scope of Pauline ethics is greatly influenced by the audience he was writing to.
It is also not certain as to whether Paul was acquainted with the
Q-source or not.' His usage of "the Lord" or "commandment of
and freedom (eleutheia) as examples of influences of Greek thinking on the apostle. The poetic lines of Phil.4:8 are also typical Greek style.He further correctly observes that Rom.1:l9ff refers to natural Law which Paul recognises as God's gift to mankind. Human beings possess a natural consciousness of the Supreme Being. See also J.Barton, Natural and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament, JTS.Vol. 30.
C.K. Barrett in I Corinthians, argues that if Paul knew much about Jesus' teaching, he just selected a few of " those which differed from that prevailing in Judaism: on divorce, the school of Hillel differed from the school of Shammai, but neither agreed with Jesus, who is absolute prohibition of divorce differs from the OT (Deut.24:1-4) itself".(p.162)
See D.W.A. Shaner, A Christian View on Divorce. He further elaborates that the Q-source is more consistent with Mk.10:11-12 since the implications are that the woman can initiate a divorce(p.58) without qualifying it. However, in Paul, divorce and/or separation is permitted only in mixed marriages. Nowhere is Paul is the believing partner permitted to initiate a divorce. The Markan text does not make such a distinction. However, the possibility that Paul might have known about the Q-
14 the Lord" may not be confined to the one found in the Synoptic tradition.' Paul's use of "the Lord" has elevated connotations to the one we find in the gospels. Jesus is "Lord" in the sense that he is "the authority before which the concrete lives of Christians unfold in total dependence on their Lord."' His use of the "commandment of the Lord" , with particular reference to divorce and marriage follows the same route that Jesus takes in Mt.l9:l-9. Just as Jesus transcended Jewish tradition to refer to the original plan of God (Gen.2:24), so does Paul use the words of the Lord in that transcendent tone.
What we gather from the foregoing discussion is that Paul was an international speaker: born and bred as a Jew (Phil.3:5,6), educated in the Jewish (Acts 22:1-5) as well as the Greco-Roman environment (Acts 22:25-30) and then converted to Christianity (Acts 26:1-23),It should be no great wonder to find the Jews persecuting him as an apostate (Acts 21:20-25,27,28). Thus, we would be justified to expect Jewish, Greek and Roman ideals emerging in Pauline discourse. Galatians 3:28 vividly captures source should not be totally overruled.
' Verhey, op. cit. correctly observes that the law of Christ may not be confined to the Law of Love stated in Mt.22:37- 41. Rather, this should be interpreted as the new identity which those who belong to Christ adopt. In interpreting Moses, Jesus places himself at the same level with Moses, if not above him (Mt.5:21ff). Paul seems to follow the same style by associating himself and his teaching with Christ himself and not any of his predecessors (Ga1.11-14). For Paul, written tradition is not the only source of revelation. The Holy Spirit is the source of revelation. One of the ways which the Holy Spirit uses to make known the Law of Christ is through a "combination of many rules and wisdom from many traditions, including the sayings of Christ." (p.113)
See W.Schrage, The Ethics of the NT, p.173.
15 the radical Pauline perspective on the new identity of the 'man in Christ'.
2.2 THE CORINTHIAN DIALOGUE
We shall take a brief look at the City of Corinth and the possible audience of Paul. Historically, Corinth was a typical metropolitan commercial centre which attracted many people from different walks of life.' Biblical evidence shows that Paul came to the city during one of his missionary journeys (Acts 18:1-17). Paul's arrival in this big city was met with opposition from Jew and Gentile. Great names associated with Corinth are Aquila and Priscilla as - well as Apollos.
Corinth was also famous for women cults. According to Witherington, Corinthian women were famous as courtesans and companions. There were many exclusively female cults in which women held positions of leadership as priestesses.' Women were a potential threat to the Corinthian Church such that their positions had to be reviewed regularly in order to maintain order
See G. Thiessen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, pp.101-102, for an elaborate record of the population of the city of Corinth in the First Century.
See B. Witherington III,Women in the Earliest Churches, pp.10-11. The fact that women already occupied. high positions both in society and in religion sheds some light on some of the problems Paul addresses especially in his Corinthian correspondence. Further evidence shows that women occupied very high positions in Pauline Churches, including those of 'apostle'. A comprehensive list of such women is found in Romans 16:1ff in which Paul recognises the authority of certain women as spiritual leaders together with men. This practice was unheard of in Rabbinic Judaism of the time where women still had no public status.
16 and decency during worship services (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34-35) 19
Furthermore, Corinth was characterised by libertinism within the Christian community itself.' One might as well expect Paul's ruling on ethical matters to be unique as the situation demands. However, that does not mean that he had to compromise the Gospel (as many of his Jewish counterparts thought), but he presents the gospel message as one of reconciliation, in particular, two cultures which were hostile to each other, namely, the Jew and the Gentile (Co1.1:20f). The apostle uses the concept "mystery" in order to describe the uniqueness of his message as opposed to that of his opponents.Paul is also careful never to impose Jewish values on Gentile brethren. Neither does he impose Christian values upon non-Christians. We shall elaborate on this in our exegetical analysis of relevant Pauline passages to be discussed
19 Some scholars hold that 1 Cor.14:34,35 is un-Pauline; that it was inserted to oppress women in later Christianity. We do not totally reject the assertion,although we feel that the context should alleviate much confusion. The woman spoken about in the passage are married women whose husbands were members of the local assembly. Paul gives the reason why they may not participate in Church discussions not worship services, for this would contradict the message of 1 Cor.11:lf. Again we should realise that command to refrain from speaking in Church is not exclusive to women: certain men with prophetic gifts were to be silenced (vv.27-32). All these, not for gender reasons, but for the sake of order (vv.33,40). Disorder is one of the problems that Paul has to address in the Corinthian Church.
' G.Bornkamm, Paul, (trans. D.M.S,. Stalker) reports that "another characteristic of Corinth is immorality". This can be detected from the kind of questions raised to Paul. They range from menus, shopping for food, sexual relations, charismata, resurrection, etc. In most , if not all of them, the Church had to grapple with secular theories and Paul was expected to make a final ruling. (p.69) cf. D.L.Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul, p.66. Also see I Cor. 5:lff; 6:9f; 8:lff.
17 in some detail.
The spiritual state of the Church at Corinth was a mass of confusion. They had their principles pulled to the very extremes.On the one had the Church was one of the most charismatic Churches of the First century. According to Paul, they "came behind in no gift"(1:7). There are evidences of 'superspirituality' among the members. Their extreme spirituality did not bind them together, but gave way to serious divisions. On the other hand, there were reports of serious immorality
(5:1). The diversity of topics addressed in the letter shows that the Church kept close contact with the apostle. The issue of marriage and divorce creeps in as Paul tries to correct certain misconceptions which gave way to some of these extremities.'
It was further observed that 1 Cor.7 was more of an anti-ascetic polemic than a lecture on marriage and divorce.' Some
21 The extremities range from divisions (1:9-14;3:1-4), immorality (5:lff) spiritual gifts (12:1ff; 14:1ff) and eschatology (15:1ff). The basic problem is the Corinthian inability to reconcile spiritual things with the material.The main concerns of 1 Cor. 7 is that of reconciliation of legitimate human relationships and rights with undivided service to God. The apostle does not disagree with the convictions of his audience, at least in principle. See A.C. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p.80. See V.P. Furnish, op. cit. p.34-35.Generally, it was women who entertained ascetic ideals. L.E.Keck V.P.Furnish,pp.82-83, elaborate on the nature of debates that surrounded the opening verses if 1 Corinthians 7. They explain the it in terms of the Greek dualism of the body and soul/spirit. On the one hand there were those who held that the material body was an obstacle to true spirituality. For them abstinence from legitimate bodily pleasures, including sex, was imperative. On the other hand, there were those who held that as long as one's soul is right with God, it does not matter how one lives. In other words, morality had nothing to do with one's spirituality.
18 'hyperspiritual' believers were denying their partners of their marital rights. Others found themselves were in the midst of a hurting mixed marriage. Still others were experiencing breakdown of marriage. Paul's focus is on women.' In such an environment, the Apostle has to make a ruling in order to accommodate each one of the unique situations, without taking sides with any particular theory. 2 4 This provides us with the framework within
This debate is carried on from 1 Cor.6:9ff. Paul neutralises such extremities by stating that both body and soul/spirit must be used to the glory of God (6:13,20).Cf.1 Thess. 4:2 - 5 which Paul wrote while he was in Corinth.
23 The main concern in the Corinthian context was actually women divorcing their own husbands. Thus Paul's address is mostly addressed to such women. The Apostle is trying to persuade these women to "remain" - either in a consummated marriage ( be it Christian or mixed) or single if they happen to divorce. V.L. Wimbush, Paul:The Worldly Ascetic, explains the concept of "remain" in the context of the text. He argues that while the concept does not imply that the Christians must support the status quo, it does purport to "relativize the importance of all worldly conditions and relationships" (p.16). Worldly conditions and relationships per se, "do not commend us to or separate us from God". Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community, p.180, is right when he says "the relativisation which he speaks about is not a matter of a degree of interaction with the world as if Paul were counselling a bit less interaction or a gradual tapering off. It is rather, a matter of quality of that interaction - one interacts knowing what is of lasting importance in the eternal scheme of things." J. Moffatt, 1 Corinthians,p.79, argues that "the feminist party in the local church had evidently claimed to desert or divorce a husband, hence Paul mentions the case of the woman first." See A.C. Wire, The Corinthian Women:A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric,p.86.
Even the Lord Jesus himself did not have an opportunity to address such a complex situation, more especially because his ministry was confined to the "lost sheep of Israel" (Mt.10:5,6). This confined area of ministry seems to have been maintained by the Apostle Peter, James and John (Ga1.2:9). Their recognition of Paul and his ministry among the Gentiles must have been a real and unpleasant compromise. In terms of scope, Paul's ministry was universal; he went to areas which were predominantly Gentile in which the command of the Lord would not be effective unless otherwise adjusted as it seems to be the case with the Corinthian experience. As a result, we do not have the Lord's ruling for mixed marriage. Jewish tradition did not allow much room for the woman in society. With the exception of Mark 10:11 - 12, all of the
19 which we approach the Pauline ethics on marriage and divorce. We shall study each concept individually.
2.3 PAULINE ETHICS ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
1 Corinthians 7 becomes the only authentic Pauline letter which could be used as source of reference on Pauline ethics on
marriage and divorce. 1 Thessalonians 4:2 - 7 also makes reference to moral values which must be upheld, but the apostle uses too general terms in his exhortation:
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 that everyone of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 not is the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which knew not God: 6 that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
The Ephesian text (5:21ff) does not have direct relevance to the text of 1 Corinthians 7. 25 commands of the Lord on marriage are addressed to 'husbands'.
2= A number of considerations should be made regarding the two texts ( 1 Cor.7 & Ephesians 5:21ff). The author of Ephesians addresses the power relations between husband and wife. The husband is the head. As the head of the family, he is commanded to love his wife. The duty of the wife is submission to her own husband. The concept of marriage is used to signify the mystical union between Christ and the Church. Issues of love and submission are absent from the Corinthian text, neither is the spiritual significance of the physical union of marriage. An invaluable contribution is made by Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth,pp.170 - 171. He argues that a Roman marriage was not bound together by love, as it is the case in Christian marriage, rather it was "a state of peace between husband and wife". It was "the intent to live together in a marital state" and that intent could be revoked at any time at the slightest provocation. Both wife and husband had equal rights, sometimes it did not require any legal procedures to annul a_marriage union. The man could declare the formula 'tuas
20 2.3.1. MARRIAGE
(a) Christian Marriage: The Lord's ruling.
In our context, a christian marriage refers to a consummated marriage in which both partners are Christians. Both of them are bound by the 'command of the Lord':
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 1 Cor.7:10-11.
This prohibition is similar to the one found in Mt.19:1 - 11 (cf.Gen.2:24). We have indicated elsewhere that the feminist party in the local,church seems to have caused much trouble. Paul, first of all, gives a 'personal command' to the married, and then emphasises it with the command of "the Lord".
It is generally agreed among scholars that "the Lord" in this context, refers to Jesus himself.Paul is addressing those "hyper spiritual" wives who went as far as suspending normal sexual rights in favour of higher spirituality (vv.3-4).j' It was argued that Paul is dealing with women who had a problem of
"self-understanding and life". 27 They could not reconcile right res tibi habeto' (take your things [and go]) and the woman possessed similar rights. cf . C.H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians,p.45.
26 See J. Moffatt, op. cit. p.85.
27 V.L. Wimbush, op. cit.,p.7. Paul refutes certain contemporary philosophies, one of which is "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (7:1). While this is the ideal, Paul realises that it is too extreme and argues that celibacy is only a gift to some (7:7) and one must not force themselves into a
21 standing with God with legitimate marriage life, which was instituted by God, not just for procreation, but also as a preventive measure against sexual immorality.
"Let not the wife depart from her husband" implies that it was generally the woman who initiated the separation, leaving either their Christian or non-Christian partners. This is an imperative. Paul is legislating. "But and if" is not to be understood as a concession, but rather as an acknowledgement of the fact: marriages do break up, and some beyond repair - others can still be restored. Again, "let" is also an imperative. Paul is commanding the separated couple. However, his command is open- ended. The couple has two options - one is to reconcile and the other is to remain single. Although Paul acknowledges marriage
breakdown in the community, he does not permit remarriage while the other partner is still alive (cf. Rom.7:1-3).
Thus, addressing the case of a Christian marriage, the apostle simply endorses the command of the Lord. He does not need to qualify this since, by implication, his audience are aware of the
Lord' command. Schrage correctly argues that "between Christians,
Saint Paul allowed, at the most, simple separation without
state that is not their gift. The concept of one 'burning' (7:9) might refer to the partner who assumes a gift that is not theirs. On the other hand, the one who falls into fornication might be the man who is deprived of his sexual rights by his ascetic partner. However, the use of fornication ('porneia') and not adultery, is ambiguous(7:2). The most probable meaning is that the Apostle refers to those contemplating marriage but are otherwise deterred by the prevailing ascetic view of sex. The apostle is thus defending marriage from the threat of Greek dualist theory, by presenting the third option: that of 'remaining'.
22 remarriage."' However, given the socio-historical context of Paul's readers, the Lord's ruling may not solve the whole problem. Certain persons found themselves in mixed marriages in which the Lord's command would be binding to only one of the partners. The apostle is now compelled by the prevailing situation to make a concession "to the rest" (v.12).
(b) Mixed marriages: Pauline Concession ,
1 Cor.7:12-16: 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which bath an husband which believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: or else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. 15 But is the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not is not under bondage in such cases: but God bath called us to peace. 16 For what knoweth thou, 0 wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how thou knowest thou, 0 man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Mixed marriages could be defined as those unions between a believer and a non-believer. Elsewhere Paul prohibits intermarriage, although by implication (6:16f). The kind of mixed marriage Paul has in mind is a case in which, in a consummated marriage, one partner becomes a Christian and the other does not.
Paul classifies mixed marriages under "the rest" .Certain scholars
op. cit. p.249. We believe that the 'separation' implied could also mean divorce without remarriage in accordance with v.11.
23 find the phrase "to the rest" very disturbing and vague.' De
Pomerai interprets Paul's concession to imply that "spiritual or religious incompatibility constituted adequate ground for divorce".' His thesis is not convincing, though.
The context of our passage suggests that there were believing partners who had discontinued mixed marriages after accepting the gospel. This move was not proper since it implied a move against marriage as a divine institution, on the one hand, and it would expose either partner to adultery, on the other. Again Paul fights against the dualism.'
It is interesting to observe that nowhere does the apostle mention love as the bond of a marriage union. He seems to be following the Roman practice of "concordia" or "intent" as the
29 This is too narrow an interpretation (see C.K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians,p.163 cf. A. Robertson and A.Plummer, 1 Corinthians,p.137;W.F. Orr & J.A. Walther, 1 Corinthians,p.212) We wish to submit the reason why the Apostle refers to mixed marriages as "the rest" is because they were not included in the Lord's command (if at all the word of the Lord refers to the synoptic tradition of Mt.19:10-11; Mk.10:11-12; Lk.16:18). It was argued elsewhere that Jesus hardly, if ever, went beyond the borders of Palestine. Rabbinic Judaism was never in favour of mixed marriages (cf. Ezra 10:1ff). Jews were not at good terms with Samaritans (Jn4:9). The apostle clearly states that what he is about to say is not the Lord's word, but his own opinion.
R.De Pomerai, Marriage: Past,Present and Future, p.197.
3 ' If 1 Corinthians was written before 2 Corinthians, it would be reasonable to argue that the Corinthians were acting on the basis of 2 Cor.6:14ff. Here, Paul shows the incompatibility of darkness and light, believer and unbeliever, Christ and ratan. Fortunately, 2 Corinthians is subsequent to the First letter. In this light, this argument is not relevant for present debate.
24 basis for a good marriage.'
Furnish provides an enlightening exegesis of verse 14. This exegesis is based on the proposition that the children of a mixed marriage are "holy"." Paul's use of the concepts of 'divorce' and 'separation' require special attention.The words are being used interchangeably, particularly in the present text.'
32 See Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, p.170. He argues that the peace referred to at verse 15 should not be mistaken for peace as the fruit of the spirit (Ga1.5:22,23). This peace has more secular connotations of absence of conflict which results from tolerance.L.E. Keck & V.P. Furnish, op. cit. make an important observation in that for Paul "sex and marriage are neither sin to be avoided at all costs nor salvation to be seized without delay" (p.85). Hence, the apostle puts the conditional "if" on the part of the couple. The ball is always in the believer's court: if the unbelieving partner wishes to divorce, the believer must not stop them; if they do not wish to separate, the believer must not initiate it. This position of the apostle clearly relativises relativises marriage.
V.P. Furnish, Moral Teaching of Paul.He artfully presents his argument in the form of a syllogism:'if holy children are produced by holy marriages and mixed marriages produce holy children, then, mixed marriages are holy marriages'. The argument follows that ' if holy marriages are to be maintained, and mixed marriages are holy marriages, then, mixed marriages are to be maintained.'(pp.44-45). Cf. C.K. Barrett, I Corinthians, p.166. G. Simon, 1 Corinthians, p.90, makes an invaluable point with regard to children. It was a common practice among Jewish proselytes: infant baptism, was administered in order to ensure that the kids are 'holy'. If this is the case, then Paul's argument for Children being 'holy' implies that they do not need any external ritual in order to be made acceptable to God. The holiness of the believing partner sanctifies both the unbelieving partner as well as their kids. Wimbush, op.cit, maintains that in the case of mixed marriages "no separation is necessary, since the holiness of the believer can not only neutralise the unholiness of the non-believer, but protects the off-spring." (pp.19-20) A.C. Wire, op. cit. argues from the Greek cultural point of view: in Greek tradition "children shared their father's political and religious identity"(p.85),If Wire's thesis is correct, then Corinthian women were concerned about the spiritual status of their children.
See D.W.A. Shaner, A Christian View of Divorce. He argues that 'aphiemai' and 'choriskso' are used in different contexts. The former means 'to let go' or 'to send away' and is translated
25 However, Houlden argues to the contrary. For him the deciding factor on the fate of a mixed marriage must be viewed in terms of eschatology more than anything else.' We shall come to the issue of eschatological expectation later in the discussion.
Shaner's exegesis of verse 15 is interesting, though somehow controversial. He bases his argument on the probability that 'depart' may imply desertion. As such, desertion by the unbeliever is equated to their 'death', thus leaving the believing partner with the option to remarry.' In his comment on the latter part of verse 15, Barrett indicates that the believing partner "need not feel so bound by Christ's prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner
'divorce' in the English rendering. The latter word means 'to separate' or 'to depart'. According Shaner, 'aphiemai' is used for the husband: 'the husband must not divorce his wife' (v.11) AND 'choriskso' is used for the action of the wife: "Let not the wife depart from her husband' (v.10,11).Shaner- is mistaken in this regard. In actual fact., the concepts are used interchangeably for both husband and wife. The wife can both separate and divorce as well as the man (cf. vv.10-11 & 13-15) See also A.C. Wire, op. cit. p.86; J.H. Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT; S.Kubo's A Reader's Greek - English Lexicon as well as R.Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible. It is apparent that verses 14-16, Paul does not permit the believer to take the issue of being divorced further, say to the civil court of law. Rather, the Christian must accept the state of affairs and rejoice because they have been freed from an unhappy marriage with an unbeliever. Most probably, this ruling by the apostle would pose a serious problem in the 90's. He would need to review it, were he living in our times! What is of paramount importance in this recommendation is the centrality of the spiritual state of a partner: whether one is IN Christ or outside of Christ. cf.H. Conzelmann, Corinthians,(trans.J.W.Leitch),p.120.
J.H. Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament, pp.74-75.
36 op.cit. p.66.
26 insists on separation."' Barrett's argument contributes of the infamous 'Pauline Privilege'."
2.3.2. DIVORCE
Concerning Christian marriages, Paul does not have any personal opinion. He emphasises the commandment of the Lord and presents no ground for divorce at all. Divorce is a sin! It is only in the case of mixed marriages that he makes concessions However, that does not preclude the possibility of Christians going for a divorce. We have indicated that Christian divorce is an exception to the rule, hence the apostle uses the words "but and if" (v.11). Divorce is the illegitimate child of a marriage that was intended to last for as long as the couple lives.
37 C.K. Barrett, Paul, p.76.
38 Schrage, op. cit. defines the Pauline privilege as "when in a purely pagan marriage one partner accepts the Christian Faith and the other is not willing to continue the marriage, the Christian party is free to contract a new Marriage."(p.249). L.H. Marshall, in The Challenge of NT Ethics, further amplifies that Paul found nothing wrong in contracting a second marriage."(p.338) Even widows who wished to marry were "perfectly free to marry again if they wished though he held that the new husband should be a Christian(7:39). Prat S.J. The Theology of St. Paul, (trans.J.L. Stoddard) makes a brilliant observation that "the mixed marriage tie is weaker" and "the Church has not to regulate the lives of those who do not belong to her."(p.113) See'also O.A. Piper, The Biblical View of Sex and Marriage, p.142. However, the difficult question remains unanswered by the 'Pauline Priviledge' theory: Is it a license to remarry, or is it priviledge to celibacy? If both marriage and celibacy are God's gifts, then the issue of a 'priviledge' form part of the morally offensive acts and/or statements in the Bible: For a detailed analysis of such morally offensive acts in the Bible; we recommend W.C. Kaiser,Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics, pp.247- 314.
39 However, v.16 is ambiguous. Alternative renderings of the of this verse read as follows: 'Do not contend divorce on the ground that if you remain, you may convert your heathen partner,
27 What were Paul's motivations in making such recommendations, both for the Christian and mixed marriages? The basic motivation was eschatological. In view of the Second Coming of the Lord, which in his view, would take place during his own life time, he made such ethical recommendations." The apostle perceived marriage as a potential hindrance to total and undivided service to the Lord. Prat summarises the teaching of Paul in three phrases. He shows how that Paul is not concerned with whether marriage is right or wrong; or whether a Christian may divorce or not. For
for how do you know that you will do that?' Or conversely, 'Avoid divorce, for it is possible - you never know - that you will convert your heathen partner'. A. Robertson and A Plummer in I Corinthians, p.144. Looked at objectively, v.16 is a double-edged sword. It cuts both ends. However, v.15 presents Paul's desire for the believer in a mixed marriage. It is most probable that 'peace' in this context, refers to freedom from a hurting mixed marriage. Paul's prohibition of Christians taking a dispute to the court of law (6:1-8) is out of the question here. In the named text, the dispute is between two Christians, but in our text (7:12f) it is between a believer and anon-believer. W.F. Orr and J.H. Walther, I Corinthians, aptly observe that "the Christian must separate without controversy or attempt to hold the marriage together."(p.214) What happens if the divoi .ced Christian partner does not possess the 'gift' of celibacy? Do we suggest that the command of the Lord (vv.10-11) hold? We propose that it doesn't.
D.E.H. Whiteley, The Theology of Saint Paul. He observes that Paul's exhortations to marry or not to marry; to divorce or maintain an existing marriage at all costs, were two sided. On the one hand, it is good to marry in order to avoid fornication. Fornication was sin enough to exclude one from the very Kingdom of God (1 Cor.6:9-11).(p.215-216) See also R.F. Collins, "Marriage", in ABD.vol.4. p.571. On the other hand, it was not good to marry in view of the trouble that would accompany such a commitment,especially during persecution.For Paul, celibacy, which might have implied avoiding marriage at all or letting go of a mixed marriage is the ideal state. Christians had to be found on the alert, at all times - doing the work of the Lord.
28 Paul, those are obvious facts.'
2.4 SUMMARY
This chapter has attempted to present a Pauline thought as regards marriage and divorce using the text of I Cor.7:10-16 as a focal point.It becomes apparent that Paul's ruling on the issue surpasses the Jewish conception. We have proved that it is only on the issue of the indissolubility of marriage that Paul endorses the commandment of the Lord. "To the rest" he makes his own ruling as a spokesperson for God (2 Cor.5:18-19). A bulk of Paul's teaching is attributed to the illumination of the indwelling Spirit of Christ.
Although we do not have a specific Pauline doctrine on marriage and divorce, we have to depend on the bits and pieces we obtain
from his correspondence with his churches. From the brief exegesis of 1 Cor.7:10-16, we have arrived to a number of conclusions: First, Paul appeals to the Law of Christ only in the
Prat's summary is enlightening: "the use of conjugal rights is permissible, but continence is more perfect; marriage is good, but virginity is better; second marriages are permissible, but widowhood is preferable."(p.107). This teaching of Paul in I Cor.7 could be descried as 'interim ethics' because the motivation is eschatological. Paul details how a Christian should conduct themselves while awaiting the appearance of their Lord. However, W.A. Beardslee, 1 Corinthians,pp.63-68, makes a radical proposition regarding Paul's emphasis on eschatology. He argues that "Paul relativised marriage...regarded marriage as a lesser issue." There is a sense of extreme urgency in the Apostle's recommendation regarding marriage. Procreation is never mentioned as one of the reasons for marriage. Maintaining a marriage union, in the context of our text, is simple: to avoid fornication. We have already argued elsewhere that, according to Pauline ethics, fornication is one of the sins which leads to one's exclusion from the Kingdom of God ( 1 Cor.6:9ff).
29 case of a Christian marriage. Christ prohibits divorce under all circumstances. Marriage is indissoluble!
Second, the conversion of one partner does not render their long consummated marriage invalid. Paul prohibits withdrawal of certain marriage rights such as sexual relations. This was a corrective to certain ascetic ideas which were penetrating the Church thus exposing certain partners to the temptation of fornication and/or adultery.
Third, Paul is aware of the reality and possibility of mixed marriages. The Lord is silent on this issue. Paul takes it upon himself as the servant of the Lord to make a ruling. In such cases he urges the believing partner to accept the unbeliever's desire for a separation or divorce. The believing partner is never permitted to initiate a separation or divorce. He further emphasises that mixed marriages are holy marriages and thus should be maintained, although, not at all costs. The Pauline Privilege makes the mixed marriage bond weaker than that of the Christian marriage.
Fourth, Paul's recommendation for different states (pre-marital, intra-marital and extra-marital) is influenced by his own sense of urgency as regards the Second Coming of the Lord and the End of the present age. The basis of Paul's argument concerning human relations in general,according to the text of 1
Corinthians, is that none of them should be terminated or consummated at all costs. Believers must 'remain' in the state
30 in which the gospel found them. In view of the urgency of parousia, the apostle relativizes all human relationships since they do not add to or subtract from their standing with God.
Fifth, both sexual indulgence (immorality) and asceticism are extremities to be avoided. The dualistic theories of the day may not be adopted into the Christian church without modifications.The apostle seems to agree with such theories in principle but reject them in praCtice . For example, theories such as "meats for the belly and belly for meats" (6:13) and "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (7:2). These theories do not present a complete picture. At their best, they propagate human bias and - stereotype.
Finally, in his Corinthian dialogue, Paul is particularly addressing Christian women who had already deserted their own marriages in search for spirituality. In each case, he first addresses the woman, and then the man. Women in Christian marriages are instructed to either remain single or reconcile, after a separation or divorce. Those who are in mixed marriages are instructed to accept the verdict of the unbelieving partner. If they prefer to live with the believing partner, the marriage should be maintained because the holiness of the believing partner is stronger than the unholiness of the unbeliever. The identity of all the members of the family is thus determined by the status of the believing partner before God.
The next chapter looks at the synoptic perspectives on marriage and divorce.
31 CHAPTER 3
SYNOPTIC THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
The previous chapter has outlined some of the major concerns on the Pauline perspectives on marriage and divorce. It has also been argued that Paul's writings are the oldest in the whole body of the New Testament. In this chapter we examine what the Synoptic Gospels have to say on the issues of marriage and divorce. 42
These gospels are held to be the closest records of the sayings of Jesus in addition to the Q-source. Like Paul, the synoptics do not detail a doctrine or stipulate a law governing marriage and divorce. There are four versions of the records of Jesus sayings on marriage and divorce. In the first pair, Jesus responds to a question posed by the Pharisees (Mt. 19:3f cf.
Mk.10:1f). In each of these cases the Pharisees are testing him. The second pair seems to be a commentary on the Mosaic concession
42 Synoptic Gospels is and umbrella name for the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. They are so called basically because much of their content is similar with only fewer dissimilarities. Several solutions have been advanced over the centuries as to the reasons for such a state. The most recent solution to this problem is that Mark's gospel was the oldest. Matthew developed Mark. Luke also used Mark's material in the composition of his gospel. However, there is substantial material which are unique to Matthew and Luke together. This material had been obtained from an existing source which contained mainly the sayings of Jesus. This source is known as the common source or commonly the "Q-source". The Q-source had been in circulation since the 50's AD. It is not certain whether Paul was familiar with such a source. Apart from the Q-source, both Matthew and Luke conducted their own researches into the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. This is just a sketchy overview of the Synoptic Tradition.
32 and the seventh commandment respectively (Mt.5:32 cf. Lk.16:18).
The subject of marriage and divorde as discussed in the named passages is not an easy one to go about. Over the centuries scholars have been involved in heated debates as to the actual meaning of the divorce clauses - especially where Christ seems
to equate remarriage with adultery. 43 Space does not permit us to go into much detail on current debate.
We shall attempt to construct a possible perspective from the bits and pieces of information we obtain from the respective passages. In approaching the synoptics, one must always be aware of the implicit ambiguity. On the superficial level, the gospels present the words and thought of Jesus verbatim with brief commentary from the particular evangelist. However, an understanding of the fact that the gospels are not an autobiography of Jesus will save us a lot of confusion.
Historically, the gospels were written three to four decades after the death of Jesus Christ. Of the three writers, only
In the Jewish tradition no such relationship was created. A divorced woman was free to marry any man of her own choice. Only that the first husband had no right to remarry her after she has contracted a second marriage (Deut.24:1-4). In the Old Testament, adultery was a capital offense punishable by death. If the words of Jesus were to be taken literally, then all the divorced persons were supposed to be killed. A rather enlightening allegory is found in John 8:1-11. This woman was caught in the very act of adultery and her accusers were right in terms of the Torah, to kill her. Jesus forgave her and let her go. This act was unknown in Jewish tradition. See Hastings, H. Christian Marriage in Africa,pp.82-83. cf.K.Stewart, Divorce and Remarriage, pp. 51-70.
33 Matthew was an eyewitness of the works of Jesus. There is no conclusive evidence that either Mark or Luke ever saw Jesus in the flesh. Thus their knowledge of the historical Jesus is not first-hand. What we have is a reconstruction of reality as they saw it. In their reconstruction they were highly influenced by the kind of audience they were writing for. The gospels were never written in a vacuum. There were real people in the mind of the authors."
In our analysis of selected passages in Matthew , Mark and Luke, we will, first of all, pay particular attention to the socio-
historical context of each writing.' This will make it easier
for us to try to establish why one writer omitted some material and why the other has included it. Second, we shall use 'Jesus' and the particular gospel writer interchangeably. It is quite difficult to separate the two distinctly. 46
44 While we fully acknowledge and recognise the total inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; we at the same time recognise human instrumentality in the compilation and production of the manuscripts. In fact, the Holy Spirit played a rather secondary and subjective role. We deem it necessary to subject Holy Scripture to some critical analysis. The aim is not to test the validity of Scripture, but to study human thought and how it influences interpretation and delivery of God's revelation. As the Apostle Paul correctly observed: "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of power may be of God and not of us." (II Cor.4:7)
" See S.A. Grunlan, Marriage and the Family: A Christian Perspective,pp.334-335.
46 The current "red-letter editions" of the Bible can be very deceptive to the unlearned student of the Bible because it give the impression that the particular words are Jesus' words verbatim. The simple danger in such editions is that it removes the writers personal thinking from the text and overspiritualise the message. Indeed, the thought may be the Lord's, but the phrasing is Matthean, Markan or Lucan. We propose that the "red- letter editions" of Scripture do not do justice to the total
34 3.1 AUDIENCE
The issue of audience for a particular written text is a complex one. According to current literary studies, there are at least two levels of audience: the real or historical audience, and the implied audience. The former refers to the historical audience, say, of Jesus in a particular narrative. The latter refers to the readers which the writer is addressing the writing to.'
3.1.1 Matthew
It is not difficult to establish the kind of persons Matthew had in mind while compiling his narratives. A close reading of the gospel shows that Matthew had a predominantly Jewish Christian community in mind. This fact is evidenced in Matthew's immense interest in the Torah and issues that are of interest to Jews.
Shaner argues that Matthew is writing for Jewish Christians who "who are aware of the schools of Shammai and Hillel over the issues of divorce.""
inspiration of Scripture. Nowhere are we told that God wrote the Bible. But we do know that men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit ( see 2 Peter 1:20-22). While there is never any contradiction , in what the Lord says, there always is difference in man's interpretation of what the Lord says. Thus the bottom line is, Matthew, Mark and Luke are giving us their versions of what the Lord implied by what he said.
" For a detailed analysis of audience in a written text see J.A. Du Rand, Johannine Perspectives,pp.42-43. See also R.T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and its predecessor,p.6; R.A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, pp.205-222.
48 See D.W. Shaner, A Christian View of Divorce, p.47. However, we wish to submit that Jesus identified with the stricter school of Shammai which permitted divorce only for unchastity is not convincing. A simple statement of a fact should
35 Matthew's extensive quotation from the Old Testament without even explaining certain Jewish practices, as do writers like Mark, is further proof his audience were quite conversant with these practices in Judaism.
3.1.2 Mark
Mark wrote for a predominantly Gentile audience, particularly those who lived in Rome.' In contrast to Matthew, Mark takes some pains to explain certain Jewish practices (Mk.7:3) and gave a translation of every Aramaic word that he used. Mark shows not as much interest in the Old Testament as does Matthew. Scholars believe that this is further proof that Mark was addreesed t Romans. Mark is the only gospel writer who suggests that a woman can sue for divorce (Mk.10:11-12). We shall return to this debate later in our discussion.
3.1.3 Luke
Luke must have had a predominantly Greek audience in mind. Recent
not be taken to imply subscription to the particular view. Jesus was aware of the basic tenets of Jewish belief on the matter of divorce in relation to current debate. He chooses the position of Shammai as an example of a point he wishes to make. The point he wishes to make is that 'Moses allowed you to divorce according to the teachings of your elders, but I say to you that both your elders and Moses are not correct. Divorce is a sin against the natural order of things as God made them in the beginning.' cf. K.Stewart, op.cit. p.56.
" See D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo and L.Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament,p.99.
36 research 50 singles out three basic reasons for a Greek audience to the gospel of Luke. First, the gospel is dedicated to someone with a Greek name (namely, Theophilus). Second, Luke shows the relevance of salvation to Gentiles. He has particular interest in Jesus' amicable interactions with non-Jews and women. Third, Luke does not use any Aramaic expression in his gospel.
A fourth option may be in place here. Maybe Luke's gospel is also a corrective on certain Jewish stereotypes and biases which existed in his community. The Jesus of Luke freely associates with tax-collectors, Gentiles as well as women (Lk. 15:1-2). Jews held such persons in contempt and classified them as sinners or inferior, persons.
The foregoing discussion has given the reader a brief background with which to approach the respective texts. Context directly influences perception and thus interpretation. Any text that pays no attention to context is at the risk of becoming a pretext. The main concern of the next section is the divorce clauses and how
Jesus reacts to the challenge of the Pharisees. Prior to that, we propose to take a brief look at the Jewish background to marriage and divorce.
3.2 JEWISH PERSPECTIVES ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
Basic to an understanding of the Jewish background is Jesus, the
Jew. Jesus always perceived himself as a Jew, with a mission to
50 op. cit. p.118.
37 the Jews. He also confined his ministry to the "lost sheep of Israel" (Mt.10:5,6). 51 When he suddenly arrived among his own people, he was confronted with religious debates of the day, especially on certain ethical issues, of which marriage and divorce are part. Both the Matthean (5:32;19:3-11) and Markan (10:2-9) records reflect a current debate. We shall devote some space to examine the Jewish background on marriage and divorce, respectively.
3.2.1 Marriage
Gen. 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them: Gen. 2:21-24:
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 and the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother; and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The above passages suggests two important things concerning the man and the woman. First, both man and woman were created equal,
El See J.Klausner, From Jesus to Paul,pp.3-4. Jesus perceived himself within the context of Jewish salvation history. He is .the Messiah in accordance with the Torah and other writings of the Old Testament. His mission is summarised in Mt.5:17:"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil." Jesus' interpretation of the Law he claimed to have come to fulfil constituted "hard sayings" over which the religious leaders of his time, repeatedly, stumbled (for example, the Sermon on the Mountain, teaching on marriage and divorce, to name but a few).
38 though they were made from different substances.' Second, that marriage or the union between husband and wife, was instituted by God. This is implicit in the "one flesh" metaphor. Also implicit in the divine institution of marriage, is the belief that God is also a matchmaker.' Polygamy was never in the
" The man was made out of the dust of the earth (Gen.2:7) while the woman was made from the man's rib (2:22). The purpose for the creation of the woman was a companion suitable for him (2:18). It was correctly observed that the word "good" "is both an ethical and practical judgment. On the most practical grounds, it is not good for man to remain alone... but he also requires marriage for another dimension of his life: his ethical completion." See Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Woman in Jewish Law, p.22. 'Companion' suggests equality and husband or wife suggests function. The practice of females being subjugated to males was not in God's original plan. It only comes after the fall of man as judgment (Gen.3:16-19). Moshe further refutes the feminist slogan that "women are judged religiously by their contribution to the religious achievements of others, and men by their own achievements" as a perversion of the entire message of Judaism.p.24. We wish to submit that Moshe's apology is too narrow to cover the whole area of oppression of women throughout the ages.
" Israel Abrahams, "Marriages are made in Heaven", in The Jewish Marriage Anthology, (eds) P & H Goodman, correctly observes that Old Testament provides ample evidence that God was believed to be a matchmaker. The following passages are used as basis for such a belief: Gen. 24:50; Judges 14:4; Prov.19:14. Another example from Jewish apocrypha is Tobit 6:18.(p.287). Unique to the Jewish understanding of marriage is the fact that "marriage is Kiddushin or sacred institution". It is further argued that marriage is "a spiritual• relationship [between partners] sanctioned by society and sanctified by religion." For a fuller discussion on the sanctity of marriage in Jewish thought, we recommend the following articles from Jewish Marriage Anthology: S.E. Goldstein, "The Meaning of Marriage",pp.287-289; E. Mihaly, "The Jewish View of Marriage",pp.290-294; A.A. Neuman, "The Sanctity of the Married State",pp.294-295; J.H. Hertz, "Marriage in Judaism",pp.299-301; as well as, M. Joseph, " The Ideal of the Married State",pp.298-299. However, Mimi Scarf, "Marriages made in Heaven? Battered Jewish wives." in On Being A Jewish Feminist, (ed) S. Heschel, questions the validity of the belief that "Marriages are made in heaven" in view of the suffering that Jewish wives experienced at the hands of their own husbands. Her article is invaluable in the study of the treatment of Jewish woman at home, behind the doors, all in the name of God's plan.
39 original will of God.'
Prophetic literature emphasizes a metaphorical significance to the rite of marriage. Marriage is used to symbolise the mystical union between "God and his people Israel, Israel and the Torah, and Israel and the sabbath". 55 Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant of God was described as adultery (Isa.54:5, cf. Hos.2 & 3). The author of Ephesians (5:21-33) uses marriage as a metaphor of a mystical union between Christ and the Church. It is most probable that the author of Ephesians was aware of the Jewish parallel
Wisdom literature adds another dimension to the Old Testament conception to marriage. The Song of Songs is a celebration of sexual love. Proverbs depicts marriage as a good thing and
54 See Encyclopedia Judaica, p.1026. P.Trutza, "Marriage" in ZPEB, Vol. 4, further elaborates that the kind of marriage implied in the story of creation is monogamous: this displays the "expression of the will of God."(p.93) The fact divorce is nowhere hinted at suggests that marriage was meant to be a permanent union. Generally, only the wealthy and those in leadership positions took more than one wife, but this practice was only a concession, having no Biblical legislation.
' 5 See Encyclopedia Judaica, op. cit. p.1031. cf. V.P. Hamilton, "Marriage" in Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.4,pp.562- 568.Jer. 3:1 is one example of marriage as resembling a mystical union between God and Israel. Yet there is one thing that makes the passage unique: God promises to forgive Israel if they only return to him in repentance. An ambiguous text is that of Malachi 2:10-16. On the one hand, the text has a spiritual implication in that Israel forsook her God and followed after other gods. Hence, God says: "I hate divorce." In essence, he is saying: "I am compelled to do what I do not wish to do. Your unfaithfulness is forcing me divorce you." On the other hand, some scholars argue that during the period of the prophet Malachi, certain men "put away their wives so as to marry. pagans". See J.A. Thbmpson, "Marriage" in the New Bible Dictionary, (ed)J.D. Douglas,p.745. cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, op. cit. p.124.
40 finding a good wife as a blesSing from God (Prov.18:22; cf.31:10ff).
Rabbinic literature contains invaluable material which is relevant to issues under discussion. First, celibacy was
conceived as "unnatural". 56 Second, marriage fulfils one's person. Third, the unmarried man was described as spending "all
his days in sinful thoughts". 57 Thus, marriage was natural and at times compulsory due to the pressure from Levitical codes such as Lev.19:29. Elsewhere it is stated that if one is not married at the age of 20 "God curses him". The only exception is the man
who delays marriage because they wish to give themselves time to study the Torah. 58
In general, the Old Testament and the Rabbinic literature perceive marriage as "normal, and there is no word 'bachelor' in the Old Testament"".
3.2.2 Divorce
56 See S. Schechter, "Prohibition of Celibacy", The Jewish Marriage Anthology, op. cit. pp.303-304. He argues that according Rabbinic teachings, marriage was obligatory in accordance with Genesis 1:28, which instructs man and woman to "be fruitful and multiply." No man was permitted to remain single, even if their marriage was ended by divorce or death. Asceticism was strongly opposed.
57 See Encyclopedia Judaica, p.1028. The concept of celibacy as the ideal, even higher than marriage itself, is found mostly in the New Testament times. Examples are the Qumran community, Essenes as well as the ascetics Paul is addressing in 1 Cor.7.
58 ditto. See also S. Schechter, op. cit. p.303.
59 J.A. Thompson. "Marriage" in New Bible Dictionary,p.742.
41 Deut. 24:1-4:
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and•sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled: for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The above passage speaks about the procedure to be followed in case a husband wishes to or is compelled to divorce his wife. It also suggests that by this time, divorce was "accepted and
established' as a custom in Ancient Israel". 6° Freedom to remarry, especially for the wife, was not unlimited. 61 Strictly
60 See Encyclopedia Judaica, op. cit. p.124. Deut. 24:1-4 is commonly known as the "Mosaic Concession". It stands in direct contradiction with the initial plan of God as revealed in the creation story of Genesis 1:27 & 2:21-24 above. Jesus also dismisses the Mosaic Concession as inferior to the original plan of God and he gives it a secondary place "because of the hardness of your hearts"(Mt.19:8). It is important to notice that, while the legislation to divorce is so liberal in principle, it was another thing in practice. According to E. Mihaly,op. cit., "there was always strong moral and societal pressure against the dissolution of a marriage, making divorce a rare phenomenon in Jewish life throughout the age." (p.293) However, Judaism would opt for a dissolution of an unhappy marriage, since it does not fulfil the requirements of a holy marriage. Hence, Mihaly elaborates that "to punish the partners in an impossible marriage and to deny them the opportunity for fulfilment with more suitable mates would be inconceivable within Judaism." p.294
61 The levitical code prohibits the priest to marry a divorcee (Lev.21:7), but "they were forbidden to divorce their wives". See Rachel Biale, Women and the Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women's Issues in Halakhic Sources,p.71. There were other restrictions as well: first, no new marriage could be contracted within 90 days of the dissolution of the first. The first marriage still subsists during this period, in case the husband revokes his decision to send the wife away. This probatory period is another sign that divorce was not accepted
42 speaking, adultery was no ground for divorce, but rather, it was ground for annulment. 62
Rabbinic debate on the ground for divorce was based on the meaning of a rather vague statement in the Mosaic Concession : "erwar davar", literally, "unchastity" or "any unclean thing".
unconditionally. Second, the Mosaic concession does not permit the remarried woman whose second marriage was terminated ,either by death or another divorce, to return to the first husband. Marrying such a person would be similar to marrying one's close relative which is also prohibited in one of the Levitical codes (18:1-18). Third, the woman who commits adultery is prohibited to marry her lover or remarry her husband. In fact, it was not possible at all, since adultery was a capital offense whose penalty was death (Lev.20:10 cf. Jn.8:4-5). 62 See Encyclopedia Judaica, op. cit. p.1052. Marriages which are declared null and void are those which were not contracted according to the dictates of the Torah. For example, a case in which a partner commits the capital offense and is executed, such as marriage to a close relative according to Lev.18 as well as adultery. Marriage with a non-Jew was _also declared null and void. In such cases, since there was no legal marriage in the first place, there cannot be a divorce in the real sense of the word. Survivors of such invalid unions are free to marry whoever they wish to, as long as it is within dictates of the Torah. One can justifiably argue that Paul uses the same precept concerning widows whose marriages were terminated by death (1 Cor.7:39).The only grounds for divorce are almost the same for husband and wife. The wife had the right of divorce her husband if (1) he has a serious physical disability such as a contagious disease (leprosy) and (2) his conduct is dangerous to her well-being, for example, if he refuses to maintain her, habitually assaults her, is unfaithful, or transgresses the Law of Moses, e.g. he has intercourse with her while he knows very well that she is in her menstrual period. On the other hand, the husband, had the right to divorce her wife if: (1) she has a disability that makes it impossible for them to live together, such as epilepsy and leprosy, and if she has failed to have any children for a period of 10 years after marriage. (2) The conduct of the wife would force the husband to divorce her: for example, if she causes him to transgress the Mosaic laws; say she deliberately conceals to him the fact that she is in her period and he sleeps with her; if she habitually curses him or dishonours him; if there is strong suspicion that she has committed adultery,etc. Further grounds for dissolution of marriage through divorce are stated by Rachel Biale, Women and
Jewish Law,pp.90-99.
43 As we shall see later in the discussion, the schools of Shammai, Hillel and Akiba held contradictory positions regarding the controversial clause. The school of Shammai restricted divorce to "porneia" or sexual misconduct." If adultery is ruled out as a possible ground for divorce, then Rabbi Hillel's interpretation of "erwar davar" as "any kind of obnoxious behaviour or mannerisms" would be more accurate."
It is not quite certain as to what the "bill of divorcement" exactly looked like." However, its purpose is clearly spelt
63 Matthew (5:32; 19:9) makes Jesus to sound as if he agrees with the school of Shammai by using the exceptive clause: "except it be for fornication". There is no concrete code in Moses that presupposes fornication as a reason for divorce except where there has been premarital sex (Num.5:11f). Certain scholars argue that fornication, as used in the Matthean texts, includes adultery. See E.W. Vine, M.F. Unger, W. White, Jr. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. For a fuller discussion on the debate surrounding "ervar davar", see Rachel Biale, op. cit. p. 73-80.
64 See Encyclopedia Judaica,op. cit. p.124. Hillel's inclusive interpretation of "ervar davar" wins. The key differences between the two rabbis was that Shammai argued for exclusivity while Hillel opted for inclusivity. R. Biale, op. cit. further argues that there is a difference between divorcing a wife for "other unseemingly matters" and divorcing her for adultery: in the former, it is the husband's right divorce her, but in the latter, it is an 'obligation' by the Halakhah. p.78. However, the 'obligation' to divorce only existed for the man, the woman only have certain rights included in the 'ketubah' a document which the groom gives to the wife detailing his commitments and duties to her, such as "to honour, cherish...and live together like man and wife". It was normally given during the moment of betrothal).
Es The Encyclopedia Judaica has preserved an example of the bill and the kind of words written on it: "...Thus do I set thee free, release thee, and put thee aside, in order that thou mayest have permission and the authority over thyself to go and marry any man thou mayest desire. No person may hinder thee from this day onward, and thou art permitted to every man. This shall be for thee from me a bill of dismissal, a letter of release, and a document of freedom, in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel.." (p.131) Two witnesses are expected to sign the letter.
44 out in Deut.24:1-4. In Jewish law, marriage is an issue between two persons, and such is divorce. It is the husband who must hand the letter to the wife, himself or another person appointed by him. No third person is implied in the text. The role of the civil law was "to ensure that all the formalities required for divorce are carried out according to law"."
The 'bill of divorcement' guaranteed protection of the divorced woman from the first husband. He cannot remarry her. Women needed such protection since their status was lower than that of pagan women in the neighbouring nations.At times they could even be divorced against their will.
In summary, the Jewish perspectives on marriage and divorce are simple. Marriage was sacred in that it was instituted by God, on the one hand, and it symbolised the mystical union between God and Israel, on the other. Divorce was a necessary evil. The
Mosaic Concession was an attempt to protect the weaker party, especially, the woman. Before the law, both husband and wife had equal rights to sue for a divorce, although, under certain circumstances, such as adultery, he was obliged to divorce her.
The rabbinic interpretation of Moses caused no little division among the people. It was in such a situation that Jesus was born, grew up and ministered. The questions posed to him by the
Pharisees were decisive for him because, whatever side he would take, would give them ground to brand him friend or foe. As we
66 Encyclopedia Judaica,op. cit. p.125.
45 shall prove in the following sections, Jesus took a different position to all the contemporary ones.
3.3 JESUS AND THE MOSAIC LICENSE
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever- shall put away his wife for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.Mt.5:31-32. 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning its was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her that which is put away doth commit adultery. Mt.19:8-9.
A superficial reading of Mt.5:32 and 19:9 gives the impression that Jesus endorses the Mosaic concession of Deut. 24:1-4, or rather, Rabbi Shammai's exclusive interpretaion. We have indicated elsewhere that this kind of reading is deficient. The fact of the matter is that Jesus places himself directly opposite to Moses. The Mosaic concession is a divine concession and not a divine will. We have already argued in the previous chapter that legalising a wrong thing does not make it right, it only makes it tolerable and acceptable.
Scholars are still divided as to the actual meaning of the passages of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. If our proposition that
Matthew wrote to a predominantly Jewish audience is true, then
Matthew only places the debate into proper context. The views of
46 the schools of Shammai, Hillel and Akiba played a significant role in the thinking of the First Century Judaism. The views of these Rabbis ranged from the strictest to the most trivial. Jesus was thus challenged to take a side.'
Certain scholars argue that Matthew associated Jesus with the school of Shammai which perceived 'porneia' as the only grounds for divorce. 68 Still others argue that the exceptive clause is
67 A.M. Hunter, Saint Mark, p.139. He summarises the current debates among the three schools as follows: "The school of Shammai says: 'A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, "because he hath found in her indecency in anything.' The school of Hillel says: '[He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, "because he hath found in her indecency in anything."' Rabbi Akiba says:'Even if he hath found a fairer that she, for it is written, for it is written, "and it shall be if she found no favour in his eyes."' The meaning of the word translated 'unchastity' or 'porneia' in Greek is wide. The Rabbis,as certain scholars today, took the liberty to make the clause favour their own fancies. This fact is further worsened by the social status of Jewish women which was very low. According to K.Stewart, op.cit. p.60. adultery can mean anything from all manner of lewdness to idolatry and apostasy, in addition to sexual relations with any other person apart from one's legal partner. For further study of the meaning of the terms 'divorce' and 'adultery' see also W.E. Vine, M.F. Unger and Wm. White,Jr. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament words.
58 Matthew's phrasing of the Pharisees's question seems to have the position of school of Shammai in mind: "It is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause." (19:3) The phrase "for every cause", would readily get a positive answer from a disciple of Hillel, who held to an inclusive interpretation of "ervar davar". A.M. Hunter, op. cit. flatly rejects the idea that Jesus takes sides with the School of Shammai. He argues that "our Lord made no such exceptions. For him marriage was an indissoluble bond."(p.100). H. Falk, Jesus the Pharisee, correctly observes that Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees were directed against the school of Shammai who were in control of the principal institutions of Judaism in His time." (p.158). It is most probable that the questioners subscribed to the school of Shammai, with its exclusive interpretation of "ervar davar". Surprisingly, Mark does not have the phrase "for every cause" in his record of the similar debate of Jesus with the Pharisees: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" (Mk.10:2). It is not
47 only a Matthean redaction in order to accommodate Jewish thinking of his day." While there is some truth in this position, it seems to be an attempt to explain away the whole point that the Lord was trying to make. In no way does the exceptive clause weaken the fact of the indissolubility of marriage. To argue it differently, if these scholars were correct, then the Mosaic license would be equivalent to the Pauline Privilege discussed
very significant to carry the debate on the inclusion or exclusion of the phrase further. R.W. Wall, "Divorce" in ABD, vol.4, details three reasons on which Jesus differs from the rabbinic tradition of his day: First, Jesus prohibited remarriage even for the woman with the bill of divorcement. Second, he broadened the adulterous behaviour to include man's infidelity and woman's remarriage. Third, he ruled out serial monogamy.(p.218) Jesus does not side with Shammai at all. He is stricter than Shammai, hence the disciples stumbled over this hard saying (Mt.19:10).cf. A.D. Verhey, "Divorce" in ISBE,vol.l, p.976-978.
69 D.W. Shaner, op. cit. p.45 argues that Matthew inserted the exceptive clause in order to bring his reaching into line with the teaching of the Palestinian Church. L.H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics, submits that if the exceptive clause was original, Paul would have hinted to it in his teaching on marriage and divorce. Marshall further amplifies that while Jesus recognised the possibility or even the necessity of a separation between husband and wife, he seem to have held that Jesus still held that the first marriage " was still in force." (p.144) Does this imply then that Jesus does permit divorce but prohibit remarriage? If this were the case, then there would be a contradiction in the words of the Lord. If Jesus agrees that divorce annuls a marriage union in the Jewish tradition, and a bill of divorce implies that the divorced person is free to marry whomsoever they wish according to Deut. 24:1-4, either he permits remarriage or totally rejects divorce under no circumstances. For Jesus, no reason is big enough to lead to the dissolution of a consummated marriage. We wish to submit that the exceptive clause does not propagate the thought of Jesus, but that of his Jewish counterparts, whose existence he (Jesus) acknowledges and yet flatly reject. We should remember that Jesus is actually a wisdom teacher and most of his answers to burning issues always have that hook at the tail. With this in mind, the issue of Matthean redaction is no longer of great significance in present debate. L.H. Marshall, op. cit. makes a rather realistic observation regarding the offended partner's refusal to reconcile that maybe he has "already set his heart on another alliance."(p.148) cf. A. Hastings, op. cit. p.81-86.
48 in the previous chapter. However, the context of the passages at
hand does not provide room for that conclusion. 70
A more credible position regarding the exceptive clause is the one that argues for the originality of the clause. This view perceives Jesus' inclusion of the clause as a corrective to a contemporary interpretation of Deut. 24:1-4. Here Jesus recognises the Mosaic license as well as its rabbinic interpretations, though only in principle and not in practice.' Hence, despite "the hardness of your hearts" as a reason for the concession, there is yet another reason of equal
importance: protection of the woman from a capricious husband. 72
7° We have argued elsewhere that Paul's audience consisted of Christian marriages and well as mixed marriages. It would be too much inferencing to imagine mixed marriages in the Matthean narrative. The Jewish community was relatively exclusive and the Gentiles were not fully accepted into the Church until after the the second half of the First Century, and that not without reservations from the Jewish Christians. While the three schools differed sharply on the grounds for divorce, they however agreed on its validity.
71 The apostle Paul follows the same routine in dealing with contemporary theories which prevailed among his audience. He starts off by acknowledging what is occupying his hearers thinking and then move to what they do not realize. It is just the question of relativization come into play again. Cf. 1 Cor.7:lf above.
72 Women needed protection. The main object of the Mosaic Concession was to protect the woman who had no social status at all. Jesus rejects the current interpretation of the law which was "from the husband's point of view".See F.F. Bruce,The Hard Sayings Jesus, pp.58-59. The Mosaic licence is thus a judgment against the man. In this context, stubbornness is blamed upon the man and not the woman who is being sent away. cf . G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament,p.125; L.Morris, Matthew, p.120; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1 p.111; H.Falk, Jesus the Pharisee,pp.158-161; D. Hill, Matthew,p.124-125; W.F. Albright & L.S. Mann, Matthew,p.64; M.Davis, Matthew,p.54; W. Schrage, The Ethics of the NT,p.97; R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition,p.149;F.W. Beare, Matthew,p.153, K. Stewart, Divorce and Remarriage,p.52. P.Trutza, "Marriage" in
49 While the bill of divorce implies the possibility of, and at times, the necessity of divorce, it does not permit the first husband to claim the wife after she has contracted the second marriage. Jesus only uses this statement of facts as a starting point and not as a legislation or final word. 73
What Jesus says is that the second marriage is invalid as long as the first husband is still alive. In essence, he says that remarriage is equivalent to living in sin. A bill of divorce only annuls a marriage union in principle and not in practice. In practice, the separated persons are still husband and wife. This reasoning is in line with Paul's teaching in the Corinthian Church. The only option left for the couple that separates, is to reunite or remain single (1 Cor.7:10).
Jewish tradition does not permit the woman to initiate a divorce.' Harrington correctly observes that the "man" in the
ZPEB,vol.4, p.100.
73 D.H. Juel, Mark, correctly observes that Jesus offers his view over and above Moses and his disciples "on his own authority, without citing a precedent."(p.139). cf. L.Goppelt, op.cit. p.111. Jesus does not place himself under the authority of Moses, but he stands on the same platform with Moses, though not to make a new law but to give a correct interpretation of the Law of God. He does not uphold the Mosaic Concession, inspired as it were. The point that Christ making things so hard is to prove to them that they do not need a new law but a new heart according to the prophecy of Ezekiel 36:25-27.cf. L.Goppelt,op.cit.p.11l.
" It might be incorrect to maintain that the prohibition for a woman to sue for a divorce was absolute. William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, argues that according to Jewish law " a woman may be divorced with or without her will, but the man only with his will. The only grounds on which a woman could claim a divorce were if her husband became a leper, if he engaged in a disgusting trade such as that of a tanner, if he ravished a virgin or if he accused her of pre-nuptial sin."(246) L.H. Morris, op. cit. goes
50 context of the prohibition to divorce refers to "the husband and not a third party, like a judge". 75 Thus, Jesus' ruling transcends and relativises even the Torah. 76 If Jesus does not promote the Mosaic Concession, which would we say is his position regarding marriage and divorce? Elsewhere we have indicated that for Jesus, remarriage is equivalent to adultery since divorce does not annul a marriage union in principle. At this point we can conclude that: if adultery is sin and remarriage is equivalent to adultery; then remarriage is sin.
This is a hard saying! Instead of answering the questions we have accumulated so far, it makes them more complex. The situation seems to be a hopeless one. Divorce is a reality and the Jewish Law lays out the procedure to be followed. How can Jesus prohibit
on to explain how the woman goes about in filling a divorce. There were actually two procedures; first, she could ask her husband to divorce her ( that is, sent her back to her father's house). Second, she could "petition the court, and if her plea was accepted, the court would direct the husband to divorce her."(p.120) Cf. W. Schrage, op. cit. p.91; F.W. Beare,.op.cit. p.386.
75 See D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, p.273.cf. F.F.Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus,p.59. Bruce further amplifies that "it is by God's ordinance that the two become one; men are given no authority to modify that ordinance." He goes on to argue that verse 12 of Mark 10 was not original to Jesus but it was added as the Church penetrated the Gentile world. A common example of women initiating divorce in Gentile circles was that of Herodias who divorced her first husband to marry another.
76 See also D.H. Juel, Mark,p.140. We wish to submit that the whole Torah is actually a concession. Jesus' antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount are just an example.The law was given after the Fall of man. It is a reaction to man's fallen state. The Apostle repeatedly argues that the Law was never given as a deterrent of the sinner; rather it was given to prove to man that, on his own accord, man cannot put himself right with God (See Rom.3:19f; 2:20f ; Ga1.3:19f). The ideal state is the one that man was in before he was corrupted by satan.
51 what the rabbis, including Moses, have made provision for? We
cannot stop at this point. Let us proceed in our quest. We hope to arrive at a more agreeable position which the Lord takes.
Jesus' fuller reply is found in Mt.19:4-6: 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined, let no man put asunder.
This seems to be the position of the Lord as interpreted by the
Apostle Paul (1 Cor.7:10). Jesus draws his argument from the pre- Mosaic period. He goes back to the time before man became a sinner, a failure. The thrust of Jesus' argument of the equality of man and woman at creation is significant, but more significant is the fact of the divine institution of marriage. Marriage is, first of all, a spiritual union in which the two person 'become one flesh'. We have indicated elsewhere what the significance of marriage is to the Jewish mind.
The term flesh, in this context, is better translated 'being', 'soul' or 'person'. This goes beyond the physical union which is but a celebration of the spiritual union of two hearts.
Matthew 19:6b: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder," is more of a pronouncement of fact, than just a prohibition. On the superficial level, man has been putting
'asunder' at will, through bills and legislations, since for
them, marriage implied nothing more than an exchanging of vows,
52 which can be revoked at the slightest provocation. What the Lord pronounces is that what God has joined together, no man is able to separate in principle.
The practice of divorce can not annul the divine institution. It is not proof to the fact that God has failed but rather, that man has failed through his stubbornness. It would be a contradiction on the part of the Lord to imply by this verse that divorces never occur. The practice of divorce is further proof that the law of God is right and perfect, but man is imperfect.
3.4 WHO SHOULD INITIATE A DIVORCE?
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Mk.10:11-12.
Does it really matter who initiates divorce? Jewish tradition would respond with an affirmation However, in a Gentile environment, such as the Roman situation, it did not really matter. The Markan version of Jesus' answer to the Pharisees seems to imply that either husband or wife does initiate a divorce in accordance with the societal norms and values
(Mk.10:1-12). We have seen in the previous section that Matthew leaves no doubt as to who initiates a divorce. In Matthew, the address is directed to the husband, since according to Jewish tradition, the marriage was generally at his discretion.
53 Jewish tradition demanded that a man ought to send an unchaste wife away. However, it has been indicated elsewhere that women are not absolutely locked out of determining the future of their marriage. Jewish women also possessed some rights.Although the Markan version is, in many respects, similar to Matthew 19:1-12, there are some slight but crucial differences. In Mark, both men and women are implied to have the capacity to sue for a divorce.
Houlden arguing from the point of view of Mark's audience being Romans, maintains that Roman women of the First Century AD were permitted by law to sue for a divorce. 77 He further maintains that by the end of the First Century the Christian Church had already contextualised the teaching of the Lord on divorce "into four distinct ways".'
Another feature of the Markan version is that he only associates divorce with adultery where remarriage is concerned (Mk.10:11-
77 J. Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament, p.74-77, argues that by prohibiting divorce on the basis of the Lord's word is confirming Paul. Although there is no evidence of mixed marriages in the Markan discourse, what is certain is that Mark is addressing the Pharisees in the presence of the crowd. Thus, Mark's is a theological statement rather than a dogma. op.cit. p.80. The "four ways" refers to the Pauline, Markan, Matthean and Lucan versions of the teaching of Jesus on divorce. All are recognised as valid teachings of the Lord - which have been contextualised in order to meet the needs of the relevant communities. cf . S. Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority,pp.117-120. The move was necessary since the gospel was spreading in predominantly Gentiles lands, especially through the ministry of Paul. Observed from another angle, Paul's teaching are a concession to rigorous traditional Judaism. Elsewhere Paul intimates that the Church is the true spiritual Israel (Rom.9).
54 12). 7' Again, in this relation Mark follows Paul in maintaining that "but and if" divorce does occur, the two Christians must either reconcile or remain single (1 Cor.7:10-11). Does the Markan rendering imply that divorce without remarriage is not sinful? The answer to the question is not an easy one. In the first place,permission to divorce itself presupposes remarriage. Jewish tradition necessitates remarriage after divorce certain reasons already outlined above.
We argued elsewhere that one of Paul's motivations for recommending, among others, divorce without remarriage, is Parousia. For Paul, marriage was a potential hindrance to an undivided service to God. Mark omits the eschatological aspect as a motivation for singleness. He totally omits the discussion on celibacy which in Matthew follows directly after the hard saying of 'no divorce' from the Lord (Mt.19:10).
However, the bottom line according to Jesus is: whoever initiates a divorce sends the other partner into adultery since an annulment of a marriage union makes remarriage conceivable. Both divorce and adultery violate God's initial plan, thus both are
79 W Schrage, op. cit. argues that Mark might be having the Seventh Commandment in mind in his rendering of the prohibition of divorce (p.96)
" K. Stewart, op. cit. makes an interesting analysis of the word adultery. One of the meanings of the words is 'apostasy' or 'idolatry'. This is the spiritualised definition of the word. His basic thesis is that a person who commits adultery has first of all, fallen in their relationship with God. That fallenness
55 The Lucan rendering of the Lord's teaching on divorce is most precise :
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Lk.16:18
The most important feature of this rendering is that Luke forbids divorce without making any exception. Many scholars believe that this version is the most original.' is amplified in the physical act of cheating on their partner. However, Ken Stewart's thesis may create more problems than it purports to solve. If adultery terminates ones allegiance with God, then that creates a mixed marriage in which the Pauline Privilege will be in force. The marriage is nullified by adultery. cf . O.A. Piper, The Biblical View of sex and Marriage. He argues that Jesus "interprets the permission to divorce his wife ... as a divine concession to human weakness which is unnecessary in the age of the Spirit." (p.141) See also D. Hill, op. cit. p.125; W.F.Albright & L.S. Mann, op.cit. p.64. If the Markan version is original, and Paul was aware of it, then the other motivation fot Paul to prohibit remarriage and to recommend celibacy, in case divorce occurs, is Mark - who acknowledges the reality of divorce, though he prohibits second marriage. Conversely, nothing is said about reconciliation: a position which the apostle Paul recommends to divorced or separated Christian couples.
ai J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, argues that Luke's teaching 1s . cast completely from the Old Testament or Jewish point of view. Both the first husband who puts away the wife and the second one who marries her commit adultery.In contrast to Mark, Luke places the charge of adultery not on the woman. Only the male partner is guilty of adultery.(p.1120) W. Schrage, op.cit. observes that Lk. 16:18 and Mt.5:32, though independent renderings, they are nearest to Q: both equate remarriage to adultery . Divorce is not a license to remarry but it does necessitate it since not all persons possess the gift of celibacy. It is Matthew alone who raises the issue of celibacy as another option, for those "to whom it is given" and are "able to receive it." (19:11-12) We propose that in the list of those remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of God, divorcees are included. V.L. Wimbush, op. cit. argues that celibacy as an "ideal" state next to marriage, increased strongly during the Greco-Roman periods and were associated with "cultic behaviour".p.2. During the time of Jesus there were already several Jewish movements which were characterised by certain ascetic behaviours such as the Essenes and the Qumran community. As a travelling charismatic leader, Jesus was often associated
56 3.5 THIS IS A HARD SAYING!
To leave this topic without looking for links with real life practice would be doing injustice to the whole debate. It was correctly observed that while Jesus does not institute a new law," his demands are too hard if not actually impossible to put into practice. The hardness of the saying cannot be denied. The spirit of the law that Jesus is propagating is summarised in Mt.22:37-40:
And Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the•Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all they soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment . And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Jesus comes with the law of Love. Love for God and neighbour. One of the attributes of true love is forgiveness." Adultery no with such ascetic groups.
" By rejecting popular interpretations of the Torah, Jesus does not lay down a new law. None of the Four renderings above are to be taken as such(Mk. 10:1-12; Mt. 5:32; 19:1-12; Lk. 16:18). What he does is to uphold the law so that it can produce the fruit it was intended to in the beginning (Mt.5:17). What he emphasises is the spirit of the law - not the head but the heart. W. Schrage, op. cit. argues that Jesus' interpretation of marriage is "the appropriate contemporary expression of the protection and respect proper to a woman, who had no standing in Jewish marital law." p.97. cf. K.Stewart, op.. cit. p.62; L.Goppelt, op.cit. p.111. The issue of the indissolubility of marriage is still a highly debatable one between the Catholics and Protestants. Next to it is the status of mixed marriages within the Christian Church today. Space does not allow for more details. See A. Hastings, Christian Marriage in Africa (Abridged Edition), pp.30-31.
" J.E. Adams, A Theology Christian Counselling, makes an exhaustive study of the term forgiveness from it Hebrew and Greek origins. According to Adams, to 'forgive' means 'to refrain from giving (one what he deserves - a penalty or punishment of some sort).' Human beings are sinners and cannot be handled by acceptance. Forgiveness is granted only to those who would ask for it - it is not automatic. If divorce is sin, then the best
57 longer falls into the category of the unpardonable sins; although it used to be in the Mosaic Law. It was argued earlier on that according to Levitical Law, adultery was among the capital offenses. The Lord Jesus singled out only one sin as 'unpardonable' and that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt.12:31-32). All other sins are pardonable. We would do well to follow his example. Two practical examples of Jesus meeting with persons guilty of adultery are recorded, although not in the Synoptic Gospels (John 4:16-18 and 8:1-11). 84
Luke 15 gives one of the most elaborate teaching of the Lord on God's attitude to sinners. Sinners need forgiveness and all God's people in the present dispensation are forgiven people. As in the parable of the lost son, sin is an offense both against man and God. In the same vein, adultery and/or fornication are offenses done against man (sexual unfaithfulness) and against God (spiritual apostasy). We submit that Jesus words to all these
way to handle it is to confess it to the forgiver who would guarantee a clearance of the guilt. (pp.188-195)
84 The highest probability is that the Samaritan woman in John 4 had had five marriages which did not work out. All of them ended up in some situation which led to its annulment. Jesus statement that the current man in her life is not her husband may not be restricted to mean that she lives in sin, but from a Jewish point of view, to which the woman subscribes as an Israelite, remarriage while the first husband is still alive is equivalent to adultery. Thus, before God, the husband is not hers. The second - incidence is that of a woman caught in the very act of adultery. The Jews were right by law to stone her, but they made a blunder in asking Jesus. They did not know that he would expose their need for mercy as much as the woman needed. In both cases, the Lord does not condemn any of the persons, neither does he condone their actions. Rather, he grants them forgiveness on the basis of their repentant attitude - whether verbally expressed or not.
58 marginalised persons, because of their unfortunate marital experiences, would be: "Neither do I condemn thee: go,and sin no more." (Jn.8:11)
3.6 SUMMARY
The foregoing discussion has established a number of propositions regarding the Synoptic perspectives. First, it has been established that the audience which each evangelist addressed himself to were unique except that all of them were Christian. There are no evidences of mixed marriages and the context of the discourses do not make any hint in that direction. However, we do recognise the possibility of an adjustment being made by the evangelist, of the exact words of Jesus on marriage and divorce.
Each evangelist audience played a determining factor in the presentation of the gospel message. The ministry of Jesus was also confined to "the lost sheep of Israel" which did not
tolerate mixed marriages, in the first place. Matthew wrote for Jews, Mark wrote for Romans and Luke for Greeks. 85
Second, Jesus or rather the evangelist, adjusts his teaching to
the socio-historical context of the audience. For the Jewish,
current debate on marriage and divorce was a primary concern. The paper has indicated that Jesus refused to associate himself with
any of the contemporary schools of thought. His position is so
radical such that he challenges even the Mosaic concession which
85 We do not propose that the groups were homogeneous. The grouping is done on a majoritarian rule.
59 favoured the male over the female. On his own authority, he goes back to the Creation story where God made both man and woman equal, and sanctified marriage (Gen.1:27; 2:24).
Jesus' key objection to divorce is based on the spiritual significance of a marriage union. His position is in line with the Jewish perspective. After all, Jesus was himself a Jew. The Mosaic concession is relative. Only the will of God expressed in Genesis is the ideal and the absolute. . The married state is the ideal state and celibates are harshly condemned.
A celibate life does not have a Biblical origin. According to
Jesus, celibacy is a gift only to some; the rest are expected to marry, and at an early age.In rabbinic tradition, celibacy was unnatural, in that it broke God's command to "be fruitful and multiply". The fact that Jesus himself was not yet married at about 30 should have been met with mixed feelings in the First
Century. On the one hand, those who held to the traditional belief of being fruitful and multiplying, might have perceived him as a lawbreaker. On the other hand, the ascetic movements should have found a friend in this man. Space does not allow to establish his position as regards the three conditions under which one would opt for celibacy (Mt.19:11-12). 86
Third, while Rabbinic Judaism agreed on the fact and even the
86 Recent scholarship is attempting to reconstruct the early life of Jesus and his probable affair with Mary Magdeline. There is also a legend about Paul and Thecla. Such theories, though interesting to follow, do not have direct relevance to present debate. Thus, we will not pursue the issue further.
60 necessity for divorce, they however differed on the grounds. Jesus rejects the debate on grounds for divorce as irrelevant and he points out that,as regards the perfect will of God, there are no grounds whatsoever for the dissolution of a marriage union. For him, both marriage and celibacy are gifts. Those who enter into the married state must do so with a decision to remain there at all costs. He seems to put God's will above man's comfort, as it was the case with rabbinic Judaism. For rabbinic Judaism, mutual satisfaction was one of the key conditions for maintaining a marriage union. The Mosaic Concession is very liberal because its concerns are more practical than ideal.
Divorce, which implies remarriage in Judaism, is equivalent to adultery, in both the physical and spiritual meaning of the term, according to Jesus. Both the first husband, who sends the wife away, and the second one, who marries the divorced woman, commit adultery. On the one hand, it is the offense against the woman of his youth, and on the other, it is a violation of God's institution.
Fourth, Jesus emphasises, not only the equality of man and woman as at creation, but also endorses the sanctity and permanency of a marriage union. Divorce only terminates the union in practice, but in principle, and in God's mind, the two persons are still husband and wife.
Fifth, Jesus does not institute a new law; rather he fulfils the
Torah and upholds its principles. All the recommendations he
61 makes in the four renderings we have been studying are not laws. They all point to the ideal state from which man fell after he first sinned. This ideal state has been partly restored in the dispensation of the Spirit. Believers are enabled by the Spirit to keep the Law. Hence, no concession is made. Divorce is sinful. Marriage is good.
Sixth, we have seen how that the moral demands of Christ are so high such that even the disciples shrank from their rigour. The law of God (Mosaic Law) was not given to make people right with God, but to prove to man that man is a sinner The practice of divorce, among others, is a constant reminder that man is a sinner. We have also indicated how that the Torah itself is a relativised will of God and not a perfect one. Jesus in opposed to any flimsy interpretation of the Law of God in order to gratify the lust of certain persons, especially males.
Finally, the spirit of the law that Jesus brings is the spirit of Love. Love is a giver by nature. One of the gifts of love is forgiveness. If divorce is a sin, its remedy is the one God provided for all sinners: forgiveness. Jesus' forgiving attitude to all types of sinners is an example to be copied.
Thus, the Synoptics unequivocally teach the indissolubility of marriage without making any concessions. This teaching is put forward in the form of a debate between Jesus and the teacher of the law who held to their own interpretations. Over the centuries the Church has contextualised these teaching of the Lord in order
62 to formulate policies governing marriage and the family. Space does not allow for a detailed record of how both Protestants and Catholics apply this teaching of the Lord.
63 CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS
The foregoing discussion has raised more problems than it has answered. After all, this has been the primary aim of the research: to raise the questions and make them clear to the reader and scholar for further debate. We revisited the theoretical framework which forms a basis for practice within the Christian Church. The conclusions arrived at in this brief study are open - ended for further research. In this chapter, we shall tabulate our findings:
First, we have seen how socio-historical context has direct influence on reception and transmission of revelation. The mission of Paul and Jesus are important to look at together. Paul was called to work among the Gentiles, non-Jews. His Jewish background did not become a liability to his ministry. Instead, he turned it into an invaluable asset. Jewish culture was a solid rock upon which his doctrine was based. His address to both
Christian marriages and mixed marriages is interesting. His concession to the rest" shows that he understands that the 'command of the Lord' is only effective upon those who belong to the Lord. The issue of the indissolubility of marriage, as he understands it, holds to those who believe.
64 Those who do not have the Torah, do have conscience (Rom.l & 2). Conversely, Jesus' ministry had been confined to Jewish people, who had a considerably exclusive law. We propose that, had Jesus been in Paul's boots, he would have made similar concessions and vice versa.
Second, the self-identity of the vessels of God also plays a crucial role in delievery. Paul had to develop a policy which guided his life and ministry in order to avoid imposing Jewish stereotypes upon Gentiles (1 Cor.9:19-23). Jesus also lived up to his calling. He confined himself to "the lost sheep of Israel" (Mt.10:5,6). Jesus deals with the Mosaic concession in some detail, because it occupied the minds of his listeners. Marriage is not a Mosaic institution, to be annulled at will. It is not at the dsiposal of the offended party. Therefore, no husband can separate what God has fused together. We believe that this is the command of the Lord which Paul cites as an authority in his prohibition of divorce for the Christian couple.
The apostle Paul is equally aware of the background of his audience and the current ascetic movements. Nowhere does he cite the Mosaic concession as regards divorce. It would be irrelevant in the Gentile environment. This point is closely related to the next one.
Third, both Paul and Jesus employ almost the same approach to the problems at hand. They both agree with the contemporary view, though only in principle. Paul acknowledges the validity of the view that "it is not good to touch a woman". Neither does Jesus
65 reject the objection that "it is not good to marry" (1 Cor.7:l & Mt.19:10, respectively). In the Pauline context, the statement included terminating an already consummated marriage, as certain women had already divorced their husband. However, neither does Paul nor Jesus, leave the issue open. Paul teaches that mundane relationships do not add to or substract from ones relationship with God. Celibacy is a gift to some. Marriage is natural, although it is potential hindrance, (1) one cannot fully devote their life to God, because of the earthly concerns that goes with a married state. (2) Since the earthly institutions are imperfect, marrying exposes one to the possibilities of divorce, which is contrary to the will of God, according to Jesus.
In the same vein, Jesus begins with the Mosaic concession, which was a topic of great concern at the time. He acknowledge its legitimacy, but continues to show how that that the same concession is actually a liability to them, instead of an asset.
It is a continuous proof against their stubbornness and that they are not as holy as they think. The Mosaic Concession is not a thing to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of. Jesus does not identify with any of the three schools of thought of his day.
What the people needed was not a stricter code of law that would deter them from breaking God's law. What they needed was a change of heart. The gifts of acceptance with God are not merited.
Repentance and acceptance of God's unmerited favour was the secret to true holiness. Jesus emphasis of the ideal plan of God constitutes a hard saying for the audience.
66 It was observed that both Paul and Jesus were celibate, for reasons not very clear. This fact poses a problem of its own in that one finds it difficult to reconcile their lifestyles with the preaching. However, perceiving them from the point of view of God's servants, sort of lessen the tension. Paul's wish is that "all men were as I myself" (1 Cor.7:7) and Jesus' states that one of the demands of true discipleship is abandonment ofof all relationships, including "wife" (Lk.14:25-26). The subject requires a research of its own. Suffice it to say that ascetic movements were on a rise during this period and such statements from both the apostle Paul and Jesus could be mistook for a call to abandonment marriages.
Fourth, both Paul and Jesus 'relativise' all human relationships Marriage is good, but it may not be sought at all costs. The Jewish tradition recommends a divorce rather than tolerance for a marriage that does not work. Jewish permission of divorce presupposes remarriage. Jesus prohibits remarriage on the basis that divorce only dissolves a marriage in principle, hence the second marriage is not recognised by God. Paul does allow separation in the case of mixed marriages, provided it is the unbelieving partner who seeks it.
For consummated marriages, Paul recommends that the couple continue to live together and raise their children up. The believers must remain in the 'state' in which the Lord has found them, since sex does not affect spirituality; this includes sexual relations with an unbelieving partner. Thus, for Paul, the
67 married state is good, as well as the single state. However, one
should not seek divorce in order to remain celibate, because this will lead the other 'weaker' partner to seek remarriage, which, by implication though, is sinful. Jesus said not word concerning mixed marriages, since (1) they were not recognised in the Jewish culture; and (2) he consciously confined his earthly ministry to the lost sheep of Israel."
Finally, we have observed one key difference between the Pauline and synoptic perspectives on marriage and divorce: that the latter emphasizes principle, while the former emphasises practice. Jesus is not addressing a specific problem, he is just giving an opinion as a contribution to current debate. His view is not practical, because no human could live up to those demands
of divorceless life. Jesus' is a foundation. For Jesus, the whole Law of Moses is a concession. If the people of God loved God enough, they would hate to break any of His ethical codes. But man did not seem to care, hence the blame is put on man and not on God.
Conversely, Paul is addressing a real life situation. Certain
Christian women had already left their husbands, others were
living in sin and still others were planning to terminate a consummated marriage. There were also those who were planning to marry, but did not know if it was ideal. Young widows were not certain of their fate. Ascetic tendencies as well as an overrealized eschatological perspective were at the bottom of the
Corinthian problem. It is not certain as to the actual cause of
68 such tendencies, but we have already indicated in previous discussion that the secular theories were finding their way into the Christian Community.
In principle, it did not matter who initiated a divorce. Divorce was sin because it necessitates remarriage. In practice, Paul says, if the unbelieving partner wishes to divorce, the believing one must not try to resist. In the Pauline context, the believer is prohibited to initiate a divorce at all. For the Christian marriage, regardless the reasons for a divorce, if the couple separates, they have only two options: to reconcile or else to stay single. Conversely, the synoptic teaching says that both the one who is being sent away and the one sending away, are equally guilty. Both become instruments for remarriage, which is, in principle, equivalent to the sin of adultery.
God never tolerates sin. It must either be punished or forgiven.
Forgiveness makes salvation possible. Jesus preferred to forgive, than to condemn. This is the attitude which the Christian Church need to adopt. How far this forgiveness should go, may not be proposed in this research. It will require an independent study.
Again, it was not the intention of this research to propagate one theory at the expense of the other.
More questions remain yet unanswered, particularly those which surround the practicality of the prohibition to divorce and/or to remarry. Scholars are divided as regards the status of the
69 divorcee. Is he or she the worst sinner who must be stoned? Are those persons in their second or third marriages living in sin? If divorce is a sin, does it fall into the category of the pardonable or the unpardonable sins? Is it always possible to reconcile after legally ending a marriage?
These questions, and many more, leave the theologian with a heavier task to do: that of contextualizing the teaching of the Bible so that it liberates, not bind, the people.
70 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahams, I 1965. 'Marriages are made in Heaven', in Goodman, P & H (eds) The Jewish Marriage Anthology. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Adams, J A 1979. A Theology of Christian Counselling. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. Albright, W.F. & Mann,L.S. 1971. 1 Corithians. New York: Doubleday. Banks,R. 1975. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. London: CUP.
Barclay, W. 1954. The Gospel of Mark. Edinburgh: St.Andrews Press. Barrett, C.K. 1968. I Corinthians. London: A & C Clarke. Barrett, C.K. 1974. Paul: An Introduction to his Thought. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Beare, F.W. 1981. The Gospel according to Matthew. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Beare, F.W. 1962. St. Paul and His Letters. London: Adam and Charles Black.
Bearsdlee, W.A. 1994. 1 Corinthians. Missouri: Chalice Press. Berkovits, E. 1990. Jewish Women in Time and Torah. New Jersey:
KTAV Publishing House.
Biale,R. 1984. Women and the Jewish Law. New York: Schocken Books.
Bornkamm,G. 1975. Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Brooks, S.H. 1987. Matthew's Community. Sherfield:JSOT Press.
Bruce, F.F. 1983. The Hard Sayings of Jesus. London: Hodder &
71 Stoughton.
Carson,A.A., Moo,D.J., and Morris,L. 1992. An Introduction to the New Testament. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
Collins, R.F. 1992. 'Marriage', in Freedman, D N (ed) Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4. New York: Doubleday.
Conzelmann, H. 1975. 1 Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Culpepper, R.A. 1983. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Davis, M. 1987. Matthew. Sherfield:JSOT Press.
De Pomerai,R. 1930. Marriage: Past, Present and Future. London: Constable and Company.
Dungan, D.L. 1971. The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Du Rand, J.A. 1991. Johannine Perspectives: Introduction to the Johannine Writings - Part I. Johannesburg: Orion. Falk, H. 1985. Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press.
Filson, V.F. 1960. A Commentary on the Gospel according Matthew. London: A & C Clarke.
Fitzmyer, J.A. 1985. The Gospel According to Luke. New York: Doubleday.
Fortna, R. 1988. The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor. Edinburgh: T & T. Clark.
Freeman, D. 1979. 'Divorce', in Bromiley,G.W (ed), Internatinal Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol.1. Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Furnish, V.P.1979. The Moral Teaching of Paul. Nashville:
72 Abingdon Press.-
Furnish, V.P. 1968. Theology and Ethics in Paul New York: Abingdon Press. Goldstein, S E 1965, 'The Meaning of Marriage', in Goodman, P & H (eds) The Jewish Marriage Anthology op. cit. Goppelt, L. 1981. (trans. J. Alsup) Theology of the New Testament. Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing House. Grunlan,S.A. 1984. Marriage and the Family: A Christian Perspective. Michigan: Academie Books.
Hamilton, P. 1992 'Marriage', in Freedman, D N (ed), Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4. New York: Doubleday.
Harrington, D.J. 1991. The Gospel of Matthew. Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Hastings, A. 1973. Christian Marriage in Africa. London: SPCK. Hertz, J H 1965, 'Marriage in Judaism', in Goodman, .P & H (eds),
The Jewish Marriage Anthology, op. cit.
Hill, D. 1972. The Gospel of Matthew. Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Houlden, J.L. 1973. Ethics and the New Testament. London:Mombrays.
Hunter, A.M. 1949. Saint Mark. London: SCM.
Joseph, M 1965. 'The Ideal of the Married State' in Goodman, P
& H, The Jewish Marriage Anthology, op. cit. Juel, D.H. 1990. Mark. Augsburg: Fortress Press.
Kaiser, WC 1983. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Michigan: Academie Books.
Keck, L.H. & Furnish, V.P. 1984. The Pauline Letters. Nashville:Abingdon Press.
73 Kleusner,J. 1944. From Jesus to Paul. New York: Macmillan Company.
Kubo S. 1975. A Reader's Greek-English Lexicon. Michigan: Andrews University Press.
Ladd, G.E. 1974. A Theology of the New Testament. Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Marshall, L.H. 1960. The Challenge of New Testament Ethics. London: Macmillan.
Meiselman, Moshe 1978. Jewish Woman in the Jewish Law. New York: Yeshivah University Press.
Mihaly, E 1965. ' The Jewish View of Marriage' in Goodman, P & H, The Jewish Marriage Anthology, op. cit.
Moffatt, J. 1958. 1 Corinthians. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Morris, L. 1972. The Gospel according to Matthew. Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Neuman, A A 1965. 'The Sanctity of the Married State', in
Goodman, P & H (eds), The Jewish Marriage Anthology, op. cit.
Orr, W.F. & J.A. Walther, 1976. 1 Corinthians. New York: Doubleday.
Piper, O.A. 1960. The Biblical View of Sex and Marriage. Digswell Place: J. Nisbet & Co.
Prat, S.J. 1926. The Theology of St. Paul. (trans. Stoddard,J.L.) London:Burns Oates and Washburne Ltd.
Robertson, A. & Plummer A. 1963. 1 Corinthians. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Russell,D.S. 1967. The Jews from Alexander to Herod. (London:OUP. Russell, D.S. 1964. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. London:SCM.
74 Scarf, M 1983. 'Marriages made in Heaven? Battered Jewish wives',
in Heschel, S (ed), On Being A Jewish Feminist. New York: Schoncken Books. Schereschwsky, Ben-Zion, 1971. 'Divorce' and 'Marriage', in Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd. Schrage, W. (trans. Green,D.E.) The Ethics of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Schnackenburg, R. 1965. The Moral teaching of the New Testament. New York: The Seabury Press. Shaner,D.W. 1967. A Christian View of Divorce. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Simon, W.G.H. 1959. 1 Corinthians. London:SCM. Stewart, K. 1984. Divorce and Remarriage. USA: Whitaker House. Talbert, C.H.1987. Reading Corinthians. New York: Crossroads. Thayer, J.H. 1981. The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.
Theissen, G. 1982. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia:Fortress Press.
Thieselton, A.C.1988. 'Realized Eschatology' in New Testament Studies, vo1.24,pp.510-526.
Thompson,J.A. 1988. 'Marriage', in Douglas, J D (ed), New Bible Dictionary. Leicester: IVP.
Trutza, P. 1975. 'Marriage',in Tenney,M C (ed), The Zondervan
Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vols. 2 & 4. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
Verhey, A. 1984. The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Verhey, A.D.1979. 'Divorce', in Bromiley, G.W. (ed) Internatinal
75 Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol.1. Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Vine, E.W., Unger, M.F. & White, W. Jr., 1985. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Wall, R.W. 1992. 'Divorce', in Freedman, D N (ed), Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.2. New York:Doubleday.
Westerholm,S. 1978. Jesus and the Scribal Authority. Lund: CWK GLEERUP.
Whiteley, D.E.H 1974. The Theology of Saint Paul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wimbush, V.L. 1987. Paul: The Worldly Ascetic. Macon: Mercer University Press.
Wire, A.C. 1990. The Corinthian Women Prophet. Minneapolis:Fortress Press.
Witherington III,B. 1988. Women in the Earliest Churches. New York: CUP.
Witherington III, B. 1995 Conflict and Community in Corinth Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Young, R. 1879. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.
76