Moses and Divorce

[Reuben_J]

Thanks. And thanks for bringing this up. I am not at all saying couples do not have to go through a wedding ceremony (church wedding, for Christians). Of course, propriety dictates there should be a ceremony. Like you correctly stated, the marriage has to be “proclaimed” and there would need to be witnesses. And I would even add that since we are commanded to be subject to the civil powers of government (Tit. 3:1), the marriage should only be by legal marriage license.

The point I was trying to make is this. The Bible tells us that, 1) God alone joins the marriage bond (“what God has joined together…”), 2) marriage started at Creation, 3) marriage applies to all mankind, and 4) when a man and a woman [of marriageable age] “leave mother and father” (leave their parents’ home and authority to establish a third family) and “cleave together “(sincerely and solemnly covenant with each other to take each other as husband and wife) and “become one flesh” (consummate that bond in sexual intercourse), their union is bound by God for as long as they both shall live. Now, if all these things are true, then God binds two people in marriage regardless of whether there is a ceremony or not, or whether the ceremony is performed by a priest, minister, rabbi, Muslim cleric, judge, or other human.

Saying that only the church binds the marriage, or that God uses the church to bind a marriage, contradicts these plain teachings in Scripture. For example, on point 1, God then is not the only one who ties the knot because He needs the church to do this for Him. On point 2, Adam and Eve then were never married; and so too were the millions who have lived and died as husband and wife from Adam to Moses (and that’s including Abraham). On the third point, marriages then would not apply to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-Christian couples, which essentially mean 1) they are living in sin (fornication), and 2) if they convert and marry another in a church wedding, they can do so without committing adultery. Lastly, on point 4, we deny the truth of God’s Word and make Christ a liar, for there is in fact one more element needed for God to bind a marriage – that of a church ceremony. We would only be consistent with biblical teaching if we say it is God alone who binds marriage.

As for there being a problem with this in actual practice, I can’t see where the problem lies. If a man and a woman say they are husband and wife, then we treat them as such. If they say they are “living together” or one is the other’s live-in partner, then we regard them as unmarried people and use the woman’s maiden name in addressing her, because that’s the custom. When a legal matter is involved, we check for a marriage certificate, or whatever document the state says makes a marriage legal and we go by that. In short, we don’t really have to know whether God bound a couple’s union or not. It’s no concern of ours. That’s between God and the couple only.

God bless.

Thanks again for the well thought out and a well prepared post. I have read it thoroughly and also the one preceding it. Had you been a Catholic, the principle of marriage which you explained would make a perfect justification but because you are not, you have no choice but to say that God must bind a marriage regardless whether it is Christian marriage or not.

Therein here lies our difference. I disagree with you not because your explanation is entirely wrong but because it does not fit into my belief and my Church’s teaching on marriage.

The question that needs to be asked is of course: What is a perfect marriage? If we believe that a perfect marriage is one that is gifted by God as Eve is a gift for Adam, then what follows must be, what kind of marriage is it? To me it has to be a Christian marriage simply because it is the one that follows the teaching of God on marriage.

Yes, there are many types of marriages but they need not be necessarily the perfect marriage. In Muslim marriage for example, a couple can divorce quite easily. Any reason can justify this divorce and all the husband needs to do to affect the divorce is merely to say the words, “I hereby divorce you” and they are divorced. The reasons for the divorce can range from the fact that the husband does not like the wife anymore to because she cannot have any children. I don’t know much about other types of marriages to comment on them sufficiently.

So you may ask, are these the marriages that God wants? In my belief they certainly are not. It is Christian marriage that God instituted, not because of anything but because it will be Biblical. It is this type of marriage where God joins together the husband and wife as one flesh and no man shall put asunder. If you want to I can elaborate on a Christian marriage but due to reason of space it may not serve this post though.

The Sacrament of Matrimony is simply the official ‘seal’ to a Christian marriage but what’s more important is what it entails – what a Christian couple should do and follow in their marriage life. In this way it will be a Christian marriage.

Other types of marriages, even though they are also marriages in the sense of the word, they are not the perfect marriages as how God wants them to be. It sounds harsh, but that’s the way the Bible teaches. Other marriages may not amount to be null and void that they should be considered annulled but nevertheless they should be reconverted to Christian marriage.

This does not mean that marriages other than Christian marriage do not work. Similarly it does not mean that other people of different religion cannot be holy just because they are not Christians. And yet, God speaks through Christianity.

I hope my post make sense. There are lots that can be elaborated there but I hope the gap is not too wide for it to be understood. Feel free if you need more clarification.

God bless.

 

[Mailman]

Thanks again for the well thought out and a well prepared post. I have read it thoroughly and also the one preceding it. Had you been a Catholic, the principle of marriage which you explained would make a perfect justification but because you are not, you have no choice but to say that God must bind a marriage regardless whether it is Christian marriage or not.

Therein here lies our difference. I disagree with you not because your explanation is entirely wrong but because it does not fit into my belief and my Church’s teaching on marriage.

I can understand that and respect your position. Thanks for giving it some thought and for being straightforward and honest in your posts.

I don’t understand what you mean by saying that because I’m not Catholic I have to say that God must bind a marriage whether it is Christian or not. Do you mean to say that the explanation I gave is not the real reason why I’m saying that God alone binds all marriages? If so, could you please tell me what you think it is?

The question that needs to be asked is of course: What is a perfect marriage? If we believe that a perfect marriage is one that is gifted by God as Eve is a gift for Adam, then what follows must be, what kind of marriage is it? To me it has to be a Christian marriage simply because it is the one that follows the teaching of God on marriage…

I think I get your point. You are basically saying that God binds only Christian marriages because other marriages allow for practices that go against the teachings of Christ.

But that could be true only if God’s laws do not apply to the unconverted. The laws that God set in motion are not only for those who have come to know and accept them. They apply to both the believer as well as unbeliever – to all mankind. The unconverted may have their own marriage laws but that does not mean God will set aside His in favor of these man-made laws. Although married under their own set of rules, the unconverted are still subject to the laws of God whether they know of its existence or not. When you look at it that way, you won’t have a problem with God joining two unbelievers in holy matrimony.

The apostle Paul, finding the Gentile Athenians ignorantly worshipping graven images of some “unknown God” exhorted them by saying, “…the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men to repent” (Acts 17:30). The fact that repentance was called for tells us that these Athenians have sinned (broken God’s law) in spite of their ignorance of the true God and His law against graven images. Likewise, the unconverted who divorce and remarry also commit sin despite having no knowledge of God’s law against adultery.

In fact, we can even say that all of God’s laws are expressly made for the unconverted. Paul says that, “Knowing this, that the law is not for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane… For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind… and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine (I Tim. 1:9, 10). The righteous man, knowing the indissolubleness of marriage, does not seek a way out of marriage. God’s laws which prevent the putting asunder of marriages were made for the unrighteous; those hardhearted people who would attempt to do this very thing. Against the acts of the righteous man “there is no law” (Gal. 5:23).

Truly, God’s marriage laws were made for the unconverted. They were given to man to show him what sin is (Rom. 7:7), so he can know of what he must repent of. If there were no such laws, then the unconverted would have nothing to repent of, when called to God’s truth. Saying God will not bind marriages of the unconverted because their marriage laws run contrary to God’s laws is to say that the unconverted are not subject to God’s laws and so do not have to obey them, and that God is a respecter of persons.

The Bible says God does bind marriages of the unconverted. He says in Prov. 2:16: “You will be able to resist any immoral woman who tries to seduce you with her smooth talk, who is faithless to her own husband and forgets her sacred vows.”

In the NT, we find the apostle Paul telling the married Corinthian with an unconverted partner: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (I Cor. 7:14). Their children being now holy, who were spiritually unclean before the conversion of one of the parent, shows that God did bind the marriage of the parents when both were unconverted. If God had not bound the marriage of the two unconverted parents, then Paul would have stated, “else were your children illegitimate; but now are they holy.”

In verse 39 Paul says, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord [that is, only to another Christian].” This tells us, in effect, that God does bind pre-conversion marriages. They were bound when both were unconverted, and since then, one or both have become Christians. Yet, only when one dies is the other free to marry. The Christian widow or widower is free to marry only another Christian.

The Bible is very clear on when a marriage is bound; it is when the two becomes one flesh (Mat. 19:5, 6). This is the principle expressed in God’s law found in Deut. 22:28-29. Two unattached, consenting adults are found engaging in sexual intercourse. The result: The woman “… shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” After the sexual union, the two are as good as husband and wife. God has bound them for life.

God bless.

 

[TimothyH]

I’ve not read this whole thread but would encourage reading about John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. In it the Holy Father speaks about this very subject - how origian man lived in perfect communion with each other and with God “In the beginning” before sin entered the world, what we lost though sin and what we are called back to through Christ.

It is very rich material and very rewarding to read. At a minimum, please read the first few paragraphs of the Holy Father’s first audience which is a meditation on the very question posed by the original poster.

I would also encourage reading “Theology of the Body for beginners” or “Theology of the Body Explained” by Christopher West.

–

From the first general audience of JPII at ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb1.htm

***The Lord Jesus used precisely this expression “from the beginning” in the talk about marriage, reported in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. We wish to raise the question what this word “beginning” means. We also wish to clarify why Christ referred to the “beginning” on that occasion and, therefore, we propose a more precise analysis of the relative text of Holy Scripture.

1. During the talk with the Pharisees, who asked him the question about the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus Christ referred twice to the “beginning.” The talk took place in the following way:

“And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’” (Mt 19:3ff., cf. also Mk 10:2ff.).

Christ did not accept the discussion at the level at which his interlocutors tried to introduce it. In a certain sense he did not approve of the dimension that they tried to give the problem. He avoided getting caught up in juridico-casuistical controversies. On the contrary, he referred twice to “the beginning.” Acting in this way, he made a clear reference to the relative words in Genesis, which his interlocutors too knew by heart. From those words of the ancient revelation, Christ drew the conclusion and the talk ended.***

---

-Tim-