Hey Fran

So, you caught me off guard the other day when you mentioned the
divorce-remarriage verses. I guess I forgot that anybody else ever
worried about that stuff…which is funny, since it was the dominant
question in my life for so many years. It never occurred to me that
you’d worry about that stuff, but then I guess with your mom’s
situation, it makes sense. It always seemed like if I went to anybody
for advice, I always heard the same thing: "it’s all grace, man! It’s
the New Testament man, blah blah blah grace blah blah you’re being
legalistic blah blah stop punishing yourself Christ already died for
you blah blah blah blah blah" Not to deride grace, but I was sincerely
trying to understand some very strict-sounding scriptures, and the
answers I was hearing didn’t address those scriptures, or my worries
about them. I mean they’re IN the New Testament. So I want to share
with you what I figured out about them, and how I applied that to me.
Maybe it’ll help you.

They’re very strict.  That’s the first thing.  🙂

The biggies are Matt. 5:31-32, Matt. 19:7-9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke
16:18. These are the most strict. They all say basically the same
thing; if you divorce your wife and marry another, you commit adultery.
Though the passages are usually written towards one gender, I think
it’s fair to assume that these passages apply equally to men and to
women. In fact we know this to be true, because the Mark passage states
the rules twice, once each way: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her
husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

As I’m sure you know, some of these four passages are not as strict as
the others. Matt. 5 mentions an exception, which is reinforced in Matt.
19: "whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries
another commits adultery." All the translations of the Bible, from the
King James to the Message, contain this exception in Matt. 19. And so
we see that immorality, according to THESE passages, is the lone
grounds upon which one can divorce and remarry without fault.

If it follows that these passages apply equally to women as to men, my
wife committed adultery by leaving me and marrying another, when I had
never been unfaithful. If you re-read the Matt 19 passage, her
unfaithfulness in that sense is what allows me to move on with a clear
conscience.

So by the most legalistic standards, I consider myself free.  And the woman who marries me.

I think there’s another way to look at this though. I think any
divorced person can identify with King David, when he wrote these words
after his sin with Bathsheba:

"Have pity upon me and take away the awful stain of my transgressions.
Oh, wash me, cleanse me from this guilt. Let me be pure again. For I
admit my shameful deed-it haunts me day and night…
"Sprinkle me with cleansing blood and I shall be clean again. Wash me
and I shall be whiter than snow. And after you have punished me, give
me back my joy again…
"You don’t want penance; if you did, how gladly I would do it! You
aren’t interested in offerings burned before you on the altar. It is a
broken spirit you want…" (Ps. 51:1-3, 7-8, 16-17)

And God answered this prayer.  After David and Bathsheba’s first born son died as punishment,
God gave them his blessing: "Then David comforted Bath-sheba; and when
he slept with her, she conceived and gave birth to a son and named him
Solomon. And the Lord loved the baby, and sent congratulations and
blessings through Nathan the prophet. David nicknamed the baby Jedidiah
(meaning, "Beloved of Jehovah") because of the Lord’s interest." (2
Sam. 12:24-25)

This marriage, which started out with not just adultery but murder, was
subsequently blessed by God. It seems extraordinary to me that God, who
we are told doesn’t want penance, and who demonstrates that he is
perfectly able to forgive and move on in the Old Testament, would
demand a lifetime of strict celibacy and misery in the New
Testament…which is supposed to be all about forgiveness and freedom.
Something isn’t adding up.

When I was in the midst of all this, very troubled and trapped, the
whole thing seemed quite bizarre. I wanted to err on the side of
caution, and so was holding to the strictest interpretations of the
divorce-remarriage scriptures in the gospels. "So, It’s basically a
waiting game?" I asked God and myself. "The first person to crack and
remarry…sets the other person free? That seems so sick." And yet, my
wife had made it clear that reconciliation was an impossibility, and no
other option seemed available. All of the legalistic reasoning like
what I wrote to begin this email seemed so much more like Judaism or
Islam than it did Christianity. Having determined that I’m free anyway,
I was able to go back and look at those scriptures again, without
worrying that I was rationalizing for my own sake. Here’s some of the
questions that come to mind…that likely came to your mind…as I read
them again:

-if the other scriptures are complete, why are the Matthew ones
different? And when Paul adds his bit about Christians not being bound
when an unbelieving spouse leaves, does that make all four of these
first ones untrue, or just incomplete? If the Bible illustrates two
exceptions elsewhere to what is here articulated as an unbreakable
rule…what gives? Are we not understanding the rule correctly? Here’s
some interesting things I found…

In Matthew 5:22 we are told that you will burn in hell for saying to
someone "you fool". In Matthew 5:29 and 30 we are told to gouge out our
eyes and cut off our hands if they cause us to sin. Matthew 5:30 and 31
tells us that God’s rules for divorce are "not at all, ever" except for
in cases of adultery. Matthew 5:34 says make no oaths at all. And
Matthew 5:42 says to give to him that asks of you.

Well, clearly something is wrong here, if we’re to take all these
things literally. A lot of us have used the word "fool". Jesus did, in
Luke 12:20. I don’t think anybody believes God wants billions of men
walking around with pitted eye holes and stumps…but that’s exactly
where we’d be. The apostle Paul shaved his head on account of a vow
(Acts 18:18). And your Winnipeg police friend told you that there are
places that will care properly for vagrants, and that giving them money
when they ask often hurts more than it helps. So are these verses
giving us rules for living, that we are to take and enforce in all
cases at face value? Or is there something else going on?

I think the answer is in Matthew 5:20: "For I say to you, that unless
your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you
shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." I think the examples he gives
after that (listed above) are his way of saying "you can’t be good
enough. It’s impossible." Compared to these examples, the law of the
Old Testament seems like a fantastically generous compromise between
the holiness of God, and the weakness of man. My contention here is
that this section of the sermon on the mount should not be taken as a
"new ten commandments" which are much more strict than the originals.
It’s an honest revelation of the holiness of God…how out of reach it
is. It’s a set-up for the plan of freedom that comes later. If we ARE
supposed to take the divorce passage literally, why not the others? I
think most people assume the divorce one is literal and the others
aren’t, because it’s the only one they’re not guilty of.

But what about the other three super-strict passages? As you read the
accounts, it appears they’re three different accounts of one story.
Pharisees try to trick Jesus with a question about divorce, and he
turns the tables on them by telling them they’re not strict enough. The
Matthew 19 passage is a direct answer to the Pharisees’ question in
19:3. In Mark, the divorce passage begins with the Pharisees’ question
in 10:2, then continues with the disciples’ questions. And the Luke 16
passage begins with the Pharisees’ scoffing in 16:14. I think the point
here is similar to that in the sermon on the mount. If righteousness is
what you want, here it is, and you can’t live up to it.

I’m not throwing away what Jesus says in these passages…He is stating
God’s true opinion on divorce. And even in this horribly imperfect
world, God’s desire is still clearly "No Divorce". Divorce is
awful….it digs so to the deep of our emotions and the core of who we
are, that it can lead to suicide and murder. It’s ripping apart a
permanent spiritual bond. It destroys children. Destroys some of them
for life. That’s why God said "I hate divorce" in Malachi. But I don’t
think these passages should lead us to think divorce is unforgiveable
in a way other sins aren’t. I think our own legalism and desire for an
easy answer (which is what legalism usually is) has led us to somehow
dig our feet in too deeply on some issues, and ignore others. While I
did apply the most legalistic standards to myself, and passed, I don’t
think, in the end, I would counsel someone else to. I think after all
is said and done, my answer would be more along hte lines of "blah blah
grace blah blah forgiveness blah blah blah." 🙂

You know what the funny thing is, Francesca? None of this stuff I’ve
written had much to do with my final decision to start dating again. I
was doing devotions one day several years ago, and I heard God’s voice
say to me "Tim, it’s time to move on." I began to protest that how
could I do that, when God’s Word seemed to say…" Then I stopped. I
realized with embarrassment who I was speaking too. So I gave in to the
fact that I’d just received the answer I’d prayed for for years,
circled that day on my calendar, and thanked God profusely. That was my
own Nathan-the-prophet experience that allowed me to move on. I’m free.
And I believe the woman who marries me is free. The stuff I’ve written
above about grace and so forth has mostly come out of my trying to
understand God’s voice to me…why He freed me, and how it was
possible.

"Is there no one who condemns you?  Neither do I condemn you.  Go, and from now on sin no more."

…this to a woman who was caught in the very act of adultery.  And, I believe, to me.

I hope this helps somewhat. If it doesn’t help you, at least maybe
it’ll help you understand me and the journey I’ve been on. I’ll talk to
you later.

-Tim