The question of divorce and remarriage is one that has occupied Christians over the whole of the last two thousand years.  The Catholic Church does not allow remarriage after divorce, the Protestant churches do in most circumstances, while the Orthodox churches hold an intermediate position with their concept of oikonomia. 

All three churches would claim that they base their teaching on the statements of Jesus in three of the four gospels.  They also refer to the letters of Paul and to various statements in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Rivers of ink have been poured out in thousands of books and articles on this subject, analysing the scriptural statements in the most minute detail.  And yet the disagreements continue. 

Modern Western societies have followed their own path of acceptance of divorce.  The gap between Catholic teaching in particular and much practice in Western societies has become a chasm, with the two sides having little to say to each other. 

In this article I want to present another way of approaching the question that I hope will take us closer to the heart of the matter.  It is the way of seeing everything in the light of our understanding of the person of Jesus Christ. 

Over the years I have discussed the question of divorce with other Catholic bishops and found that many others share the serious reservations I have concerning the strict teaching of the Catholic Church.  The reservations have been based, not on any novel understandings of the scriptures, but on the contrast these bishops have found between the teaching of the Catholic Church on divorce and their understanding of the person of Jesus Christ as they have come to know him through a lifetime of work, study and prayer.  They have simply found it most difficult to place the full rigour of the church’s teaching on this subject in the mouth of Jesus.  

            Traditions and the Great Tradition  

My faith is faith in a person and a story, in Jesus Christ and the story of his life, death and resurrection.  From this faith in a person and a story flow truths that I believe, moral rules that I follow in trying to be faithful to the example of Christ, and a worship that I give to him.  But the person and the story come first.  Without the person and story, the truths would be empty, the moral rules would be burdensome tasks and the worship would be lifeless. 

It seems to me that, if we study scriptural texts concerning any particular truth in isolation from the person and story of Jesus, we are falling into this trap, for we are studying a particular truth without sufficient reference to the person and story behind it. 

The truths that we have been able to discern constitute the “traditions” (in the plural and with a small ‘t’) that have come down to us.  But theologians also speak of the Great Tradition, the essential handing on of the person and story of Jesus Christ from one generation to the next.  Any truths or traditions that we formulate must always be tested again the Great Tradition and must be in conformity with that Tradition. 

When we come to a question such as that of divorce, I am not suggesting that we put aside the scriptural texts, but that we always look at them in the light of all we have come to know about the person of Jesus Christ, the values he constantly held, the priorities he lived and taught, and the manner in which he constantly acted. 

Jesus Christ was, of course, utterly unique, both divine and human, and we must be humble, cautious and diffident in any of our claims to know and understand him.  And yet our collective knowledge of Jesus Christ is surely a tool that we not only may, but must use in our attempts to understand any of the sayings that occur in the gospels. 

There is one obvious trap to avoid.  It would be all too easy to say that Jesus was supremely loving, so he would have felt compassion for divorced people and have freely admitted divorce.  This statement ignores the fact that Jesus could also be supremely challenging, that he could tell the Pharisees that they were misguided and tell Peter that his thoughts came from Satan.  In other words, there is more complexity and balance in Jesus than can be summed up in any one sweeping statement.  If we are to use this tool of the person of Jesus, we must use it intelligently and carefully. 

THE GOSPEL OF MARK  

We can start with the scene concerning divorce in the first gospel to be written, that of Mark. 

10.2. Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”    The scene is presented as one of confrontation (“to test him”), with the Pharisees seeking ammunition to use against Jesus.  For this reason, each of the verses 3-6 begins with the word "but", implying a continuing argument between the two sides.  The question concerned an issue (the very fact of divorce) where the Pharisees thought they were on certain ground.  The basic First Testament text on divorce is to be found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.  It accepted divorce as a fact of life and imposed two requirements: the husband had to write out a bill of divorce and give it to his wife before two witnesses, and he could never marry her again once she had married another man.  The written bill of divorce was a protection for the wife, since it proved that she was free to marry and saved her from charges of adultery, while the prohibition against marrying her again deterred spur-of-the-moment divorces.  There were no courts or other persons involved in the divorce, other than the two witnesses.  With the handing over of the bill of divorce, all formalities were completed and the divorce was final.  The husband alone had the right to divorce.  The wife had no appeal and, indeed, no rights in the matter at all, and the only way in which she herself could secure a divorce was by putting pressure on her husband to divorce her.  There was no serious dispute over the fact of divorce at the time of Jesus, and the only disputes were over the grounds.  The scribal school of Shammai restricted divorce to cases of serious sexual misconduct of the wife, while the school of Hillel allowed divorce for much broader reasons, with the consequent anomaly that this more liberal school thereby condoned a weaker position of women in relation to marriage. 

3. (But) He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”  Instead of giving his own view, Jesus followed his constant practice of answering a question with a question, taking the Pharisees back to the basis of their own beliefs in the law of Moses.  The choice of the word "command" was a tactical move, for the direct answer to this question would be that all that Moses had commanded was that, if a man divorced, he must give a written bill of divorce and may never marry the same woman again.

4. (But) They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.”  Instead of saying what Moses commanded, the Pharisees spoke of what he had allowed and, in doing so, they were tacitly admitting that Moses had not commanded divorce.  If divorce occurred, it was the people's, or at least the men's, own choice and Moses had merely tried to ensure that it would be a little fairer to the woman than it had been before.

5. But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you.  In the First Testament the term "hardheartedness" refers to the insensitivity that comes from continual disobedience to God.  The force of the verse is that the people had for so long been disobedient that they had lost their sensitivity to God, so that Moses had been able to do no more than salvage what he could by imposing some minimal restrictions.  The Pharisees had asked "Is it lawful", and by this they meant "Is it according to the law that came from God through Moses?"  In his answer Jesus took the radical step of reinterpreting this law by asking "Is the law of Moses on this point a true and full reflection of the mind of God?", and it was this question, not theirs, that he would now answer. 

6. But from the beginning of creation.  The answer of Jesus was based on an appeal from a situation created by human insensitivity to the original intention of God.

God made them male and female.These words are a quotation from Genesis 1:27, stating that from the original intention of God human beings are essentially both male and female, with all their natural attraction and complementarity.

 7. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  This verse also contains a quotation from Genesis, but this time from the earlier account of creation in the second chapter of Genesis (2:24), setting out the story of Adam and Eve.    Within the context of this earlier account, the reply of Jesus was first and foremost a radical call to regain the creation, the original intention of God, for it was only in the security of this original plan that marriage could fulfil its role in overcoming the restlessness of the human condition and bringing a lasting happiness to people.  For followers of Jesus it was to be the only attitude possible in entering marriage and in living out a marriage. 

8. so that they are no longer two but one flesh.  These words have their mystery, but would seem to include a number of elements: the unity of flesh in sexual intercourse, the couple becoming as one before both the law and the community, their mutual love and common journey towards God, the two becoming one in their child, and the idea that marriage is such that part of the very being of each married person is the relationship to the other, so that to exclude this relationship is to deny part of one's own being.  

9. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.  The words indicate that three persons are involved in every marriage relationship: the man, the woman and God, and it is God, not the husband, who is the lord of the marriage, for in such matters both husband and wife stand under God's judgement.   

10. Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.

11. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.  In the whole of the ancient world, not just in Israel , the basic unit of society was not the individual, but the family.  The man was the head of the family and his wife or wives were his property.  If a married woman had intercourse with any man other than her husband, it was always adultery, for it violated the rights of her husband, but if a married man had intercourse with a single woman, it was not adultery, for the rights of no husband were violated.  By his use of the words "adultery against her" Jesus was proclaiming that the violation of the rights of a wife was also and equally adultery.  The very idea that a wife had such rights meant that the wife was no longer the property of the husband, and this overturned the entire basis on which the family, and hence the community, had been built.  At its most fundamental level, it moved the basis of the whole of society from the family to the individual.  In its social impact, it is one of the most revolutionary statements in the gospel, for it demanded a completely new ordering of the whole of society.  It is also the basis on which Jesus could state that it is God, not the husband, who is the lord of the marriage.

12. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”  It was Roman law that first gave to a wife the right to repudiate her husband, and commentators see this verse as a conclusion drawn by the Christian community from the words of Jesus rather than as a saying that came directly from Jesus himself. 

The first conclusion from this passage is that marriage is not to be based on a man's rights over a woman, but on a "one flesh" union between two people with equal rights.  We know from many other passages in the gospels that Jesus constantly treated women as equals and recognised rights in women that the society of his time did not, so this first conclusion would seem to be fully in accord with all we know about the person of Jesus.  It follows, therefore, as a first and minimum conclusion, that, if divorce was to continue in any form, the entire system of divorce then in practice had first to be abolished for Christians and some other system found that would treat husband and wife as equals. 

A second conclusion is that Jesus issued the breathtaking challenge that his followers were to do all in their power to “regain the creation” in relation to marriage.  Any form of “hardheartedness” or insensitivity, either to God or to the good of other people, would be a contradiction of a sincere following of Jesus.  When considering the question of divorce, the seriousness of this challenge must always be included and given its full weight.

A third conclusion is that, while the teaching of Jesus radically reinterpreted the law of Moses, it would seem most unwise to conclude that he merely replaced one law with another, for that would be contrary to all we know about him.  Indeed, I am not aware of a single instance in the gospels where Jesus abolished a law of the First Testament, only to replace it with a new law, so why should we assume that that is what he was doing here?  On the contrary, we know that he constantly attacked the scribal system of morality based on law, and instead constantly spoke the language of moral principles.  Rather than treat the words of Jesus as a new law replacing an old law, it appears far safer to conclude that his saying is a statement about what God intended marriage to be and about some of the compelling moral consequences that flow from this.  I shall return to this idea when speaking of Matthew and Paul. 

In earlier times divorce had been allowed only when the wife was guilty of some serious sexual impropriety, but that had now developed into a system in which a man could decide, for almost any reason, to divorce his wife, no matter how much harm was caused to her or their children.  As I have already noted, this more liberal teaching weakened the already precarious position of women in relation to marriage.  It is little surprise, therefore, that Jesus gave no support to a system in which a man, for his own subjective and possibly quite selfish reasons, “divorces his wife and marries another.”  Rightly, he saw this as a form of adultery, for all too often it violated both justice and love, and treated the wife as a possession rather than a person.  In other words, what Jesus condemned was a system that he saw as an adulterous system because it was far too open to the violation of the rights of the woman.  In accordance with everything we know about him, Jesus strongly attacked this system and replaced it with the profoundly challenging ideal of regaining the creation.  This teaching was so revolutionary that an entirely new basis for family and community life had to be found, and one may argue that two thousand years later we are still struggling to do this.  

May we not conclude that the primary object of the strict sayings of Jesus in this scene was the practice or system of divorce in the Jewish society of the time?  Do we have any serious basis for going beyond this immediate context?  Is it not true that, in scene after scene of the gospels, we have to place the scene within the context of the laws, customs and local conditions of Israel in the time of Jesus?  On what basis can we claim that Jesus ignored this context and instead deliberately created a new and universal law?  

I suggest that the condemnation of the practice or system of divorce in the time and place in which Jesus spoke is as far as this passage in Mark’s gospel goes, and that there are many other questions concerning divorce that are neither asked nor answered in this passage.  For example, there is the question of a woman abandoned by her husband and left with small children to look after.  In the society of the times, such a woman would have been very marginal to society and would frequently have been destitute.  Could she seek a new marriage?  I suggest that in this passage of Mark’s gospel Jesus gives no answer to this question.  I shall return to this matter.  

In the strongest possible terms the scene states that in this field of marriage and divorce disciples of Jesus cannot allow themselves to do no more than drift along with the currents of the world around them, but must struggle with all their might to regain the creation. 

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW  

There are two sayings on divorce in the gospel of Matthew:  5:31-32 and 19:1-12.   

            1)  The Prescriptive Ideal  

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’  But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (5:31-32)  

I shall leave the meaning of the words “except on the ground of unchastity” until later when discussing the other text from Matthew. 

The context of this first saying is that of the Sermon on the Mount (5:1-7:29) and, in particular, that section of the sermon (5:17-48) beginning with the words,

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (5:17)

Jesus then spells out what he means by “fulfill” in a series of sayings in the form, “You have heard that it was said…….., but I say to you……”.

“You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’…. But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister….” (21-26) …..‘You shall not commit adultery’.   But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust…..” (27-30) ….. It was said, ‘whoever divorces his wife… but I say to you….. (31-32)….‘you shall not swear falsely’…… But I say to you, Do not swear at all….” (33-37)…. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to you,…..if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also…..”  (38-42)….. ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, Love your enemies (43-47)…… Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”(48)  

The first thing that should be obvious is that, while Jesus is quoting laws from the First Testament, he is not replacing them with new laws.  To be perfect as the heavenly father is perfect or to turn the other cheek are not laws.  We are not morally deficient if we fail to be fully as perfect as the heavenly Father and we do not sin if we fail to turn the other cheek and allow someone to strike us a second time. 

These sayings have been called “prescriptive ideals”.  They are ideals, not laws, but they are prescriptive, for we are meant, and indeed obliged, to strive after them.  I do not commit sin if I fail to love my enemies, but I do fail if I do not even see this as a Christian ideal that calls to me with genuine power and urgency.  I do not fail morally if I am not as perfect as the heavenly Father, but I do fail as a Christian if I do not see being perfect as the heavenly Father as an ideal that I should strive for.  This final ideal is the one that governs all of the ideals, for in all circumstances it is a prescriptive ideal that I seek to act towards all people with the same attitudes with which God acts towards me. 

The saying on divorce comes in the middle of these prescriptive ideals (31-32) and this context cannot be ignored.  It would surely be nonsense to say that the six statements surrounding this one are all prescriptive ideals, not laws, but that the one on divorce is a strict law rather than a prescriptive ideal.  It follows that the saying on divorce must also be seen as a prescriptive ideal rather than as a law.  Just as he did in Mark’s gospel, Jesus has here taken a law and replaced it with a moral principle, in this case a prescriptive ideal.  The message would appear to be that people are not necessarily failing if they divorce, but they are failing if they do not see permanency as a powerful and binding ideal, something that they must strive for with all their might. 

Matthew goes further than Mark, for Mark had spoken only of the case where the man had divorced his wife and married another.  Matthew takes two other cases.  In the first he has Jesus saying that, if a man divorces his wife, he is causing the wife to commit adultery, presumably by marrying another man.  In the second case, he imagines a man marrying a woman who has been divorced, and speaks of this as adultery on his part.  Mark had placed the accent on the act of divorcing a wife, while Matthew looks to the remarriage after the divorce, both on the part of the woman and on the part of the man marrying her. 

While the two statements sound harsher than those of Mark, we must not back away from the fact that in Matthew they are presented as prescriptive ideals.  It follows that Jesus is not saying that either the wife or the second man is necessarily committing sin through this second marriage.  What then is the prescriptive ideal he is pointing to?  I shall return to this question towards the end of this article.  

            2)  The Grounds of Divorce  

“Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at 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.  Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’  They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’  He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’” (19:1-10)  

The most obvious difference between the scenes in the gospels of Mark and Matthew on the question of divorce is that in Mark the question had concerned the lawfulness of divorce as such, while in Matthew the question assumes the lawfulness of divorce and raises a question concerning the grounds (“for any cause”).  In effect, Matthew has the Pharisees asking Jesus whether he agrees with Shammai that divorce is lawful only for serious sexual misconduct of the wife, or with Hillel that divorce is allowed for much broader reasons. 

In Matthew, Jesus gives a more direct answer, but in the process changes the question, and it is the question of Mark concerning the lawfulness of divorce at all that he answers.  He calls immediately back to the intention of God in the creation and the argument is the same as that found in Mark’s gospel. 

It is only after this answer that the questioners introduce the law of Moses.  They go further than is lawful, for they use the word “command” to cover both the written document of dismissal and the right to divorce, and we have already seen that, while Moses commanded the written document of dismissal, he did not command divorce.  Jesus corrects them in his second answer, saying that Moses allowed, not commanded, divorce, and did so only because of their hardheartedness.  For a second time he calls back to “the beginning”, that is, the original intention of God in the creation.  His conclusion is the same as in Mark, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery.”  Though the words “against her” are not stated explicitly, they are implicit, for adultery has to be committed against someone, and it is clearly the wife who is intended.  Once again, the statement that a man could commit adultery against his wife was startling, radical and revolutionary in its implications.   

The conclusions that I drew from the gospel of Mark can be drawn from this passage in Matthew also, especially when we may safely assume that there is no conflict between this passage and the earlier passage in the same gospel dealing with prescriptive ideals.   

            Except for Unchastity  

We must however, consider the extra phrase introduced both here and in the earlier passage in Matthew: “except in the case of porneia.”  I have left the word in Greek, for a correct translation is the first problem.  In older bibles the word was translated as “except for adultery”, and this phrase entered the popular consciousness and became the accepted understanding.  We can be certain, however, that this understanding is not correct.  Nor is the situation resolved by turning to a common modern translation of “except in the case of fornication”, for fornication by a married woman is adultery, and cannot be anything else. 

Firstly, there is a clear Greek word for adultery, moicheia, and it is not the word that is used here.  Secondly and more importantly, Jesus had just been asked whether he agreed with Shammai or Hillel.  If porneia here meant adultery, Jesus would simply be agreeing with Shammai, and all his other words would be a distraction.  His reply would no longer be radical or revolutionary, but a simple agreement with the opinion of Shammai.  The very essence of this scene is that Jesus was asked whether he agreed with Shammai or with Hillel and gave an answer that was more radical than either. 

This conclusion is clear from the response of the male disciples who correctly saw in the words of Jesus the taking away of all traditional male rights in this matter: 

“His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’  But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.  For there are eunuchs who have been so since birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs  for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  Let anyone accept this who can.’” (19:10-12)  

The word porneia is derived from the verb pernemi, which means “to buy”, so the word had originally come to refer to “bought sex” or prostitution.  Its meaning had then developed to the point where one must give a rather vague translation such as “sexual impropriety” or “unchastity”.  It seems, therefore, that we must search for some form of sexual impropriety that is neither adultery nor any other sexual action that would constitute grounds for divorce according to the school of Shammai .   

The more likely explanation is that it refers to a marriage within the forbidden degrees of kinship laid down in the First Testament.  These laws went beyond those of most other nations, so it was always possible that Christian converts from paganism might seek a marriage that was forbidden by Jewish law, and hence that would scandalise Jewish converts.  The Jews considered such a marriage to be a porneia, an unchastity, and believed that in these circumstances divorce was not divorce at all, but the putting aside of a wife whom one should not have married in the first place.  If this interpretation is correct, the words “except in the case of unchastity” do not come from Jesus, but are an addition by the early church to cover situations that had arisen and were causing scandal to Jewish converts.  Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles tells the story of the First Council of Jerusalem, when the early church introduced laws precisely in order to avoid scandal to Jewish converts. 

Needless to say, one cannot have certainty that this interpretation is correct, but it is important that we not adopt an interpretation that would simply have Jesus agreeing with the school of Shammai , for this would make nonsense of the whole scene.   

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE  

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (16:18)  

This is the most difficult of the gospel sayings on divorce to assess, for the context does nothing to assist us.  Beginning in chapter 15 we have a series of parables (the lost sheep, the lost drachma, the lost [or prodigal] son and the dishonest steward), then we have four sayings that do not appear to have any direct connection either to the parables or to each other, and then we have another parable (the rich man and Lazarus).   

The saying on divorce is the fourth of the sayings in the middle of these parables.  The first saying may be seen as connected to the parable of the unjust steward immediately preceding it, for it speaks of love of money.  But the second deals with the kingdom taking the place of the law and the prophets, and the third with the fact that no detail of the law will be abolished.  The fourth then deals with divorce, and it is hard to see any connection with the surrounding material that Luke may have intended.  So far as can be seen, the saying stands on its own without any particular context. 

One might be tempted to say, therefore, that here at last we have a law.  There is, however, no reason to think that the gospel of Luke wishes to contradict the gospels of Mark or Matthew.  Good practice in biblical interpretation would rather say that we should interpret the brief statement without a context in Luke in the light of the longer statements with context given in both Mark and Matthew.  We must conclude that Luke is also speaking the language of moral obligation in justice and love rather than law.  To dismiss a wife because a man had met another woman he preferred and to leave this wife and the children of the marriage without a family in a world that was built on families was a violation of both justice and love and, therefore, in the eyes of Jesus, adultery.  If to the words of Luke we add all we know about the person of Jesus, we must once again see Jesus insisting, with all the force at his command, on the rights and dignity of the woman and on the moral obligations that flowed from this. 

In common with the first saying on divorce in Matthew (5:31-32), Luke also has Jesus speaking of the man who marries a divorced woman.  Once again I shall leave this until after we have looked at the statement of Paul.  

THE FIRST LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS 7:10-15  

“To the married I give this command – not I but the Lord – that the wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say – I and not the Lord – that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.  And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him…….

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound.  It is to peace that God has called you……”  

This letter of Paul to the Corinthians was written a number of years before any of the gospels, so it is the first testimony to the teaching of Jesus on the subject of divorce. 

Paul introduces the question by saying that he is answering a question that the Christian community in the city of Corinth has referred to him (“Now concerning the matters about which you wrote…. 7:1).  It becomes clear that the case concerns the situation of a Christian whose non-Christian spouse has left and sought a divorce, possibly over the very question of the practice of religion.  In his answer Paul first quotes his understanding of what Jesus had said (“not I but the Lord”), and then gives his own application of this teaching to the particular case that the community had referred to him (“I and not the Lord”). 

In presenting his understanding of what Jesus had said, Paul is close to what the gospels will later say.  He is unusual in speaking first of the wife leaving her husband, and this implies a practice of divorce different from that of the Jewish world in which Jesus had spoken.  It reflects the fact that he was writing to Christians in the Greek city of Corinth who had been influenced by Greek and Roman practices of divorce.  It is also possible, of course, that the particular case referred to him had concerned a non-Christian wife who had left a Christian husband.   

In applying this teaching of Jesus to the case presented to him, there is no basis on which to claim that Paul understands himself to be quoting a law laid down by Jesus and then, by virtue of some claim of delegated divine authority, either changing that law or dispensing from it.  It surely makes more sense to say that Paul is quoting the serious moral obligation, the prescriptive ideal, of which Jesus had spoken in relation to marriage and divorce (“not I but the Lord”) and is then applying that moral obligation to a particular situation that had arisen in Corinth (“I and not the Lord”).  In the circumstances presented Paul considers separation justified, so he acknowledges that the words of Jesus do not constitute a law or an absolute prohibition of divorce.  

This saying of Paul, therefore, reinforces the idea of moral obligations and prescriptive ideals rather than laws, for if Paul saw the words of Jesus as a universal law, it is impossible to understand how he could have claimed the authority to dispense from it.  He refrains, however, from spelling out the details of his answer, for he says only that, “if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so”, and does not speak of remarriage.  On that subject, he implies, let his readers listen to what Jesus had said.  

REMARRIAGE  

In common with Matthew and Luke, Paul presents Jesus as saying, not only that people should not divorce, but that, if they do, they should not remarry.  With three of the four writers quoting this idea, we must accept that it comes from Jesus.  In understanding it, however, the context is all-important. 

The first time we encounter the idea of fidelity even after divorce is in the first passage of Matthew in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount.  As we have seen, the language of this entire section of the sermon needs to be taken into account, for it is Semitic language and so is concrete rather than abstract and involves what our modern Western minds would consider serious exaggeration or overstatement, even extravagance.  It is a language that is not uncommon on the lips of Jesus, e.g.

“If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God .” (Mark 10:25)

“Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3)

“Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.” (Luke 16:17)  

In the same way, in the context of the series of prescriptive ideals of chapter five of Matthew, we are told by Jesus not to be angry, though in fact we have no direct control over our feelings and cannot prevent feelings of anger whenever a serious wrong comes to mind.  We are told not to look at a woman with lust, and yet the very continuance of the human race demands that there be sexual desire.  We are told that, if our eye causes us to sin, we should tear it out and throw it away, and no church has ever suggested that we should take these words literally.  We are told that we should never swear oaths at all, and yet both church and state routinely administer oaths.  We are told to turn the other cheek, to give a cloak as well as a tunic and to walk a second mile, though no one interprets these as literal obligations.  We are told to love our enemies, though once again we have no direct control over our feelings.  Finally, we are told to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect, though this is manifestly impossible and we will never come even remotely close to living up to this ideal. 

Within this very particular context, why should we single out only the idea of not remarrying after divorce and say that, in the midst of all the surrounding phrases, this one alone is to be taken literally? 

Once we begin to speak the language of moral obligation and prescriptive ideal rather than law, the vast variety of particular situations that can arise must be taken into account.  The words of Jesus, as applied to a man who abandons an older wife solely in order to marry a younger one, cannot be applied without further thought to e.g. a woman with young children abandoned by a husband and left destitute. 

What was the ideal, then, that Jesus was speaking of in his words about remarriage?  Perhaps the best answer I can give is to quote a case I have met in pastoral practice.  A couple married, but six months later the wife was involved in a car accident that caused serious brain damage and left her unable to communicate or even recognise people.  I met the couple some thirty years after this, and found the man still devoted to his wife and looking after her every day.  He was not a Catholic, so Catholic teachings were not part of his thinking.  But he loved his wife and had committed himself to her “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part.”  We cannot make a law for all people out of this free decision by one person, but was there not a genuine ideal present?  Had not this man in some manner regained the creation? 

We may add the not uncommon statement of divorced persons that “I couldn’t go out with anyone else yet. I still feel married.”  When a total commitment was given on a wedding day, many people do not find it easy to leave a marriage behind, no matter what has happened. 

Perhaps recent history shows us why Jesus stopped short of making a law, but did use such forceful and extravagant language in speaking of an ideal.  For many centuries in the Christian world all divorce was forbidden, and this caused most serious hardship for large numbers of individuals.  Then civil divorce was introduced, at first on very restricted grounds, but eventually, and inevitably, on virtually any ground.  In civil society, it has seemed impossible to admit divorce at all without having it available on virtually any ground.  The attitudes created by this practice have in their turn affected the manner in which many people approach marriage and the expectations they bring to it, leading to further divorce.  The present situation, in which marriage itself seems to be in danger of collapsing, can hardly be seen as an ideal by anyone. 

May I suggest that it was this problem that Jesus was seeking to confront.  He would not forbid divorce altogether, for this would cause unbearable hardship, but, with the divorce practice of his own time and place before his eyes, he would have nothing to do with the idea of divorce on any terms and without concern for the harm caused to the most vulnerable or to the institution of marriage itself.  His response to this dilemma was to call people back to God’s original intention in creating male and female and to speak the language of prescriptive ideals, binding moral obligations that his followers must treat with the utmost seriousness.  He would never be content with paying lip service to the idea of permanency while in practice condoning a lax attitude, and so in forceful Semitic language he insisted on total seriousness by presenting the most radical ideal and challenge possible.   

When Jesus said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away”, he did not mean this to be taken literally.  On the other hand, he certainly did not mean anyone to say that it was mere exaggeration and could be ignored.  By means of this forceful and concrete language he was saying, “If something has become an obstacle between you and God, get rid of it.  Do whatever you have to do, but get rid of it.  Be radical.  Treat the matter with the utmost seriousness and accept no compromise. ”  Instead of using more abstract statements like these, the Semitic Jesus used the more graphic and deliberately shocking pictorial language of tearing out an eye to express the same idea.  The same is true of all his other “exaggerated” statements. 

I suggest that when he said three verses later, “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” he was again using graphic and even shocking pictorial language to express as forcefully as possible the idea that marriage is to be taken with the utmost seriousness, that the words “for better for worse…. ‘til death do us part” are to be said with all one’s heart and soul and being.  He was saying that the word “adultery” can apply, not only to sexual activity outside a marriage, but also to the breakdown of a marriage when it involves the violation of a commitment and harm to a person one has promised to love. He was reminding us that we are shaped by the promises we make and the way we stand by them, for they enter into our being and make us the persons we are; and that, more than almost anything else in human life, the commitment given on a wedding day both expresses and shapes the very persons we are.  He was aware of just how much of their happiness and well-being individuals place in the hands of another person on a wedding day, and was insisting that their partners accept this gift as a most sacred trust.  At the same time, he was acknowledging the seriousness of the difficulties that can arise in marriage.  He was acknowledging that situations can occur where separation and divorce are the only intelligent solution, but he was also pointing to the most serious danger of both individuals and whole communities stepping on to the slippery slope that leads to the breakdown of marriage itself. 

Both of the phrases about tearing out an eye and committing adultery by marrying a divorced person are shocking and are meant to be shocking.  In both cases Jesus felt that he had to be shocking in order to convey the strength of his thoughts and feelings.  There always have been and always will be marriages that break down, but we must fight with all our strength against the danger that acceptance of this fact will lead to any lessening of commitment to marriage and to further breakdown.  The danger is so great that language on the subject has to be shocking. 

When people today talk about divorce, they usually start from the moment when a marriage has completely broken down and ask, “How should we respond compassionately to this situation?”  But Jesus wanted his followers to put this situation into a context.  He wanted to ask them, “How do you as a young person make sure you yourself are as fully prepared for marriage as your age allows, how do you choose a partner, how seriously do the two of you prepare for your wedding day, how totally do you commit yourselves to each other in that ceremony, how do you live your married life, how do you handle the difficulties that arise, have you tried all other alternatives before you look at separation and divorce?”  Only in this light can the question of remarriage be seen in context.  These questions are not intended to create guilt, but as a means of ensuring that fewer people are hurt, for the only people not profoundly hurt by the breakdown of a marriage are those who put little into it in the first place.  Jesus was radical and those who genuinely seek to follow him need to be radical too. 

To return to the starting point of this article, is this combination of prescriptive ideal and radical and shocking challenge more in conformity with everything we know about the person of Jesus Christ than the idea of his decreeing a law?  Is it in conformity with the story of his own life and death on a cross?  On this basis can we reconcile the words of the gospel with all we know about the person who spoke them?  

THE PROBLEM FOR THE CHURCH  

If this interpretation of the texts were accepted, it would create a most serious problem for a church’s practice concerning remarriage in church.  It would seem that there were only three possibilities and that each of the three was seriously defective. 

The church could say that people who divorced were failing to live up to the ideal presented by Jesus and so could not celebrate their new marriage in church, and would have to accept a civil ceremony.  But then the church would be in danger of turning an ideal into a law, something that Jesus refused to do. 

Or the church could say that it was up to each individual and each couple to make their own decision in conscience before God.  However, this would almost inevitably lead to a situation where anyone who so wished could remarry in church, no matter what the circumstances.  The argument that “I’m only doing what everyone else is doing, so I can’t be too bad” is in practice very powerful.  At this point the ideal would be given no more than lip service and would in practice have disappeared, and the church by its own actions would be seen to be condoning this abandonment of the challenge and ideal presented by Jesus. 

Or the church could insist that those who wished to remarry in church had to establish that they had not abandoned the ideal in their first marriage and had justified reasons for what they now wished to do.  But at this point the church would be getting itself into impossible difficulties in trying to judge intimate motives through some form of quasi-judicial process.  It would be trying to make judgements concerning the almost infinite variety of motives that can bring people to a divorce.  It would be trying to divide divorced persons into the two simple categories of “guilty” and “innocent” parties, though reality is rarely that neat.  It would run the serious risk of becoming involved in the emotional charge and counter-charge that can accompany many divorces. 

I suggest that the best, or perhaps least-bad, answer may lie in taking part of each of the three solutions. 

If I may take the first two solutions together, it may be appropriate to remind couples that their conscience is not the only conscience that is relevant, for there is also the conscience of the minister who is asked to celebrate the new wedding.  Without entering into the intimacies of the motives of individuals, there will be some cases where the circumstances are such that the conscience of the minister may well not allow the celebration of the new wedding.  One example might be the case where a man seeking to remarry is refusing to give any financial or emotional assistance to his former wife or even to his own children.  Another more problematic situation might be the case where the whole community condemns the circumstances of the break-up of a particular long-standing marriage.  In other words, there will be cases where there would be serious scandal if the church celebrated a new wedding, for this action would appear to involve a total abandonment of the ideals of Jesus.  The idea is full of difficulties, but it cannot be simply dismissed.  In order to avoid the scandal of different ministers using widely different criteria and the consequent shopping around for an accommodating minister, it may even be appropriate to spell out some of the criteria that would be involved and the procedure to be followed, though this would come close to making laws. 

In relation to the third solution, the church (and by this word I do not mean just leaders, but the entire Christian community) at least needs to be strongly proactive in showing that it actively promotes and protects the ideal of Jesus.  Couples preparing for marriage need to be told again just how powerfully Jesus put the ideal of permanency before his disciples, married couples need to be given every assistance in dealing in a constructive manner with problems that arise, and persons who have divorced and wish to remarry at least need to show that they are fulfilling their obligations towards a previous spouse and the children of that union, and have acquired some understanding of what led to the failure of the previous marriage.   

I am aware of the dangers in the ideas I have just put forward, but I am convinced that Jesus would want us to do far more than simply wring our hands futilely while the ideals he spoke of so forcefully ceased to have any practical reality.  I feel that he would want us to be creative and radical in proclaiming his ideals of permanency, and that he would want us to do this by our actions as well as by our words.  I strongly suggest that, if they are to be effective, any provisions made by the church should be established, not by leaders alone, but by the whole community of the church, for in such matters, only the whole community would have a credible authority.