A Response to Comments About Divorce

There were two comments posted recently that objected to my position on divorce, and I would like to respond to those objections here, for the benefit of others who might have the same or similar thoughts. I also want to say that I appreciate the person who took the time to post his or her thoughts on the site, and I am grateful for your thoughtful comments. You are one who evidently is familiar with this debate, and I commend you for your informative arguments. Nevertheless, let me address your two thoughts, as much as I am able.

Jesus’ ‘First Answer to the Question of Divorce’
Let me say that I did, in fact, deal with the passage that Jesus quoted from Genesis 2. I did not bother to deal with it again in detail, because of my having already done it. Nevertheless, I concede that one may have misconstrued my exposition as rushing over the obvious. I think the context of the entire passage of Jesus’ words, however, is to be considered as his complete answer to the divorce question. If the conversation had ended at verse 6 then this would not be an issue, but the problem is that it continues. One could conjecture that Jesus had given his complete answer before the Pharisees’ second question, or they could surmise that he was interrupted and was not, in fact, finished, but all of that is really beside the point. The point is that he said more, and it doesn’t make much sense for Jesus to change the subject from marriage to betrothal at this point in the conversation. The question then arises, how do we know that this is talking about marriage, as opposed to a betrothal? Although I resist the urge to be overly dogmatic, there are several indicators in the passage: (1) The common word for marriage is used throughout the passage. (2) Although marriage and the betrothal are similar, the words for them are not synonymous (see Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:5). (3) The two passages that Jesus alludes to (Genesis 2 and Deuteronomy 24) refer to marriage, not a betrothal. I know there are good men who disagree with this, but I am compelled by what appears to be the plain sense of the passage. I do want to conclude this response by saying, also, that even if one agrees that Jesus added the exception clause because of the wicked trickery of the Pharisees, then how does one explain the fact that the exception clause is clearly stated in Matthew 5, aside from any Pharisaical trickery?

Israel and the Church vs. God and Divorce
To answer the question at face value, I have two responses. (1) There is one chosen people of God in Scripture, not two. I believe that the church did not begin at Pentecost, but is comprised of all of God’s called throughout the ages. I won’t go into the biblical defense for this belief, at this time, sense I gather that this person is in no disagreement with me about this (I just spoke about this to our own congregation, so I will follow this up with an explanatory blog about that subject). (2) Although there is one people of God, there are distinctions between national Israel and spiritual Israel. A case in point would be Paul’s argument for this very thing in Romans 9:6b, which says: “For not all who are descended from Israel (national) are Israel (spiritual).” That whole chapter really makes that point clear. Another example is given in Romans 11:1-5: “Did God reject his people (spiritual Israel)? By no means! I am an Israelite (national) myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people (spiritual), whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel (national): ‘Lord, they (national Israel) have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me’? And what was God’s answer to him? ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’ So too, at the present time there is a remnant (spiritual) chosen by grace.” There are other Scriptures, but I think these demonstrate the point I am trying to make. Therefore, I do believe that God divorced national Israel, because of her adultery. Because I do believe that the church is Christ’s bride, I do not believe that God has or ever will divorce his true bride. The difference should be apparent to us, because there were many in national Israel who were not part of God’s true people, but there is no one in the true church of Christ who is not part of God’s true people, i.e. they are the same. I want to add, in conclusion to this, one important piece of information worth mentioning. Hosea records that God’s reason for divorcing Israel was adultery, not fornication. For me, personally, this is not that significant, except that this word is of extreme importance to those who hold to no divorce, because of the word fornication being used in Matthew, as opposed to adultery. If, however, God divorced Israel for adultery, then it would seem to indicate that He was married to them, rather than just betrothed. If that is the case, then, the argument, of course, seems to, at least, weaken.

Hope these responses help. Appreciate the thoughts on this important issue.