|
REFLECTIONS FOR A SUNDAY MORNING
A Question of Marriage
Our sub-title comes from a poem by TS Elliot and implies a search for something which is lost:
" The past is a distant country;
they do things differently there. "
The sub-title is of course set within the understanding of marriage, the thinking on which occupies much of the questioning occurring in today's Western societies. This downwards spiral concerns not only Christians but also politicians, albeit for different reasons. One group looks to the Eternal Spiritual Ideal, and yet lives in an unspiritual world; the other looks at an uncertain, ungovernable society which threatens Government and State order. If we leave aside for a moment the Spiritual and look at the Secular understanding of marriage we can establish the universal and social concept of marriage common to all settled societies, from the most primitive to the most enlightened, for it is at this point that so many `Christian Ministries' become confused and condemnatory as they see the familiar secular society in a downward spiral incurring `the wrath of God'.
From a secular position there are two basic ways of looking at the institution of marriage: First, from the anthropologist's view point, an impartial study of mankind as they form and reform into patterns of social cohesion - a settled community which can change according to changing situations. The other position can be seen from the position of the actual people involved in the act of marriage and concerns their personal hopes and fears. We need not dwell on the first view point for it is, in general terms, a shifting one. Marriage from this view point can be seen as a way of ensuring the continuation of the tribe, or as a means of enlarging it's territory through marriage with members of another tribe. As geo-social circumstances change so also would the social institutions of the tribe, for the continuation of the tribal institution is wholly dependent upon its functional needs. The work of the anthropologist is therefore to record impartially and without moral comment.
Now to the second viewpoint, for the members of a tribe are not impartial observers of institutions. Their lives are very personal and fragile and they form traditions, rules and laws in order to live within that protection and provision - and yet those institutions will change. Circumstances change, thereby causing social unrest, fear and anxiety amongst the people, and so from this fearful preoccupation with the basic tenets of life has come the very personal institution of marriage. At its most basic it centres on a family unit, only forming into a community as it experiences growth for protection and the prosperity needed to maintain itself. All of this is by way of a background to `A Question of Marriage' which is the subject of our Reflection. Next must come the accepted definition of marriage amongst all communities whilst being aware that developed traditions and customs appear in all cultures.
Marriage has two forms - the outward form that affects the immediate family and impinges on the community, and then the inner moral form concerning the couple entering into marriage. Therefore it can be said that marriage not only concerns the present (the actual couple involved) but also the past (the witnesses to the ceremony from whence they came) but also the future (which produces another generation). Marriage within a family and a community is not self-centered; it is a Rite of Passage concerning the whole community from whence the couple have come. The Wedding Ceremony translates the couple from one social position to another. The community therefore has an enormous interest in marriage, for any changes to its form affects not only the present community but also those as yet unborn and also the past upon which the community is based. At a wedding the guests are invited to watch this social cohesion centered on marriage - there is an unspoken but inward satisfaction that the continuity of the community has been secured for the future. In addition to the wedding guests being called to witness, rejoice and feast at the event, family and community gods would be invoked to release a blessing on what is understood to be the continuity of Community Life.
It takes little comment to note that as the community grows so too does the religious element, with the priests of the community `gods' performing the wedding rituals. This would further develop into community elders attending, thus joining the earthly to the eternal, to the satisfaction of the whole community. Thus would anthropologists observe the marriage ceremonies of all communities, both `primitive' and `enlightened', for that is their `science' - the study of mankind within a basic, universal concept. However as we have seen, there is also a personal, moral aspect involved in the desires and hopes of the couple involved. Who can really define this for it is personal, intimate and deeply spiritual - a union of two who become one? It must surely begin with an attraction one to the other, a mutual con-joining of what each desires in all their emotional needs. It will lead to vows willingly given and accepted, solemn promises made binding one to the other for mutual provision and protection.
At its core will be sexual desire, a desire to be joined to a person. The fulfillment of sexual desire is not the sensation alone, but the joining of two individuals who become one for mutual emotional and physical fulfillment. From that position comes the desire to protect and provide, coupled with the desire to procreate - the bringing forth of children secure in the knowledge that that which they themselves have known will continue. In the institution of marriage there lies the knowledge which anthropologists can never measure, the unspoken knowledge of all mankind - that they are more than merely flesh and blood . . that they come from a past . . that they are joined in the marriage act for the present . . that they create a future from their desire to continue. But as we have said earlier, from a geo-social position changing circumstances will inevitably challenge and change the institutions which undergird any community! Over the many thousands of years this has been so within all cultures and has been so in marriage. Civil Unions are not modern! Roman law recognised at least two forms of marriage, each with legal status and therefore protected by law, with severe punishment for any violation of the law. But even in their ceremonies the shadow of religion fell, for although they were secular communities, sacred rituals were performed and witnessed with their household gods ever watchful. As we mentioned earlier, changing geo-social circumstances produce changes in the social life of a community. Same Sex Unions are not entirely modern - polygamy occurs in many cultures, particularly when there is an in-balance of male and female members of a tribe.
As a Christianised form of community began to form in the `West' so did variations of the marriage institution which underwent many changes, but mainly these changes were centered on the changing forms of religion and State power. Within Roman Catholicism there came the enforced Doctrine of the Sacrament of Marriage, whereby Divine Grace was bestowed on the act of marriage. This Doctrine arose through the translation of Scripture by Jerome into what is now called the Vulgate Bible, translating the words `mystery' and `secret' as `sacramentum', thereby giving enormous power to the Pope. We need not spend time over the dispute between Henry the Eighth and the Pope and the consequential power struggle for that subject seems inexhaustible. As we have said, anthropologists merely note the fact that when community institutions no longer meet the requirements of the Community the institutions are changed to meet the emerging needs.
Such a change is rapidly emerging in our present European Union. The full blown Flower of the Age of Reason is now upon us in meeting the changing desires of the people. As the State - particularly seen in its European form, the birth place of the Age of Reason - usurps the position of Religion as the upholder of the Marriage Institution, so its core tenet of a physical union with a spiritual concept will change. The State is but the embodiment of the will of the current members of the community for it has no concept of Eternal Truth. The State must respond to the demands of its members otherwise the State will lose its power through change. With the usurping of the religious moral base of the community, the State has to `remove' the influence of religion upon its community institutions which previously held it together. Divorce, Abortion, Civil Union, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage, Sex Education for young children, the encouragement of sexual pleasure as opposed to sexual union within marriage, tolerance of lifestyle, intolerance of religious beliefs - all and much more are what anthropologists would call the change in traditions which no longer meet the needs of the community, which will, as seen in past history, lead to the destruction of old `settled' life so that the new may emerge. We see it emerging now, with no sense of the past, no hope for the future and increasing despair for the present.
It is time in this Reflection to turn to another Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, the fulness of which is surely upon us in these troubled times. To dwell too long on the disintegration of the culture of the civilisation in which we live our earthly lives could lead to either despair, or in the case of many well-intentioned Christian Ministries, to resist the disintegration to the point of seeking to restore the status quo of a civilisation in its death throes. In one there is a clear lack of trust in the Purposes of God; in the other there is pursuit of a form of `Christian Nationalisation'. As we have said, the concept of marriage is common to all cultures, as would be expected for as the Koheleth said in the Book of Ecclesiastes: `He has set eternity in the hearts of all men'. That `eternity' is men's continual search for the Eternal through their own efforts, but particularly seen in the common act of marriage as recorded in Genesis chapter 2 v24:
" For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. "
Marriage, in Scriptural terms, begins with a Betrothal. Perhaps the most beautiful recording of a Betrothal is seen in Genesis 24 with the account of Abraham sending his un-named servant back to his country to find a wife from among his own people for his son Isaac, and in verse 50 we find Laban and Bethuel agreeing to send Rebekah back with him. Historical custom confirms that a Betrothal was an occasion for a feast and a time when legal agreements concerning a dowry and other such things would be made. This can be seen in Genesis 29 verses 22-27 where we find the marriage of Jacob and Leah recorded, and earlier in Genesis 2 verses 20-25 we see recorded the foundation for such a custom. There was a time of waiting only for the consummation of that Betrothal, when the man would have asked (and agreed with her father or the male head of her family) for this woman in marriage. When permission was given this would have been an occasion for joy. There would be a Covenant Meal, a public declaration of the terms of the Covenant and then the sealing of the Covenant by blood to make it permanent in man's and God's sight.
The Betrothal is followed by the Marriage Ceremony. This is most beautifully recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy, which has been called `the Gospel of Love', and in its pages we can see how God feels for the nation of people He called out of Egypt. In the first four Books of Torah we see God choosing a nation for his purposes, but here in Deuteronomy (the fifth Book of Torah) we see God setting before them what He has done for them, asking Israel to chose Him as their God, with all that that expression conveys. No longer is it to be a one-way directional leading - God is now requiring a people who will be obedient, who will respond to what He has revealed to them because of their love for Him. God is looking for a relationship with a chosen people - a communicating people who know Him as their Protector and Provider. To fully understand the message of this Book it needs to be read through in a continuous reading, keeping in mind all that has preceded it and been recorded in the earlier Books of Moses. This was a new generation with a new leader, and Moses was reminding them of all that had gone before, pointing back to God's faithfulness in all those years in order to give assurance to those assembled of the total fulfillment of all He had covenanted with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If we see the Book of Deuteronomy as a Gospel of Love, we shall more easily be able to pick up the message contained in this most beautiful of all the Books of Torah, for it expresses a relationship God has with the nation of Israel which resounds through all the following Books of the Bible. It also explains much of what at times seems to be God's harsh treatment of the Hebrew nation.
To see this we would look briefly at the framework of the Book of Deuteronomy and then we shall be able to understand more fully the words of Deuteronomy 10:12-13:
" And now, O Israel, what does the LORD our God ask of you but to fear
the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve the
LORD your God with all your heart and all your soul, and to observe
the LORD's commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your
own good. "
The framework of Deuteronomy is based upon a form of a treaty in common use between a victorious king and his subjugated people in Mosaic times. The purpose of the treaty used in this way was to secure the people's total and continuous allegiance, grouped under the headship of a vassal king to a more powerful king who had at his disposal all the power and authority to maintain the treaty. The wording of the treaty was often flambuoyant and colourful, portraying a superior authority which had the power to ensure obedience whilst yet preferring a respectful obedience through reverence, fear and awe. The treaty would commonly take the form of an introductory preamble, bringing out the name and authority of the superior king who was expecting unconditional obedience. Then would come the setting out of how the two parties to the treaty came into contact, and the record would include the developing relationship which had brought them to that point of making the treaty, this being read out to the vassal king and his people. There would be a listing of the conditions both parties would be expected to keep in order to receive and maintain the beneficial provisions contained in the treaty - and as those treaties were made between pagan nations there would now follow a list of gods and deities who would be invoked to witness the treaty being set out before them. There would then follow a listing of the blessings that would flow to the vassal king and his people if the terms and conditions were met, and the calamities that would come upon the vassal king and his subjects if they did not fulfil the terms of the treaty. The vassal king would therefore be ever watchful, knowing that the superior king had all the power and authority to enforce the terms of the treaty!
If we look with this understanding at the Covenant of God contained in the Books of the Law, we shall find that most of these treaty conditions are set out - but this time the superior King is God Himself, the other parties being such people as Abraham. In this Book there is seen the framework of a classical treaty historically used amongst the nations surrounding the area of Biblical history. However, in the amazing Book of Deuteronomy we find one other ingredient - that of God's love for His vassal people! God had chosen His people, not subjugated them by war. He had forged them into a nation . . He had allowed the generations of unbelief to die in the wilderness . . He had now led them to the very borders of His Promised Land . . and He asked only for their love: (11:1) `Love the LORD your God and keep His requirements, His decrees, His laws and His commands always'. But the additional ingredients of love and respectful obedience in the Book of Deuteronomy reveals this to be more than a treaty between a vassal king and a superior King! It reveals the deep abiding love of a God who is entering into a conditional Contract or Covenant based on mutual love between two parties - to be seen in the marriage contracts or covenants that were in use in the nations of that area at that time. As such, it shows the relationship God was establishing here with His chosen people, the nation of Israel. These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel `on this side of the Jordan', and this is the Covenant the people of Israel entered into with their God: (Deut: 26:17-19 & 27:9)
" You have declared this day that the LORD is your God and that you will walk in His ways, that you will keep His decrees, commands and laws, and that you will obey Him. And the LORD has declared this day that you are His people, His treasured possession as He promised, and that you are to keep all His commands. He has declared that He will set you in praise, fame and honour high above all the nations He has made and that you will be a people holy to the LORD your God, as He promised . . . Then Moses and the priests, who are Levites, said to all the people, `Be silent, O Israel, and listen! You have now become the people of the LORD your God'. "
This is the message of the Book of Deuteronomy! It is a love relationship springing from a marriage relationship between God and the nation of Israel! This, then, is `the past (which) is a distant country' which formed the understanding of the Covenant of Marriage and is the `core' of our English word `marriage'.
God talks of a `one-flesh' relationship, two becoming one and yet each one retaining their own personality, loving and receiving together in mutual love and respect. This relationship is not co-habitation but a union. This is the relationship between God and His people that the Holy Spirit is outworking. In Hebrew thought - and it must be understood that the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Hebrew scribes - marriage was not a co-habitation, nor a casual journey to the local church for a ceremony. The bride was chosen and a betrothal (or, to use the more familiar term, an engagement) was announced. There would be a betrothal feast (engagement party) and rings would be exchanged as a sign of an unbroken relationship from that time forward. (Most people today will not know that until a short time ago, under English law a broken engagement could result in a Court action in which the rejected betrothed sought an award in cash or property as compensation.) The betrothal feast would be followed by a period in which the bride prepared herself for the forthcoming marriage and the `bottom drawer' was assembled. Finally, the bridegroom would come for his wife, vows to God would be made before the assembled people, a marriage feast would follow and then would come the consummation of the marriage. However, in Scriptural thought and in God's sight marriage begins upon betrothal. Legally (and we have just seen that this was so until very recently in English law) the bridegroom and his bride were considered to be married from the time of betrothal, yet not fully married until the consummation. And so it is with the Bride of the Lamb! The Bride is chosen . . . the Betrothal arranged . . . the Marriage Covenant entered into . . . and so we find ourselves waiting for the Consummation! As is well known, the `Edenic Idyll' (as recorded in Genesis 3) was broken and Man was driven from `the Garden'! Now man's efforts to regain that `eternity in his heart' by his own efforts have failed, leading to what is now called `a broken society - which leads us into the concluding Reflections.
We cannot ignore the issue of Divorce and Remarriage, for even amongst the people of the Kingdom of God some seek to change the `bench mark' of the Word of God . . . because it no longer meets the needs of the people. This `bench mark' becomes difficult to establish with the publication of so many Bible translations available, to say nothing of the entrenched traditions of the various denominational churches and modern-day `Google' Theologians. So we too enter these turbulent waters, being aware that when the Word of God meets an emerging secular paradigm the Word of God often becomes the victim. We also face the problem of any settled community - and God's people soon become settled into their many and varied traditions! New `traditions' soon become institutionalised and are the tools by which priests and politicians control the people, for once denominational structures begin to form in Church life, control over `the flock' begins as the Word of God, which reveals the Person with whom the people have communion in a loving relationship, becomes institutionalised but yet remains within the parameters of revealed Truth. And it is this aspect that we wish to reflect upon as we approach the close of these Reflections.
There are in fact very few references in Scripture to Divorce (and Remarriage), and rather than disturb the flow of these Reflections we list them, with comments, as an Appendix. However before that we would give a meaning of the word `marriage'. There is no one word in Hebrew to describe it - suffice to say that it springs from the understanding of `a man taking a wife'. Genesis 2 reveals the man as `master' or `lord', who in taking a wife elevates her, lifts her, into equality with him, hedging or enclosing her to himself in order that they may dwell together. We have seen this understanding earlier when in recording God's Covenanted love for His chosen people Moses said: (Deuteronomy 26:18-19 in part)
" This day you are His people, His treasured possession . . . He has declared
that He will set you in praise, fame and honour high above all the nations. "
Greek thought is similar in meaning - the binding of the two together to become one in existence and in one accord. This can be seen in the words of Jesus: `What God has joined together, let not man separate' (Matthew 19:6). Divorce therefore means to `de-elevate' to humiliate and cast down, to cease to protect and provide, leaving the person - particularly the woman - desolate and distraught. This is constantly seen in Scripture through the words of the prophets concerning Israel, the Wife of God, and can be carried over into the Church as the Bride of Christ. And in case these words are considered to be outmoded and have no part in equality in the Body of Christ, Paul reminds us: `The Head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the Head of Christ is God' (1 Corinthians 11:3). In marriage, seen as God's Ideal', the man has a responsibility to elevate, to raise high, the woman - but we have digressed and need to conclude these Reflections. And so we turn to Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7, which is wholly concerned with the distressing situation amongst the believers in Corinth, their way of life and general conduct.
First the background to this Letter will help us to understand Paul's concern for the new Corinthian believers. Corinth was situated on a narrow isthmus of land on the Gulf of Corinth and as such was an important commercial city, its wealth coming from the trade moving from mainland Greece to the Peloponnese. In addition, as a sea port it was on a major route for religious pilgrimages, not only to its own pagan temples but also for further journeys down the Gulf to the city of Delphi - the site of the Delphic Oracle and thought by the ancient Greeks to be the centre of the earth. Its whole culture was dominated by the gods. In the centre was the Temple of Apollo, the son of Zeus, who was acknowledged to be the god of light and sun, poetry and music, and the reading of the omens of the day - which we would call horoscopes. Of equal splendour was the Temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, pleasure and procreation - one of the few gods (goddesses) who was married but constantly and continually unfaithful to her husband. Aphrodite was said to have been born out of a fight between two gods, culminating in the mutilated remains of the castration of Uranus thrown into the sea, rising up as Aphrodite in the `foam of the waves'. Another major site was the Fountain of Peirence, said to be the favourite watering hole of Pegasus. Sacred to the muses on their journey to receive inspiration at the Temple of Apollo, the origins were said to be the tears of a woman weeping over the loss of her son and becoming a stream.
Corinth was said to be a city of wisdom and elegance, pleasure and music, centered on its many gods of sexual and sensual pleasure. As is the nature of all religions many sub-cultures emerged with `superior knowledge', yet all were centered on sensual pleasure and adding to the complex and confusing religious activities. As can be found in all major sea-ports which produce great wealth and prosperity for the inhabitants, it was a centre of promiscuity and sensual pleasure in all its forms, encouraged by the nature of the gods of the City of Corinth, self-centered, self-seeking, totally given over to enjoying the excesses of life. Into this situation came Paul, and in his Letter he was attempting to turn the believers away from the prevailing culture of the City, guiding them into the principles of righteous living! As such, the `Letter to the Corinthians' is a Letter of correction and not as a Letter setting out Church Doctrine! Paul was concerned that those new believers were transferring their devotion to false gods into devotion to the One True God without changing their behaviour. His corrections were to point out that a change of heart meant a change in habits. Reading the Letter with the cultural background of Corinthian culture in mind we can understand Paul's concern and his desire to instruct and guide them into righteous living, rebuking them over divisions, no longer were they to be concerned with `superior wisdom' or following this or that god. They had broken free from the stain of immorality as past followers of the gods Apollo and Aphrodite, with all the promiscuity that came with those associations - incest, adultery, worship of the body for sensual pleasure, the riotous love feasts - all needed correction, with the guiding principle of freedom and righteous living in that freedom.
As these Reflections concern `marriage' we would, with this background in place, turn to chapter 7 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, which is wholly concerned with this most personal and emotional centre of all settled community life. As we have said many times, it is erroneous teaching to pluck a verse out of its contextual, historical setting, search for other verses scattered throughout Scripture of a similar nature and then piece them together to make a Doctrine in order to justify a tradition. The culture of the cult of Aphrodite permeated the whole of Corinthian society - a pale reflection of what has developed in much of Western Europe over recent decades. There was no restraining influence of a Christianised culture expressed in an older generation who `did things differently there'. `Moral Relativism' was not a political, religious, self-righteous concept there! It was lived to the full, and Paul's words were spoken into that fully promiscuous society which saw no reason why there was a need for marriage vows or faithful partnerships for ever, for the great goddess herself openly flaunted such matters. In the unravelling of this problem, verse 10 of this chapter is usually taken out of this historical context as a `Proof Text' in its own right:
" To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord). "
Placed back into its historical setting, it can be seen as the opportunity for those who were true believers and married to stay in that calling as a witness to how the Lord sees His people as His Body. As such, this witnessed directly into the very heart of the culture of `religious Corinth', totally living as it was in the sensuous, sexual culture of the goddess Aphrodite. This Letter was not meant by Paul to become a sacramentum of marriage leading to a dogma, a tradition institutionalised into a Doctrine for non-marriage for divorced people. Those caught up in the trauma of divorce should be fully accepted in the church assemblies as equal members of the One Body of the Lord Jesus! They need only to return to the Father's House to be healed, restored and released into a new marriage relationship as a reflection of . . a witness to . . God's Love, as seen fully in a marriage. May we conclude these Reflections by turning to the Book of Isaiah, where in chapter 54 we hear the words of the LORD calling to His people Israel:
" `Sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child;
burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labour;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband', says the LORD . . . . .
`Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame.
Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.
You will forget the shame of your youth
and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.
For your Maker is your Husband - the Lord of Hosts is His Name.
The Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer;
He is called the God of all the earth.
The LORD will call you back as if you were a wife
deserted and distressed in spirit . . . .' "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
APPENDIX
As we previously mentioned, we have listed here the most frequently used passages of Scripture regarding Divorce and Remarriage: Matthew 19 (Mark and Luke) The setting is once again one of crowds following Jesus, with the addition of `some Pharisees (who) came to Him to test Him (trick Him). They asked: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason . . .' This was not a genuine question of curiosity, for the Pharisees had come to test Him in matters of the Mosaic Law. They, as Pharisees, were very zealous in matters of Mosaic Law - as we read in this passage of Scripture. You will find no mention of the so-called `exception clause' in this question, only of divorce for any reason and every cause, for the Pharisees knew that according to the Law adultery and fornication were punishable by stoning, not by divorce. Jesus replied: `Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your heart, but it was not so in the beginning'. Knowing the Pharisees' attempt to trick Him over matters of the Law He answered their unspoken `trick' question and extended His answer beyond the Mosaic Law to that which was intended by God in the beginning:
" I tell you the truth, that anyone who divorces his wife except for
`porneria' and marries another woman commits adultery. "
The disciples knew what was being spoken here by Jesus - as can be seen by their reaction: `If this is the situation . . . it is best not to marry'.
And so we come to the word `porneria' which, as we have already said, did not mean `adultery' within the context of the test question of the Pharisees. Porneria has a meaning of `any unclean sexual act', and within the context of the reply of Jesus refers to an unclean sexual act between two peoplee within a marriage relationship - a direct reference to the Levitical incest Law. The `testing' of the Pharisees was therefore to trick Jesus into saying that divorce was not permissable at all but allowed only because of hardness of heart, as allowed by Moses - which would have led to Jesus advocating the breaking of the Mosaic Law. But Jesus not only knew the Law . . He wrote it . . and so He went to the heart of the matter, saying: `If you divorce through hardness of heart and remarry you commit adultery'. But we need to keep in mind that these words of the Pharisees and of Jesus were spoken concerning people under the Mosaic Law and do not in any way concern the redeemed people of Christ Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile!
However we need to further confirm this, and so we turn to Acts chapter 15, to the Council of Jerusalem and the meeting between Paul (in defense of his Gospel) and James and the other Apostles. First we need to understand the setting of the Acts of the Apostles. This covered an historical period of 40 years (a Scriptural Probation Period) which commenced with Peter standing up in the Temple compound at the Feast of Pentecost and proclaiming: `Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem . . ' It culminated with the refusal of the Jewish leadership (seen in Acts 28) to accept Paul's message - which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Roman armies. The setting of `Acts' was not primarily doctrinal for the life of the Church, but it was a time of testing for the Jewish nation following the cry of Jesus on the cross: `Father forgive them . .' and the beginning of Paul's reaching out with the Good News for the Gentiles in obedience to Jesus' command: `You will be My witnesses'. Now, at the Council of Jerusalem, James, after hearing Paul give his judgement, and accepting the revelation given to Paul, said: (Acts 15:15-20 in part)
" The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written . . . It is my judgement, therefore. that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from . . . idols (sacrifices) . . . porneria (incest) . . . things strangled and from blood, (four unacceptable things found in the Levitical laws). "
When the decree was formally issued, it was then arranged as it is found in the Book of Leviticus. We pick up on the word `porneria', and whilst it can refer to every kind of unclean sexual intercourse, the context of the word always determines the specific meaning intended. As we have previously said, porneria could not have referred here in `Acts' (and earlier in Matthew) to unfaithfulness or adultery as the word `moicheia' would have been used instead of the word `porneria' (which denotes unclean sexual acts). In this case, within a marriage relationship it referred to an incestuous relationship - which is a non-marriage in God's sight. James, at the Council of Jerusalem, at a time of great historical and institutional change, was attempting to grapple with the momentous changes taking place within Jerusalem following the revelation given to Paul concerning the Good News to Jews and Gentiles alike.
Next we turn to Paul's Letter to the Ephesians. As we have written earlier, this Epistle is the second of the three great Doctrinal Epistles and concerns the position of `the children of light, seated, as we are, `with Him in heavenly places'. Towards the end of chapter 2 Paul reveals the mystery, `the profound mystery', which had been referred to by him in the second postscript of his Letter to the Romans - that `the Gentiles who were once excluded from the commonwealth of Israel and foreigners to the Covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world' were now one Body together with believing Jews in Christ Jesus, through His Perfect Sacrifice. Although the Roman Epistle had been written earlier than the Ephesian Epistle, the `profound mystery' could not be revealed until the Jewish Elders had finally rejected Paul's message (as recorded in Acts 28). As we have seen, this word `mystery' had been translated (for whatever reason) as `sacramentum' in the Vulgate translation, and by combining verse 32 of chapter 5 (which concerns a relationship between Christ and His Church) with natural marriage between two people, marriage is turned into a sacrament. Correctly, when this verse is placed back into the context of the whole chapter it shows that this illustrates the `profound mystery' of the Bride of Christ, elevated, lifted high for eternity with Him. Such a profound mystery should not be used to condemn those who for whatever reason have stumbled in their personal walk.
In Romans chapter 7 we see another reference to marriage - once again often used to condemn those caught up in the distress of divorce. Such Scriptures should always be read in the context of the whole! Paul, here drawing heavily upon Mosaic Law, is emphasising what he had written earlier in Romans 6:3-4 using the act of marriage (which death terminates) to illustrate the new believers' position in their new life in Christ Jesus:
" Or don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus
were baptised into His death? We were therefore buried with Him
through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the Glory of the Father, we too may live a good life. "
Once again this Epistle is one of rejoicing in our new life and not to be used out of context to condemn those who stumble.
Paul's First Letter to Timothy sets out the requirements for eldership over the flock of the Lord's Church. Those who are called into this position are expected to observe, indeed to live, the `Edenic Ideal' as the husband of but one wife as examples of how it was `in the beginning'. We shall now turn to the Prophets, who have more to say on this matter.
Ezra 9 is often used in the context of believers separating from unbelieving marriage partners, and although this is overruled by Paul's words in his First Letter to the Corinthians this needs to be briefly commented on: (Ezra 9:1)
" After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said:
`The people of Israel have not kept themselves separate from the
neighbouring peoples with their detestable practices . . . '. "
First we look at the background: Earlier Nehemiah had led the first group of people out of captivity back into the Land of Israel following the death of the Persian King Artaxerxes. Ezra, later following on with another group, had it brought to his attention that many of the `First Returnees' had married into the pagan peoples who had moved into the Land following the Babylonian captivity. Knowing that intermarriage of Jews with foreigners was strictly forbidden by Mosaic Law, Ezra was concerned that such marriages would lead to the same idolatry and worship of foreign gods that had led to captivity in Babylon in the first place. And so he called the people who were convicted of their error to put away their foreign wives and vow to follow the LORD in accordance with the Law. But as we have said, this was dealt with by Paul in his Letter to the Corinthians and does not directly concern these Reflections.
Malachi 2 is always used when divorce raises its distressing head, and always the comment is centered upon one verse without any reference to its historical and contextual setting, although it is of course recorded for those who lived by the Law as given through Moses! The message that Malachi brought to the people is closely connected to our previous comment regarding Ezra, for we find that a mere 30 years after the re-commencement of Temple worship following their Return, the Israelites were divorcing their wives in order to marry those who worshipped foreign gods - with all that that involved in sensual, sexual acts of `worship'. In that context we hear the heart-cry of the LORD, who knew the anguish arising from these actions of the Nation of Israel who had entered into a Marriage Covenant with Him at Mount Horeb (which we set out earlier). `Return to the wife of your youth, for the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce' is not only a cry for those being put away for personal sensual pleasure . . . it is His longing for the return of Israel herself to her God . . . it is a cry of distress for all who have been abandoned for selfish reasons and should be understood concerning relationships entered into but so quickly put aside when no longer desired!
Jeremiah 3 closes this Appendix. The opening words refer of course to Deuteronomy 24, where it was forbidden by the Law for a married person, once divorced and married to another, to return in marriage to the first marriage partner, It was a rebuke to faithless Judah, and further on in the narrative it reminds Judah that, unlike faithless Israel, Judah had not been given a Certificate of Divorce. The narrative clearly speaks of Israel as the northern kingdom which had indeed been `sent away' (dispersed) through invasion and war. Jeremiah usually refers to Israel as meaning the whole nation, but here chapter 3 illustrates the LORD's anger over adultery - for both `north and south' had played the harlot. Verse 7 however shows the LORD's great love for His people and is best translated not as `Turn ye unto Me' (KJV) but `Unto Me she will return'. This time it will not be under the Old Covenant but through the New Covenant; not through man's righteousness but through God's Righteous Acts towards His people.
The LORD never accepts a `patched up' broken relationship of man's best endeavours. He provides through His own actions . . through His Own Sacrifice . . removing the past stain of divorce in a re-marriage with those who are His own, those who accept Him in the promised New Covenant revealed in Jesus. Who, then, are we to withhold God's love from those who come to Him broken, hurt and humiliated by stumbling in divorce or broken through divorce? Here in this last illustrative Appendix we see not more traditions but God's total love in giving that which man cannot easily accept - the fulness of the New Covenant of Love.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
|
You may E-mail us at: derek@northernstyletrust.com or Telephone (01493) 444494 (UK)
Our Web Address: www.northernstyletrust.com
|
