What should divorce laws actually look like? And contracts necessary? And prenups?

Proverbs_31_2-3 · 2020-05-07T07:15:06+00:00

So I'll give a perspective on divorce and remarriage. I just finished reading Divorce & Remarriage: Rediscovering the Biblical Perspective 2nd edition by William F. Luck. He does a good job taking a look at most of the biblical texts concerning divorce and remarriage, and he does so in a chronological way, with the principle that newer revelations are building on and clarifying older ones, not redefining or annulling older ones.

Thus his concept is that as Christ said, "I have not come to annul the law but to fulfill it" and "not one dot or stroke shall disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away", that is what he meant. Jesus was either affirming or clarifying already existing law and doctrine when he spoke about divorce and remarriage, and so was Paul. They were actually giving teaching about specific circumstances, they were basing their teaching on what had already been revealed in the law and the prophets.

He makes some claims based on his analysis of Scripture:

Divorce is not sin in and of itself.
An unjust or treacherous divorce is wrong, and that man or woman who treacherously divorces should not remarry. (Unless they repent and reconcile to the extent possible. Then they may perhaps be free to remarry.)
One who is treacherously divorced should be free to remarry. This is assumed in the Old Testament, and carries through to the New.
It is possible to divorce someone as discipline for their treachery to the covenant. God used this language with Israel and Judah. He instructed Hosea to do this with Gomer. Penalties for adultery were death or divorce. This can be done with a hope for repentance and reconciliation. But the disciplining divorcer should be free to remarry.

The most fascinating discussion for me revolved around Matthew 5:27-32. Luck links Jesus' teaching here to the commonly known event that had just happened among the Judaean royal family of Herod Antipas. Here were the players: Herod Antipas King of Judea; Hero's wife; his half-brother Philip; Philip's wife Herodias. So Herod coveted Philip's wife Herodias. He then divorced his own wife and took Herodias from Philip. Since Jewish law did not generally permit a woman to obtain a divorce, Herodias appealed to Rome and was granted a divorce under Roman law. Herod and Herodias then married. This was the marriage that John the Baptist denounced and for which he was eventually executed. Note the parallel teaching in Luke 16:16-18 talks about John the Baptist immediately followed by vs 18 which condemns a divorcing husband who marries someone else and a divorcing wife who remarries. (He notes the Greek here can mean "a woman who herself divorces").

Follow the progression:

Matthew 5:27: Coveting another's wife is adultery/treachery (Herod coveted Philip's wife)
Matthew 5:32a parallel to [Mark 10:11]: Divorcing one's wife [and marrying another] adulterizes her [and marrying another is adulterous/treacherous]. (Herod divorced his wife in order to marry another woman. He both committed treacherous adultery and adulterized his innocent wife.)
Matthew 5:32b: Anyone who marries a woman who has herself divorced commits adultery. (Herod married Herodias who had herself divorced her husband Philip. Herodias applied for divorce from Philip and was granted it by Rome.)
Mark 10:12: If a woman divorces her husband and remarries she commits adultery. (Herodias divorced her husband Philip in order to remarry.)

Luck's full treatment of the issue is worth reading. But I think this makes the Gospel teachings on divorce and remarriage so much clearer. Jesus is not issuing a blanket condemnation of divorce and remarriage, but he is condemning (with the full support of the Old Testament law and prophets) both treacherous unwarranted divorce and the remarriage of the treacherous party, all related to this scandal of the royal family. A scandal which the Pharisees may have been noticeably silent about.

Luck proposes that Luke's 16's parable of the unjust steward, and his denouncement of the Pharisees in verse 13-15 (they serve two masters), in juxtaposition with the teaching about John the Baptist (who taught the law and the prophets) and the verse about adultery (18) are all coherently related. The Pharisees had refused to denounce Herod because instead of serving the law and the prophets (and God), they were serving another master.

He goes on to treat other New Testament texts such as 1 Corinthians 6 and 7. (Were the Corinthians going to court to sue their wives or husbands because they were refusing sex? As a result of having converted to Christianity in immoral Corinth and believing that all sexual contact must stop?) But I am not going to give a play by play of the whole book.

Not every argument in this book is as good as the historical context argument for Matthew 5. But there is a lot of good, clarifying content and I think a lot of his arguments are pretty reasonable as he tries to argue from the progressive revelation of Scripture, and assuming that new revelation builds upon the old, not wipes the old away.

Title	What should divorce laws actually look like? And contracts necessary? And prenups?
Author	SammyBelskus
Upvotes	7
Comments	6
Date	May 6, 2020 4:06 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askRPC
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/askRPC/comments/gecys9/what_should_divorce_laws_actually_look_like_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askRPC/what-should-divorce-laws-actually-look-like-and.659692 https://theredarchive.com/post/659692