Thrust statement: Every Christian
should diligently search for the meaning of the text.
Scripture readings: Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-9; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:15[1]
Without discussing immediately the correctness or incorrectness of these interpretations, it may be profitable to consider the danger of approaching the Scriptures with preconceived ideas on what a text can or cannot say. Regardless of which interpretation is correct, it is frightening that the meaning of the text no longer serves as a final authority. On the contrary, it is the present theology that predetermines what the text means and that serves as a final authority![2]
The “divorce sayings” in the Synoptic Gospels and the teachings of Paul are interpreted with a diversity of explanations. Each interpreter assumes that his clarification of the divorce sayings is God given; therefore, there is no room for disagreement once a pronouncement is made. A perusal of the various journals, especially Church of Christ journals, reveals that the most able and accomplished preachers differ widely in their explanations of the “bill of divorcement” statements. Christians differ widely in their understanding of the subject of divorce and remarriage. Many believers have allowed their discernment about the terminating of a marriage to fracture the fellowship of believers; they make no room for differences—one must agree with the interpreters or suffer the consequences.
God’s family struggles daily over how one is to interpret the divorce remarks when confronted with mitigating situations surrounding depraved behavior or circumstances, which alters one’s station in life. For example, have you ever considered the predicament of someone whose spouse has committed murder? How should one react to physical abuse by his or her spouse? Does God demand that an individual stay married to someone who is confined to prison for the rest of his or her life because of some degenerate action committed by the spouse imprisoned? Does God command an individual to live with someone who is “hell” on earth? If someone is guilty of murder, not sexual immorality, is the other partner committed to the murderer for the rest of his or her life? One does not always know what course of action to pursue when one confronts uncontrollable surroundings beyond his or her control.
Since divorce and remarriage are prevalent in every society, as it was also in Jesus’ society, it is incumbent upon every Christian to seek answers from principles set forth in Holy Scripture in trying to ferret out the intricate problems men and women face daily concerning the dilemma of divorce and remarriage. In pursuit of correct answers about how to react in all surroundings, one soon discovers that there are no “pat” answers. This essay pursues two avenues of thought to cope with the problem of divorce and remarriage: (1) exaggeration in the divorce sayings, and (2) the principle of mercy over law.
EXAGGERATION
Divorce is not always obtained on the basis of “sexual immorality.” Does this always violate the divorce sayings in the synoptic gospels and Pauline writings? Are there any valid reasons for divorce other than “fornication”? Did Jesus teach that there are no exemptions to the marriage bond other than “fornication” or “adultery”? When Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded the divorce sayings, did they consider the pronouncements of Jesus a dissertation on the subject of divorce and remarriage? Did Jesus contemplate wife abuse,[3] husband abuse, child abuse, desertion, and withholding of conjugal rights? In Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:1-12, did Jesus have in mind such crimes as murder and armed robbery? Did He contemplate these atrocities in His Sermon on the Mount when He discussed the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes about divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31-32)? Are these hypothetical cases? Or are these circumstances that need review in making a judgment about the innocent party?
Are these acts of violence included in the word “fornication”? Or did Jesus exclude every crime except “sexual immorality”? Or were these words of Jesus simply “overstatement” or “exaggeration” to emphasize the original intent of God? These are questions that require response. When one limits divorce and remarriage to “sexual immorality,” one often creates impossible situations for individuals who suffer from circumstances beyond their control. For example, consider the following trauma two women experienced in their marital relationships. One of the husbands was involved in a very heinous murder and the other husband was deeply involved in wife abuse of great degradation.
CASE NUMBER ONE. The following is a brief scenario of two men who conspired to kill the wife of one of them. According to a police report, Grady Gibson and Eddie Hart combined forces to kill Eddie’s wife to collect insurance money ($100,000). Eddie (the murdered woman’s husband) and Grady collected the money, but their clandestine operation was not discovered until almost two years after the killing—both men were eventually brought to trial. One of the men, Grady, who almost decapitated Eddie’s wife, received life without parole for his part in the homicide. On the other hand, Eddie, the dead woman’s husband, received a fifty-year sentence. Now the dilemma!
What is the status of Mrs. Gibson, the wife of Grady? Is Mrs. Gibson bound to her husband for life? Since Grady did not pull Eddie’s wife’s “panties” off, does Mrs. Gibson have the right to divorce Grady and marry someone else? What did Grady do? He just cut a woman’s head off. Now, according to some, if he had just had sex with her, then, Mrs. Gibson would have a biblical reason for divorce. But since he just cut her head off—“bound for life” is the battle cry of many preachers and elders.[4]
CASE NUMBER TWO. In 1988, the Montgomery Advertiser (20th of April) published excerpts from a letter by an “abused wife.” She wrote that she “was beaten, stomped, kicked, burned with cigarettes and stabbed.” This is not all! There is much more to this horror. She further describes her mistreatment: “He threw me into a wall so hard that my head went through the paneling. The man was also a gun fanatic. His favorite game when he was drinking was his version of Russian roulette. His gun, my head.”
Now the dilemma! Does God expect a woman to live with a man like that? Is this woman forbidden by God to divorce this brutal, inhuman, ruthless, savage, uncaring, heartless, cold-blooded, violent, sick person, simply because “sexual immorality” was not involved? If she does divorce, can she remarry without sinning? Many would say bound for life! Why? Well, you know that adultery was not committed!
Is there a biblical solution to the apparent problem? Is there the possibility of exaggeration in Jesus’ statements concerning divorce? In considering the dilemmas of these two women, one should examine the use of overstatement as used by our Lord in His teaching techniques. Not only did Jesus avail Himself of this method, but also the Holy Spirit employs this procedure throughout the Scriptures. By not giving attention to this teaching style, one may misapply and pervert the Bible.
Overstatement and Hyperbole
Exaggeration consists of hyperbole as well as overstatement. What is the distinction between hyperbole
and overstatement? Robert Stein says that hyperbole contains a bold
exaggeration that cannot literally occur, but, on the other hand, overstatement
is a bold exaggeration that can occur.[5] Is exaggeration or overstatement involved in
the divorce sayings? A study of overstatement or hyperbole can assist one in a correct
interpretation of many confusing Scriptures—especially Scriptures in the Sermon
on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-48).
One of the divorce sayings (5:31-32) that Matthew records is found in this
well-known Sermon. Some of the most
startling uses of exaggeration are found in Jesus’ Sermon. Through this practice of exaggeration, He
captures the attention of His listeners and forcefully brings home His point.
Before analyzing the various pericopes concerning divorce, one needs to
read for himself or herself the divorce sayings in the Synoptics (Matthew,
Mark, and Luke).
|
Matthew 5:31-32 |
Matthew
19:1-9 |
|
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who
divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that
anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her
to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits
adultery. |
When Jesus had finished saying these
things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side
of the Jordan. 2 Large
crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They
asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,”
he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will
become one flesh’? 6 So
they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let
man not separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that
a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your
hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for
marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
|
|
Mark 10:1-12 |
Luke 16:18 |
|
Jesus then left that place and went into the
region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him,
and as was his custom, he taught them. 2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking,
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What did Moses
command you?” he replied. 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a
certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 “It was because your
hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation
God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, 8 and
the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined
together, let man not separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the
disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone
who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries
another man, she commits adultery.” |
“Anyone who divorces his wife
and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a
divorced woman commits adultery.” |
Having just read these Scriptures from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, how
does one know that Jesus employed exaggeration or overstatement in His handling of the question of
divorce? First, consider the two
different narratives as reported by Mark and Luke.
|
Mark 10:11 |
Luke 16:18 |
|
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman
commits adultery against her.” |
“Anyone who divorces his wife
and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a
divorced woman commits adultery.” |
Is there anything in these verses that jumps out at you? What is it that Jesus leaves out that He
included in the Matthean accounts? Did
Jesus include the “exemption” clause in Mark and Luke? No!
It is not there. Neither writer
chronicles the “exemption” clause. On
the other hand, Matthew attaches the “exemption” clause. Why?
Does this inclusion in Matthew suggest that he understood the words
reported by Mark and Luke to be overstatement?
On the one hand, it appears that the words in Mark and Luke are
absolute, no exemptions. But, on the
other hand, Matthew, with divine authority, interprets Jesus’ words as forbidding
divorce, but NOT in an absolute sense as reported by Mark and Luke.[6] For example, Matthew records, “But I tell you that
anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to
become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” Why are there differences in the various
accounts?
Are there any other exceptions other than what Matthew mentioned? What about Paul’s letter to Corinth in which
he dealt with the subject of desertion on the part of the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15). How did Paul deal with the issue of
defection? Did Paul not know about
Jesus’ teachings as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Did Paul understand Jesus’ teaching about
divorce as overstatement in order to stress the original intent of
marriage? Just a cursory reading of
Paul’s first letter to Corinth reveals that he did not interpret the divorce
sayings in the Synoptics as an absolute statement with no ramifications. When the unbeliever abandons the believer,
Paul writes: “But if the
unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such
circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (1
Corinthians 7:15).
‘“Not bound’ . . . almost certainly means free to marry,” writes Stein.[7]
Does Paul contradict Jesus’ teachings as reported by the synoptic
writers? Did not Paul also write under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Matthew inserts “fornication”; Paul injects “desertion”; but Mark and
Luke do not mention any valid reasons for divorce. Do Mark and Luke contradict Matthew and Paul? How does one harmonize the differences in
the various accounts of the divorce sayings?
Perhaps the answer lies in the literary technique of exaggeration. One can safely conclude that Jesus employed overstatement and hyperbole in the Sermon on the Mount in order to highlight certain
truths. Stein captures the usefulness
of this literary technique in dealing with the subject of divorce. His comments about exaggeration
in the divorce sayings are extremely helpful in unraveling the mystery that
surrounds some of the most difficult teachings in Christendom. He writes,
Exaggeration used for effect . . . . A second
example is the “exception clause” in Jesus’ teaching on divorce. We find the teaching in its absolute form in
three instances and with the exception clause in two . . . . Although some
would argue the reverse, most scholars believe that the unqualified form of the
saying in Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians is closer to Jesus’ actual words than
are the Matthean versions with the exception clause. In the three non-Matthean versions we have a more authentic
teaching of Jesus on divorce. . . . We have already established that Jesus made
frequent use of exaggeration. Is it
possible that his sayings on divorce is an exaggeration, and that Matthew
introduces the exception clause to bring out its true meaning?[8]
A statement that conflicts with what is said elsewhere may contain
exaggeration. For instance, in the
Synoptics and Pauline writings, there are differences that exist in the divorce
sayings. How does one account for the apparent
contradictions? If one is to understand
apparent
contradictions, as opposed to real contradictions, one has to look at
the totality of God’s Word. Every
interpreter must seek to understand exaggeration in light of its context. An example of exaggeration is found in
Jesus’ statement concerning one’s relatives: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own
life—he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).
Did Jesus mean this literally?
How does one harmonize Luke 14:26 with Mark 7:9-13?
When the Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law entered into
direct conflict with Jesus, He questioned them about their disregard for the
commandment about honoring father and mother.
Listen to Mark as he narrates the events:
And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in
order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who
curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother:
‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a
gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or
mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed
down. And you do many things like that”
(Mark 7: 9-13).
In Mark 7:9, Matthew informs
the readers that Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and teachers of the law for not
honoring their fathers and mothers.
There is an apparent contradiction, not a real
contradiction between Luke 14:26 and Mark 7:9.
On the one hand, one is told to hate father and mother, but, on the
other hand, one is told to honor them.
What is the answer to this dilemma?
Hating parents is obviously an overstatement. What did Jesus seek to emphasize with such a bold statement in Luke 14:26? Was it not to put God first in one’s
life?
Another apparent, though not real, contradiction appears in Luke 6:27-36. In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus addresses the attitude that His
disciples should exemplify in their lives:
But I tell you
who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who
curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you
on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not
stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if
anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you
would have them do to you. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that
to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are
good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you
expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’
expecting to be repaid in full. But
love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get
anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most
High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is
merciful (Luke 6:27-36).
How does one reconcile Luke 6:27-36 with Luke 14:26 (see above
citation)? One simply accepts the
statements in Luke
14:26 and Luke
6:27-36 as true, and one must. On the
surface, there is an apparent contradiction, even though not a real contradiction. Unless
one accepts one of these statements as overstatement, then, there is
contradiction. By Jesus employing overstatement
in Luke 14:26, He effectively
brings home His intent—God is preeminent.
Another example of overstatement is found in Matthew 5:42. Jesus says: “Give to the one who asks you, and do
not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Did
Jesus intend for this Scripture to authorize an individual’s demand for money
without any discrimination on the part of the giver? How many are willing to follow this as an absolute statement that
is binding on the person being asked?
Are there no reservations in lending a helping hand? Have you ever turned away someone? If so, have you violated Jesus’ command in Matthew 5:42? If you interpret this literally and not as overstatement, would you
please send me your telephone number immediately—and I mean now! Do I sense hesitation? Isn’t it strange how quickly one can see overstatement
in this command of Jesus when it concerns money?
What is Jesus seeking to emphasize with such a bold statement? Is He not going straight to the “jugular
vein” of covetousness? Does Jesus want
greed to die? It appears that Jesus
desires individuals to share with those who are less fortunate than themselves. James, our Lord’s brother, also captures the
essence of Jesus’ words when he writes:
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims
to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without
clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep
warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
(James 2:14-16).
Again, it is necessary to compare Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:42 with Paul’s statement to the
Thessalonians. He forcefully writes:
For even when we were with you, we gave you
this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among
you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command
and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire
of doing what is right. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter,
take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel
ashamed. Yet do not regard
him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother (2
Thessalonians 3:10-13).
Is there a contradiction between
the words of Jesus and the words of Paul?
On the surface there is an apparent contradiction, but not a real
contradiction. Jesus captures the
attention of His listeners and forcefully brings home God’s distaste for covetousness. Jesus could have mentioned “exemptions” to
His statement in Matthew
5:42, but this elaboration would have taken away from the focal point—namely,
man’s piggishness.
Another example of exaggeration is Jesus’ admonition about prayer: “But when you pray, go
into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then
your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:6). Does Jesus forbid public prayers? Does not Jesus use overstatement to illustrate
that praying is not to be done to be seen of men? Whatever work of righteousness one does must be performed to
God’s glory, not for self or for man.
One must never carry out good works to acquire praise from men. Jesus warns His disciples against
pretentious works: “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before
men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in
heaven” (Matthew 6:1). Yet, on the other hand, in this same sermon,
Jesus encourages the disciples to do good works: “Neither do people light
a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives
light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before
men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:15-16). Here again there is an apparent contradiction, but
not a real
contradiction. Jesus uses overstatement
to emphasize that performance of religious acts must come from the heart. In other words, Jesus is saying that
personal prayer is not for display and neither are works for exhibition; your
acts of righteousness are a matter between you and God.
Scripture abounds in the use of overstatement and exaggeration to underscore
God’s real intention. For instance,
consider Jesus’ use of overstatement to highlight the importance
of eliminating sin from one’s life:
If your right
eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand
causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose
one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell (Matthew 5:29-30).
Does Jesus teach that one must
mutilate his or her body? This
statement about mutilation of body parts is a classic example of overstatement
in the teachings of Jesus.
Overstatement
and hyperbole
abound in Jesus’ teachings in the Synoptics.
Is there a distinction between these two forms of exaggeration? Yes! An overstatement is an exaggeration that is
literally possible but hyperbole is literally impossible. To illustrate this separation, consider the
following words of Jesus: “it is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24). Jesus employs hyperbole to press home a
point. Although a camel cannot go
through the “eye of a needle” (hyperbole), nevertheless, a rich man can
be saved. The point of this hyperbole
is to emphasize with the absurd the difficulty of a rich person being
saved. On the other hand, Jesus uses overstatement
to draw attention to a central point without drawing attention to
exemptions, which would weaken His emphasis.
One could literally gouge out one’s eye (overstatement), and one
could literally cut off one’s hand (overstatement), but, on the other hand, a
camel cannot go through the “eye of a needle” (hyperbole). Hyperbole and overstatement were employed
as teaching techniques by Jesus to capture the attention of His listeners.
Overstatement
is apparently the answer to the much debated divorce sayings in the
Synoptics. Jesus frequently employs various
methods to inculcate His truths. The
divorce sayings as reported by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul may very well have
included these procedures to stress the importance of the institution of
marriage. By comparing all of the
divorce sayings, one can safely conclude that Jesus uses exaggeration for
calling attention to the original design of marriage. If one applies the same principles to the
divorce sayings that Christians have applied to other sayings of Jesus, one can
then arrive at a working postulate upon which to form a judgment about the
propriety or impropriety of divorce and remarriage for reasons other than
sexual immorality.
In one’s study of the divorce sayings, one can rule out hyperbole. Divorce is something one can do, that is to
say, it is possible, not impossible; one can divorce with or without God’s
blessings. It appears that the words of
Jesus are simply overstatement. A
perusal of the divorce sayings in the Synoptics and Pauline writings reveals
that the divorce accounts do not agree.
Observe the following accounts:
Anyone who
divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And
if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
Anyone who
divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who
marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Luke 16:18).
But I tell you
that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes
her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits
adultery (Matthew
5:32).
I tell you that
anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries
another woman commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).
But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so.
A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us
to live in peace (1 Corinthians 7:15).
Neither Mark nor Luke takes notice of the “marital unfaithfulness” phrase as grounds for divorce. On the other hand, Matthew introduces the exemption clause (“marital unfaithfulness”) twice. Then, in addition to the “marital unfaithfulness” clause, Paul adds “desertion” as an additional reason.[9]
What does all of this mean? How
can one harmonize apparent contradictions, not real contradictions—with the
above citations? When one compares
Scripture with Scripture, one can often learn whether a particular saying is an
exaggeration or a specific command. The
question might be asked, why would Jesus introduce exaggeration in the divorce
sayings? It appears that Jesus
implements exaggeration to accentuate certain truths. Why is it that neither
Mark nor Luke journaled the exemption clause?
One wonders if the teachings of Jesus, as journaled by Mark and Luke,
fall under overstatement. Since neither Mark nor Luke registers the
exemption clause, is it possible that Jesus employs overstatement? Recognition
of this teaching technique of exaggeration enables one to more accurately
interpret the intent of the author. An
awareness of exaggeration in the Scriptures will assist one in seeking biblical
answers to the baffling question of divorce and remarriage that has plagued the
church for centuries. It is obvious, as
stated above, there are no “pat” answers to this dilemma.
The second aspect of this paper deals with mercy taking precedence over law. Even if exaggeration (granted for the sake of argument) is not involved in the divorce sayings as advanced in part one, nevertheless, there is still the principle of mercy over law coming into play. To illustrate this principle of mercy over law, a number of illustrations are presented to call attention to this vital concept of mercy taking precedence over law in dealing with the many problems individuals face in the marital relationship. Adultery or fornication is not always the issue in the dissolution of the marriage bond. To illustrate this principle of mercy taking precedence over law, the story of David and the Bread of the Presence is analyzed.
David and the Bread of the
Presence
How does David and the Bread of the Presence help one in understanding the divorce sayings in the Synoptics and Paul? Hopefully, an analysis of this episode will shed light from which Christians may draw principles upon which to base biblical decisions. Again, even if exaggeration is not found in the divorce sayings, one may consider mercy as another alternative to one’s dilemma in dealing with divorce. Mercy over law is another aspect one needs to analyze in seeking an answer to the perplexing problems surrounding divorce and remarriage. To paint a picture about the righteousness of mercy taking preference over the righteousness of law, one only needs to read about David and the twelve loaves of bread in the Holy Place.
Matthew records Jesus’ reference to an incident that occurred in the days of Abiathar the high priest. Behind this scene lies the original statement respecting the eating of the sacred bread. Moses gave instructions concerning the “bread of the Presence”—it belonged only to Aaron and his sons, that is, only to the priests:
Take fine flour and bake twelve loaves of bread, using two-tenths of an ephah for each loaf. Set them in two rows, six in each row, on the table of pure gold before the LORD. Along each row put some pure incense as a memorial portion to represent the bread and to be an offering made to the LORD by fire. This bread is to be set out before the LORD regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in a holy place, because it is a most holy part of their regular share of the offerings made to the LORD by fire (Leviticus 24:5-9).
This consecrated bread was preserved only for the priests, no one else. Moses did not enter any “exemptions” to this rule. But one does read of an incident in the life of David where he and his men did eat of the consecrated bread because of hunger. This story is found in First Samuel:
David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest.
Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no
one with you?” David answered Ahimelech the priest, “The king charged me with a
certain matter and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about your mission
and your instructions.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain
place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of
bread, or whatever you can find.” But
the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however,
there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from
women.” David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever
I set out. The men’s things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How
much more so today!” So the
priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except
the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced
by hot bread on the day it was taken away (1 Samuel 21:1-6).
Jesus uses this circumstance to explain by example the principle of mercy
over law. Matthew cites the first face-to-face
confrontation of the religious leaders with Jesus in Matthew 12. The Pharisees rebuked His disciples for
picking some heads of grain on the Sabbath because they were hungry. Mark, as well as Luke, also tells about this
showdown. Every believer must consider
carefully the parallel accounts of Jesus’ encounter with the religious leaders
in dealing with the subject of divorce and remarriage. One learns a great deal about mercy
taking the lead over law.
It appears that many Christians are as blind as were the Pharisees in
this skirmish with Jesus over the traditions of the elders.
Matthew 12:1-8
|
Mark 2:23-28
|
Luke 6:1-5
|
|
At that time Jesus went through the
grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some
heads of grain and eat them. When
the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing
what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t
you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered
the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which
was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the
priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that
one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy,
not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” |
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the
grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads
of grain. 24 The Pharisees
said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He
answered, “Have you never read what
David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the
house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for
priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
|
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the
grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in
their hands and eat the kernels. Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you
doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his
companions were hungry? He entered the
house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is
lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of
Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” |
Jesus said that David and his men
did that which “was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests” (Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:4). In other words, in today’s parlance, it was
“unscriptural,” as we say in the Churches of Christ. But, in spite of this unlawfulness, Jesus illustrates that it is
always lawful to be humane and to save life.
In other words, such compassionate acts are within the true “spirit of
the law.” Under normal circumstances,
God would have condemned David for his disobedience to Moses’ command, but
because of the critical situation of need for food, compassion took supremacy
over statute law.
Matthew also adds another detail, which neither Mark nor Luke records,
concerning Jesus’ confrontation with the religious leaders: “If you had known what
these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned
the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:7-8). In other words, Jesus is stressing mercy
over the Sabbath. It is also
significant that neither Matthew nor Luke adds: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath” (Mark
2:27). With this statement, Jesus
highlights the priority of man over law.
Jesus’ forcefully sets forth the concept that man was not made for law,
but rather, law was created for man’s benefit.
Ordinarily, one would keep the Sabbath, but, on the other hand, there
could be mitigating conditions in which mercy would take rank over the Sabbath. The implication is that one must understand
that man was not brought into being to keep the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was
conceived for his welfare. If in the
keeping of the Sabbath, it would be detrimental to man, then, grace takes the
lead over the Sabbath.
Is this a principle that one could apply to the marriage bond when one
finds himself or herself in an impossible situation? Was man or woman made for marriage? Or was marriage made for their benefit? It appears that the “tradition of the elders” is still alive and
well on planet earth. Many still do not
understand that man was not made for law, but law was made for man’s benefit (Mark 2:27). Many Christians, especially elders and
preachers, still exercise the same kind of self-righteousness the Pharisees
exhibited when they condemn the innocent party in a divorce when the offended
person refuses to continue to live in an environment that is dangerous, risky,
and hazardous to his or her well-being.[10] Christians must never forget that the Son of
Man is Lord of the initial institution of marriage as well as Lord of the
Sabbath. It is true that God intends
one man and one woman for life; nevertheless, God, because of sin, that is to
say, hardness of man’s heart (Matthew 19:8), did give a safety valve (divorce)
for an impossible situation (Deuteronomy
24:1-4).
Jesus brought to the attention of the religious leaders the original
intent of marriage. In the Garden of
Eden, there was no need of a law concerning the marriage covenant. But after sin entered, God dealt with
divorce because of man’s sinfulness (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
It is in this same vein that God dealt with murder. After man’s expulsion from his Edenic home,
God issued instructions about those who took another person’s life (Genesis 9:6). Prior to this expulsion, there was no need
to address this issue—sin had not yet entered the world. Thus, in Deuteronomy, Moses records what the
Lord revealed to him concerning the unthinkable conditions in marriage. Even when Moses says, “and he writes her a certificate of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1), it was still God’s
design that there be one man and one woman for life (Matthew
19:4-6).
Again, man was not made for marriage, but marriage was initiated for
his and her happiness. The original
purpose in marriage is still one man and one woman for life; but since sin
entered the world, there may be mitigating situations in which mercy
takes supremacy over God’s initial meaning of the institution of marriage. In other words, God in his mercy
makes provisions for the dissolution of marriages when the hardness of the
heart prevails (Matthew 19:8; Deuteronomy 24:1-4).[11]
Thus far, exaggeration and mercy have been considered in seeking
answers to the complexities encountered in the ending of the marriage
bond. Can one exclude exaggeration
and mercy
as possible answers for one’s dilemma in a dangerous relationship? Is there another alternative for the
dissolution of marriage when one is confronted with an absolute
statement about divorce that does not set forth exemptions? What does one do with an absolute statement
when no exemptions are made? Since the
statements about marriage and divorce in both Mark and Luke are absolute, can
one find relief from a hopeless situation in marriage? Before proceeding with an analysis of the
absoluteness of the divorce sayings, it is in order to consider another graphic
case of physical abuse.
CASE NUMBER THREE.
On December 12, 1988, Hedda Nussbaum appeared on the coversheet of Newsweek[12]. This is the story of two who
lived together, but were not, as I understand it, married. Nevertheless, this case still serves as a
vivid illustration of the predicament that women face in the real world of men.[13] But this scenario is still the same as
countless women who are married can testify.
If the two had been married, would she have had a valid reason to
divorce her husband? Before you make a
decision, please read the “rest of the story,” as Paul Harvey would say. Ann Jones writes about Nussbaum’s picture
that appeared on the cover of Newsweek on December 12, 1988 following her
arrest:
There had been other “battered women” on the covers of other magazines—Ms. For one—pretty, posed models, delicately bruised with makeup in subtle tones of mauve and heliotrope, their eyes cast down in simulation of shame or sadness. But nothing like this. Hedda Nussbaum was the real thing. The photo was shot as she testified against her companion of twelve years, Joel Steinberg, who was charged with murder for beating to death the six-year-old girl the couple had illegally “adopted.” (Hired as an attorney to place the child, Steinberg simply took her home.) Hedda Nussbaum’s bruises had healed and the discolorations faded, but her face remained permanently scarred and misshapen, remodeled first by Joel Steinberg and subsequently by Dr. Monte Keen, plastic surgeon—the man-made face of America’s most famous battered woman.[14]
I remember my first impression
about this story. I thought she and her
husband ought to be put to death. But,
I made judgments without knowing the full story. “That face made some people weep. It made others want to destroy her. Especially women. Put her
on trial, they said. Lock her up. Get rid of her. Just look at what she let him do to her. Look at what she let him do to her child,”
writes Jones.[15] But after the jury heard only the part that
the judge would allow—not the whole story of abuse—they emerged from the jury
room on January 30th with a verdict—Not Guilty of murder—but Guilty
of manslaughter in the first degree.
Jones reports
that at the time Hedda Nussbaum met Joel Steinberg, “She was thirty-two,
good-looking, a rising editor of children’s books at Random House, and he was
thirty-three, good-looking, a lawyer, and (like Nussbaum) Jewish.”[16] This is a description of Nussbaum when she
met Steinberg in 1975.[17] But, when she was arrested on November 2,
1987, a doctor from the New York University Medical Center, who examined her
from head to toe on November 3, 1987, described the forty-five year old woman
to the jury as
anemic,
debilitated, malnourished, wasted, limping, and hunch-backed from
osteoporosis. He found “old and new
lacerations on her scalp, chunks of hair torn out from the right side of her
head, an old ulceration and a new fracture on her nose, a black eye, lacerated
upper lip, three- or four-month old fractures on both cheekbones, a scar on the
abdomen, bruises on the abdomen and back, eight fractured right ribs, seven
fractured left ribs, a very large new bruise on the right hip with many scarred
areas around it, old abrasion on the left leg, and two deep, three-inch-wide
ulcers on the right leg, which was infected, partly gangrenous, and red and
swollen from foot to knee.” The
ulcerated lesions on Nussbaum’s lower right leg were ‘potentially fatal’
injuries, the doctor said, which if untreated “could have led to blood
poisoning and cardiovascular collapse.”[18]
Jimmy Breslin wrote in Newsday, “She looked as if she had just fought Fritzie
Zivic in Pittsburgh. Fritzie used to get his thumb into an eye and turn it like
he was dialing a phone number.[19] Again, Jones says that Paul Hamill of the New York Post was “most shocked by the nose.” He also wrote, “This is the nose of an old
pug, some club-fighting veteran of the St. Nicholas Arena or Eastern Parkway,
battered and hurt and healed and hurt again, until it is no longer the nose
worn when young.”[20] The prosecutor Peter Casolaro wanted
Nussbaum to tell the jury about some of Steinberg’s assault, but Judge Harold
Rothwax decided that the jury could not hear about his history of abuse for
fear that that knowledge would inflame the jury. Prior to Nussbaum’s testimony, Casolaro outlined thirty-two
incidents of assaults. The newspapers
printed summaries. The following is a
list of atrocities taken from Newday’s “Catalog of Abuse,” cited in Jones:
1. March 17,
1978. The first time Steinberg struck
Nussbaum, hitting her in the eye with an open hand. She required hospital treatment.
Admitted
into evidence.
2. In 1978. Steinberg gave Nussbaum at least ten black
eyes.
3. Feb. 4, 1981. Steinberg ruptured Nussbaum’s spleen in a
beating. She had to go to St. Vincent’s
Hospital to have it removed. Admitted
into evidence.
4. In 1982. Steinberg beat Nussbaum and she sought
treatment at St. Vincent’s for broken ribs.
5. In 1983. Steinberg used a broomstick to beat her on
the feet, causing injury and scars.
6. Late 1983 through
1984. Steinberg beat her severely and
repeatedly during this period. Her face
was disfigured, her nose broken, and her ear cauliflowered. Steinberg restricted her movements,
presumably so her injuries would not be noticed. Once, when she phoned her father for help, Steinberg threw her
down. This point admitted into
evidence. Feb. 11, 1984. Her knee was broken in a beating and she
limped to Bellevue Hospital for treatment.
April 14, 1984. She was beaten
and ran away.
7. In 1984. Steinberg kicked Nussbaum in the eye,
producing serious injury.
8. In 1984. Steinberg hit Nussbaum in the eye, leaving
her with a swollen eye.
9. In 1984. Steinberg beat Nussbaum after she refused to
take a cold bath and then threw her into the bath with her clothes on. She ran away.
10. In 1984. Steinberg choked Nussbaum, damaging her
vocal cords.
11. August 1984. Steinberg gave Nussbaum a black eye. She lost her job with Random House while
staying home to recuperate. Admitted
into evidence.
12. Late 1984 to early
1985. Steinberg used a blowtorch used
for freebasing to burn Nussbaum, leaving scars.
13. Late 1984. Steinberg took a bath with Nussbaum and then
beat her “brutally.”
14. Late 1984.
Steinberg used a broomstick handle to beat her hands, leaving them permanently
injured.
15. In 1985. Steinberg
used a stick to beat Nussbaum’s sexual organs, causing them to swell for
several months. In a subsequent
beating, she hemorrhaged.
16. In 1985.
Steinberg urinated on Nussbaum twice after throwing her to the floor.
17. Same as number 16.
18. September
1985. Steinberg handcuffed Nussbaum in
the bathroom and forced her to sleep there.
19. In 1985. Steinberg handcuffed Nussbaum to a chinning
bar in the bedroom and told her to sleep there.
20. In 1985. Steinberg struck Nussbaum, chipping or
knocking out teeth.
21. Late 1985 to early
1986. Steinberg knocked her down and
she cut her wrist by falling against a filing cabinet, causing injury and
scarring.
22. In 1986. Steinberg hit Nussbaum, knocking out more
teeth.
23. In 1986. Steinberg beat up Nussbaum in a car on the
way to visit his mother.
24. In 1986. Steinberg
hit her head against a wall, causing her to bleed.
25. Late 1986 through
1987. Steinberg beat Nussbaum
repeatedly with a metal exercise bar, especially during the two months before
Lisa Steinberg’s death on Nov. 5, 1987.
Admitted
into evidence.
26. In 1987. Steinberg struck Nussbaum with his open
hand, splitting her lip repeatedly.
27. In 1987. Steinberg broke her nose again in a beating.
28. October 1987. Steinberg grabbed her by one ankle and one
wrist and bounced her on the floor, severely bruising her buttocks.
29. Late 1987. When Nussbaum refused to take a cold bath,
Steinberg threw her into the bathtub with her clothes on.
30. In 1987. Steinberg pulled her hair out numerous
times.
31. October 1987. Steinberg repeatedly poked his fingers in
Nussbaum’s eyes, lacerating her nose once.
32. During the last
nine years the couple lived together the physical abuse continued with
regularity, “a persistent tool used . . . to control Miss Nussbaum, or . . . to
break her will.[21]
Only four of the thirty-two
barbarities committed against her were admitted into evidence during the
trial. He received a sentence of 8 1/3
to 25 years for killing the child Lisa—no punishment for what he did to Miss
Hedda Nussbaum.[22]
One additional
report of this case is given to make individuals aware of the problems that
many individuals face in the “ends and outs” of everyday life. Ronald Sullivan wrote in The Metropolitan
News the following account of the atrocities committed against Miss Nussbaum:
·
At the direction of a female detective, Ms.
Nussbaum, dressed in a dark turtleneck sweater and blue jeans, displayed her
injuries to the camera, pulling up her sweater and pulling down her pants in the
process. As one juror winced at the
sight and others shook their heads in disbelief, the tape showed massive cuts
and bruises and evidence of other injuries all over Ms. Nussbaum’s body. For example, a dark bruise the size of a
saucer was on her right buttock. Her
right wrist was deformed, where a broken bone had healed incorrectly. Deep green ulcerations covered the length of
her right leg. The condition of that
leg caused one juror to gasp in shock.
·
Earlier two prosecution witnesses told the jury that
Ms. Nussbaum appeared to have just suffered a savage beating when detectives
and a child-abuse worker tried to question her and Mr. Steinberg about Lisa’s
injuries. “Her nose was caved in; her
face was swollen; she was a mass of black-and-blue marks,” said Joseph
Petrizzo, a child-abuse caseworker in the New York City Bureau of Special
Services for Children.
·
“She had a broken nose, blackened eyes, a split
lip, and big clumps of her hair were missing,” said Robert Columbia, a police
detective assigned to sex crimes and child-abuse cases.” “She was limping and she looked dazed and
confused.”
·
Charges of murder against Ms. Nussbaum have been
dismissed on the ground that she was so beaten she was incapable of saving Lisa
from death (their daughter). Ms. Nussbaum
is expected to be the main prosecution witness.[23]
What reaction should Christians exercise toward those who find
themselves in an impossible situation of such cruelty? Do you say, “Adultery not involved, still
bound for life”? The response of many
preachers and elders today is the height of “legalism.” It is on par with the religious leaders of
Jesus’ day, perhaps even worse. The
“letter of the law” is the battle cry of many, no mercy—just law. Let God’s people turn once more to Holy
Scripture for a biblical solution. A
biblical example should help one in seeking a biblical solution to such a
baffling problem for many Christians, especially editor-bishops, preachers, and
elders.
The case of David and the “Bread of the Presence,” as discussed above,
is worthy of recall in analyzing the above scenario of physical abuse. This example still provides an excellent
illustration of “absolute statement” when dealing with extenuating
circumstances that allows for mercy to take superiority over law. One finds an absolute statement concerning
the eating of consecrated bread with no mention of exemptions. The law is absolute, no mention of
exemptions. But when Jesus called forth
this case in his dealing with the religious leaders, one quickly observes that
Jesus indicates that David was without guilt: “If you had known what
these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned
the innocent” (Matthew
12:7). Jesus informed the religious
leaders that because of extenuating circumstances surrounding David’s
predicament that God overrode law with mercy (A principle that many
of our religious leaders have not yet learned.).
Although there are absolute statements[24]
concerning the dissolution of marriage, does this fact indicate, in and of
itself, that there cannot be exemption from the marriage bond for any reason
other than sexual immorality? Does an
absolute statement about divorce and remarriage exclude one from divorcing for
husband abuse, wife abuse, child abuse, murder, robbery, fornication, or
adultery? Does the innocent party have
any recourse for the wickedness of a husband or wife?
Many wives/husbands have been poisoned, brutally beaten, stabbed—even
to the point of paralysis or death—and others shot or killed. Is it God’s design in marriage to have a
woman or a man to live with a monster or maniac simply because he or she did
not engage in sexual relations outside the marriage bond? Many would say yes, but, in spite of the
consensus of many, one should still analyze any absolute statement in its intended
application. If God did not
legislate specifically concerning the above issues, then one should rely upon
principles set forth in the Scriptures to make a valid judgment concerning
divorce for other reasons than sexual immorality.
It is not uncommon for Christians to treat the Scriptures with the same
legality that the religious leaders did in the days of Jesus. Just as the Pharisees used their Scriptures
in an illegal manner to uphold their traditions, so also do many preachers,
editor bishops, and elders employ the Scriptures in the same illegitimate
fashion to uphold their heritage.[25] One should again reflect upon the
confrontation of Jesus with the Pharisees in Matthew 12:1-12, in which Jesus
reminds the Pharisees that David and his companions violated God’s law, but
were not condemned. Why were they not
doomed? Well, Jesus informs the
religious leaders that there may be extenuating circumstances in which mercy
takes precedence over law. In this
encounter, Jesus also calls attention to the principle of mercy over law by
reminding them of the Sabbath. Jesus
penetrates their façade of hypocrisy by saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath” (Mark
2:27). In other words,
Jesus says that under the normal state of affairs, one would adhere to the Sabbath
regulations, but there may be controlling factors in which mercy takes
supremacy over law.
The relationship between the Old Testament incident of David (1 Samuel 21:1-6) and the apparent
infringement of the Sabbath day by the disciples lies in the fact that on both
occasions godly men did something forbidden—one by God, the other by man
(traditions of the elders). Since,
however, it is always “lawful” to do good and to save life (even on the
Sabbath), both David and the disciples were within the “spirit” of the law (see
Isaiah 58:6-7; Luke 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6).[26] The same reasoning may be applied to other
commands from God—including marriage and divorce. Neither man nor woman was made for the “marriage law,” but the
“marriage law” was made for their welfare.
Again, there may be mitigating circumstances in which mercy takes level
standing over law. Larry Richard’s
statement about the principles of mercy is to the point:
David’s need was seen by God as more important than the law’s regulation. And the priest’s service to Israel was, of course, more important than the Sabbath prohibition against work. In each case a principle of mercy—of deep concern for human need—took precedence over what was technically a violation of the law. David and the priests broke the law but were adjudged innocent.
Isn’t it possible that those who suffer the tragedy of divorce and who remarry do commit adultery, as David committed sacrilege, and yet are adjudged innocent? Doesn’t the law’s provision of divorce and its expectation of remarriage suggest that God can and does deal with divorce and remarriage with a mercy quite unlike the attitude of ancient and modern Pharisees who are preoccupied with legalities. . . . It is here (Matthew 19) that Jesus points out that divorce was permitted because human hearts are hard, not because God desires divorce. Divorce was an expression of God’s mercy, not an affirmation of his ideal will.[27]
What is one to do with apparent
contradictory statements existing in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul? To understand the teachings of Jesus on this
subject, one must consider the scenario of Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees. First, Matthew informs his readers that the
religious leaders came to Jesus when He entered the region of Judea to the
other side of the Jordan. Second, the
Pharisees asked questions about divorce, not because they wanted to know what
God had said, but rather to test Him: “Some Pharisees,” writes Matthew, “came to him to test him” (Matthew 19:3). Jesus, upon being asked His view—“Some Pharisees came and tested
him by asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife’” (Mark 10:2)—realized that the whole debate
was focusing upon speculations about when the divine plan for marriage can be
ignored. Jesus, out of regard for the basic plan and purpose of God in
marriage, replied abruptly, “It was
because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law” (Mark 10:5).
In so responding to the Jewish leaders, He is not concerned with
hypothetical situations or exemptions.
Rather, He is solicitous for the ideal design of God—one man and one
woman for life (Mark 10:6-8).
In answer to the Pharisees’ question about
divorce, Jesus could have said, “It is written” (Matthew 4:4), and then cited
the words of Moses in Deuteronomy
24:1-4. But in this confrontation, He
did not exegete God’s words on divorce to Moses, but rather, He took them back
to the original institution of marriage before the fall (Genesis 1—3). A parallel to this marital legislation is
the law concerning murder. After the
“fall” in the Garden of Eden, God dealt with murder; God issued a death warrant
for all those guilty of murder: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in
the image of God has God made man” (Genesis 9:6). There was no reason for God to legislate
concerning divorce and murder prior to the fall. But because of sin, God had to enact legislation to protect the
innocent (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
Jesus did not seek to lay down a legal
pronouncement to cover every hypothetical crisis in the lives of men and
women. To teach that He did is to read
more into the text than Jesus himself taught.
How does one know this? First,
it is significant that Mark and Luke leave out the “exemption clause” (Mark 10:10; Luke 16:18).
On the other hand, Matthew includes this controversial clause in the Sermon on
the Mount and Jesus’ battle with the Jewish leaders (Matthew
5:32; 19:9). Then,
Paul, in his first letter to Corinth, sets forth “desertion” by the unbeliever
as another “exemption clause” (1 Corinthians 7:15). Did he contradict the teachings of Jesus in
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9? Did he contradict Mark 10:10
and Luke 16:18? Did he understand that Jesus was not giving
a dissertation on marriage and divorce?
Did he understand overstatement and hyperbole in the teachings
of Jesus? Listen to Paul’s advice about
desertion: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or
woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15). Would this principle also apply in wife
battering? If not, why not?
In summary, the
“divorce sayings” must be interpreted in light of their context and their
intended meanings. It is not sufficient
simply to quote a passage of Scripture and say this is what the Bible says. Very often the Bible does not mean what it
says literally, that is, it may say one thing, but mean something else. To illustrate this principle, it is
necessary to look at familiar passages in the book of Isaiah (11:6-9; 35:8-11) to highlight this
proposition. One quickly observes that
these two citations from Isaiah conflict with each other if interpreted
literally.
Isaiah 11:6-9
|
Isaiah 35:8-10
|
|
The wolf
will live with the lamb, the leopard
will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling
together; and a little child will lead them. 7 The cow will feed
with the bear, their young will
lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 The
infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put
his hand into the viper’s nest. 9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my
holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the
waters cover the sea. |
And a highway will be there; it will be
called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be
for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it. 9 No
lion will be there, nor will any ferocious
beast get up on it; they will not be found there. But only the redeemed will walk there, 10
and the ransomed of the LORD will return. They will enter Zion with
singing; Everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will
overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away. |
A common
interpretation of Isaiah
11:6-9 is that in the millenium kingdom, carnivorous animals will be
transformed into herbivorous animals.
But it is better to see this pericope (section) of Scripture as an
exaggerated picture of the happiness and serenity of the coming messianic
age. Isaiah describes, in very
picturesque language, the animals of the wild as living together with the more
gentle animals. In one passage, the
“lion” is there, yet, on the other hand, the passage in Isaiah 35:8-10 excludes
nonpeaceful animals in the picture of bliss and peace. Both passages, though literally
contradictory, call forth different analogies to express the same reality, that
is to say, peace in the coming messianic age.
In Matthew
23:24, Jesus says, “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a
camel.” Observe that Jesus says that
the religious leaders swallowed a camel.
The question is, did they? One
must be careful to distinguish between the words of Jesus and the meaning
Jesus intended to convey to His listeners.
In most instances, the words and their meanings are the same, that
is, a literal fulfillment is meant. But
in “You
strain out a gnat but swallow a camel,” the words and their meanings are
not the same. For one to take these
words literally would be to lose sight of the meaning Jesus intended these
expressions to communicate. Through the
use of hyperbole,
Jesus effectively heightened the effective nature of His thoughts. The purpose of exaggerated language is to
create a greater impression and to stir His hearers to reflect more closely
upon the reality of their hypocritical actions and to consider more firmly His
teachings.
Through
exaggeration, Jesus is able to create a picture that is unforgettable. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus says, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your
brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” Who can forget the figures of
“sawdust” in one’s eye and a “plank” in another eye. Or who can forget the words of Jesus, “Again I tell you, it is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24). Such
pictures are long remembered. Jesus
employed bold language to impress upon the hearer the seriousness of what He
was telling them.
Another example of exaggeration is found in
Jesus’ announcement: “Do not suppose
that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). How does one
harmonize this pronouncement with other statements in Matthew, Mark and
Luke? For instance, consider the following:
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9).
He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and
be freed from your suffering” (Mark 5:34).
As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city,
he wept over it and said, “If you, even
you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is
hidden from your eyes (Luke 19:41-42).
Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host
appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on
earth peace to men on whom his favor rests. (Luke
2:13-14).
If one interprets “I did not come to bring peace” literally, then, this contradicts Mark’s and Luke’s
“peace” sayings. Also, a literal
interpretation would not harmonize with Paul’s letter to Rome: “Therefore,
since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). The context is the determining factor for Matthew 10:34. This sword did not have anything to do with politics or military
action. Jesus employed the term “sword”
as a metaphorical description of the division that faith in Christ often brings
about; namely, the dissolution of the family unit when one member of the family
becomes a Christian.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught the disciples to pray
secretly: “But when you pray, go into
your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen” (Matthew 6:6).
Is this command to be interpreted literally? Is this not overstatement? Can one pray in public, even though this
command tells one to “close the door and pray”? Jesus did not always pray in His closet.
After leaving them, he went up on a
mountainside to pray (Mark 6:46).
Children were also brought to Jesus for
prayers: “Then little
children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray
for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do
not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When
he had placed his hands on them, he departed (Matthew 19:13-15). Matthew does not mention the prayers, but
he does allude to Jesus’ touching the children. No doubt He also prayed for the children.
Another fine example of overstatement is Jesus’
teaching on swearing. In the Sermon on
the Mount, Jesus says,
Again, you have
heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but
keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ But I tell you, Do not
swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it
is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by
your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’
be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one (Matthew 5:33-37).
Is this an absolute prohibition again swearing? Can Christians swear in court? Can a Christian swear when taking his or her driver’s license? The Sermon on the Mount abounds with overstatement. On another occasion Jesus did not forbid total refrain from swearing. In His confrontation with the Pharisees, Jesus says,
Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it (Matthew 23:16-22).
In this scenario, Jesus condemns the view of the religious leaders in
their willingness to swear by the temple or the altar as nothing. On the other hand, if they swore by the gold
of the temple or the gift that they offered on the altar, then, the oath is
binding. It is also worthy of
observation that Jesus did not refuse to be placed under oath. To begin with, Jesus remained silent; but
the high priest said, “I charge you under
oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63). Then Jesus no longer remained silent: “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of
you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the
Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64).
Jesus responds in compliance with the law: “If a person
sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify
regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible”
(Leviticus 5:1).
Hating Parents
How does one determine if a statement or
saying is hyperbole
or overstatement? The study of parallel passages often shed
light in helping to determine exaggeration.
It is apparent that the Gospel writers were not always concerned with
the ipsissima
verba. One cannot always be
sure that the Evangelist sought to convey the exact wording of Jesus’
sayings. A good example is found in Luke 14:26 and its parallel in Matthew 10:37.
|
Luke 14:26 |
Matthew 10:37 |
|
If anyone comes to me and does
not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and
sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. |
Anyone who loves his father or
mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter
more than me is not worthy of me. |
Through Matthew’s account, one is able to
observe that Jesus’ bidding to hate one’s family, as recorded in Luke 14:26, was not meant to be taken literally but was an overstatement
used for effectiveness. In this hate
relationship, Jesus employs exaggeration to highlight the superiority of
faithfulness to God over faithfulness to family ties, as is evident from the
fact that Jesus’ statement conflicts with His other clear statements about
loving one’s parents or enemies.
Mark 7:9-13
|
Mark 10:19
|
Luke 6:27
|
|
And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that. |
You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother. |
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. |
Yes, Jesus must be exaggerating in Luke 14:26. Jesus employed overstatement in His encouraging His disciples to submit to the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2-3). This statement conflicts with His teachings in Matthew 16:6; 16:11-12. On the surface there appears to be a real contradiction. But the contradiction is not real but only apparent.
Matthew 23:2-3
|
Matthew 16:6, 11-12
|
|
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. |
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.” How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. |
When one seeks to find in both passages an absolute reference to every single teaching of the Pharisees, does one find an unresolvable problem? In general, the teachings of Jesus were similar to that of the religious leaders. On the other hand, Jesus objected strenuously to the oral traditions of Pharisees and Scribes. Matthew writes:
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the
law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his
disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not
eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the
tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not
eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as
the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of
the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition
of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about
you hypocrites; as it is written: ”‘These people honor me with their lips, but
their hearts are far from me They worship me in vain; their teachings are but
rules taught by men.’ You
have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of
men.” And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God
in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who
curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man
says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received
from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him
do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have
handed down. And you do many things like that” (Mark 7:1-13).
It is apparent that it is best to look upon
these citations from Scripture as statements containing exaggeration to draw
attention to certain aspects of the Pharisees’ doctrines and practices—not a
blanket endorsement or condemnation.
CONCLUSION
Since this essay is about the divorce sayings in the Synoptics and
Pauline accounts, it seems appropriate, once more, in concluding this essay, to
draw attention again to the “exception clause” in Jesus’ teaching on
divorce. One finds the teaching of
divorce in its absolute form in three instances and also with the exception
clause in three—two by Jesus, one by Paul. The following charts set forth the
“absolute forms” as well as the “exception forms”:
|
ABSOLUTE FORM |
ABSOLUTE FORM |
ABSOLUTE FORM |
|
Mark 10:11 |
Luke 16:18 |
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 |
|
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman
commits adultery against her. |
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries
another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries divorced woman
commits adultery. |
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must
not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be
reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. |
|
EXECPTION FORM |
EXECPTION FORM |
EXECPTION FORM |
|
Matthew 5:32 |
Matthew 19:9 |
1 Corinthians 7:15 |
|
But I tell you that anyone who
divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to
become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits
adultery. |
I tell you that anyone who divorces his
wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman
commits adultery. |
But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man
or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in
peace. |
As stated above, Jesus accuses the religious
leaders of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24). Jesus says they
swallowed a camel, period! The question
is, did they? One must be careful to
distinguish between the words of Jesus and the meaning
Jesus intended to convey. In most instances,
the “words” and their “meanings” are the same, that is, a literal fulfillment
is meant. But in “You strain out a gnat
but swallow a camel,” the “words” and their “meanings” are not
synonymous. For one to take these words
literally would be to lose sight of the meaning Jesus intended these words to
convey.
To take words in
Mark (10:10) and Luke (16:18) literally would
be to lose sight of their designed purpose.
To take all the assertions of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount literally
would be to lose sight of His contemplated aim. The language Jesus uses in His teaching is not an end—in and of
itself—but an instrument by which He seeks to convey what He means. Should one
say that one must not interpret the Bible literally? The answer is yes and no. Is this a catch twenty-two question? Dammed
if you say yes
and dammed if you say no!
Stein correctly says, “The answer to this question is that we are to
take the meaning of the Bible literally.”[28] In other words, the meaning of the words and not
simply the words
themselves is to be considered in one’s interpretation. One, for example, may quote what the Bible
says and not necessarily give the intended meaning.[29] The literal interpretation of many
Scriptures would result in nonsense.
One should stop playing
God with the lives of men and women.
Many believers occupy the “throne of God” in their condemnation of those
who do not concur with their particular brand of orthodoxy. Some decisions have to be left up to the
individual. Paul goes right to the very
heart of the matter when he writes, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To
his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to
make him stand” (Romans 14:4). As one can surmise, the problem of divorce
and remarriage is not an easy question to deal with. Especially when someone finds himself or herself involved with a
spouse who is guilty of some “unclean thing” (Deuteronomy
24:1-4; Matthew 5:32; 19:9;
1 Corinthians 7:15).
CASE NUMBER
FOUR. This essay concludes with one additional scenario
in which sexual immorality was not involved.
After you read the story, please answer the question, is this young lady
bound to her husband until he commits “fornication”? Does the principle of mercy take
precedence over law? On June 24, 1981, the Montgomery Advertiser published the
following article:
Woman struck by vehicle
A 19-year-old woman was struck by a
motor vehicle on the Atlanta Highway Tuesday night and badly injured, according
to police. The vehicle left the scene of the accident with the woman lying in
the southbound turn lane near Fox Hollow Road, said Sgt. W.H. Pertree. Police learned of the accident when
“somebody stopped” a patrol car “and told them somebody had been hit,” Lt. B.J.
Cleveland said. Police did not
release the name of the woman Tuesday night.
A St. Margaret’s Hospital spokesman said the woman was in critical
condition. The accident occurred at about 9:20. Cpl. Leion Sims said there were
five or six people who saw the woman walking before she was struck, but “nobody
we’ve come up with actually saw her get hit by the car.” Doctors told Sims the woman was responding
to treatment, although she was still unconscious at 12:30 a.m. Wednesday. Police hope to question her Wednesday
morning.[30]
Well, what does the above article have to do with “wife battering”? Is this not a story about a “hit and run” accident? This article does not tell the whole story; the next day another article appeared that revealed the whole sordid story of wife abuse. She was brutally beaten by her husband. A few years after this inhuman treatment by her husband, I talked with this young woman and obtained photocopies of her ordeal in the hospital. The pictures taken by the police at the time of the accident (actually, wife beating) reveal a tremendous loss of blood. In fact, after viewing the pictures, one wonders how one could lose so much blood and still live. After you read the story, ask yourself this question, should she have gone back to her husband? If she leaves, is she still bound to him for the rest of her life since he did not commit adultery—he just tried to kill her? If she leaves, is she biblically bound to live a celibate life since he did not commit a sexual sin? The crime scene was horrendous; the blood in the pictures covered the length and breath of her body; she looked as if she had been in a tornado. Are you ready for the rest of the story? On June 25, 1981, the following article appeared:
City Woman Badly Beaten
A 19-year-old woman, originally thought to be
a victim of a hit-and-run accident, was the victim of a severe beating, police
said today. Sandra Ann Cooper, 135 Turner Place, was found lying in the
southbound lane of the 5100 block of the Atlanta Highway about 9:30 p.m.
Tuesday, according to police reports. Ms. Cooper was in stable condition in St.
Margaret’s Hospital’s intensive care until this morning, a hospital spokesman
said. Sgt. H.C. Norton said the young
woman was improving, but doctors said she was not coherent enough to talk to
police. According to police reports, Ms. Cooper was struck several times on the
head with a blunt object. She also
suffered wounds to the left (should be right—RDB), reports shows. Police found
the woman after a man stopped a patrol car and said “somebody had been hit,”
Norton said. Norton said police originally though she had been injured after
being struck by a motor vehicle.[31]
As you reflect upon this inhumane treatment by the husband, what is
your reaction? Is she bound in marriage to this man for the rest of her life
simply because he did not have sexual relations with another woman? Is this a
case in which the principle of mercy takes precedence over law? Do you react
against divorce as an alternative to be released from a tyrant? Is your
position the same as the Pharisees that Jesus encountered? Just how do you
interpret the divorce sayings in the Synoptic and Pauline accounts? Would Jesus
rebuke you today for your uncompromising attitude of wooden literalness in your
interpretation of the divorce sayings? Are hyperbole or exaggeration or
overstatement an important element in the teachings of Jesus? God help each of
us to make the right choice with love and mercy as the guiding star.
APPENDIX I
Isaiah 58:6-7
|
Luke 6:6-11
|
|
On another Sabbath he went into the
synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was
shriveled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a
reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal
on the Sabbath. But Jesus
knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.”
So he got up and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or
to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?” He looked around at them all, and
then said to the man, “Stretch out
your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. But they were furious and began to
discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus. |
Luke 13:10-17
|
Luke 14:1-6
|
|
On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of
the synagogues, and a
woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was
bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her,
“Woman, you are set free from your
infirmity.” Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she
straightened up and praised God. Indignant because Jesus had healed on the
Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for
work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.” The Lord
answered him, “You hypocrites!
Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and
lead it out to give it water? Then should not
this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen
long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”
When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were
delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing. |
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the
house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man
suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or
not?” But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he
healed him and sent him away. Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on
the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?” And they had nothing to say. |
[1] All Scripture citations are from the NIV, unless otherwise stated.
[2] Robert H. Stein, Interpreting Puzzling Tests in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 95.
[3] James O’Reilly, “Wife Beating: The Silent Crime” Time 5 September 1983, 23, writes: “Nearly 6 million wives will be abused by their husbands in any one year. Some 2,000 to 4,000 women are beaten to death annually. The nation’s police spend one third of their time responding to domestic-violence calls. Battery is the single major cause of injury to women, more significant than auto accidents, rapes or muggings.” Again, he captures the mentality of many preachers, elders, or editor bishops, when they encourage the battered-wife to stay in such a relationship:
If the woman does not leave or seek help after the first episode, it can be taken as a sign of acquiescence, which usually leads to more violence. But it is extremely difficult to pack up and go, even if a woman can afford to. Explains Jane Tolliver, a counselor in the Atlanta Y.W.C.A’S battered-women’s program: “They’ve been told by their ministers and their families that a good woman can change a man.” These women represent society’s traditional values. Says Tolliver: “They are nurturing. They want successful marriages. And it is precisely those things that trap them” (Ibid., 24, the “bold” and “underlining” is my emphasis--RDB).
[4] This is no joke. It is true! I have talked with a number of preachers, who say, “bound for life.” Does this kind of reasoning remind one of the reasoning that Jesus encountered with the religious leaders in His day? The Pharisees, teachers of the law, and elders of the people had no concept of “mercy” over “law.” This philosophy is still in vogue by many religious leaders today, especially preachers and elders. I thank God that this kind of attitude is not prevalent with all preachers and elders. I know of many who repudiate such illogical thinking.
[5] Robert H. Stein, Difficult Sayings in the Gospels: Jesus’ Use of Overstatement and Hyperbole (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 48-49.
[6] Did Jesus give the exemption clause in His confrontation with the religious leaders as recorded by Mark and Luke? Both Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-9 chronicle the same sketch. How does one account for the discrepancy? Which of the two recordings are original? If Jesus gave the exemption clause, one wonders why Mark and Luke left out this phrase. Did Jesus later discuss this absolute statement, as reported by Mark and Luke, with His disciples? Did He discuss this subject of divorce at a later time with His disciples in the same way He did with them about the “leaven of the Pharisees” (Matthew 16:5-12)? Did He explain His divorce saying in greater detail? Or did Matthew understand from the beginning that exaggeration or overstatement was involved in this divorce saying?
[7] Robert H. Stein, Difficult Passages in the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 130.
[8] Robert H. Stein, Difficult Sayings in the Gospels: Jesus’ Use of Overstatement and Hyperbole, 48-49.
[9] Does marital unfaithfulness include desertion? Does marital unfaithfulness include “wife-battering”? Is the word “fornication” more comprehensive in its total meaning than just sexual immorality?
[10] The attitude of the religious leaders in this episode of adherence to the traditions of the elders reminds one of the self-righteousness the Pharisees exhibited on numerous occasions in their rebuke of Jesus.
[11] Does Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-9 contradict Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
[12] See Ann Jones, Next Time, She’ll Be Dead: Battering & How to Stop It (Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1994), 167-198, for detailed information about her torture from her companion of twelve years, Joel Steinberg..
[13] In the near future, it is my intention to document case after case of wife battering: “Domestic Violence and Biblical Divorce.”
[14] Next Time, She’ll Be Dead, 167.
[15] Ibid., 168.
[16] Ibid., 182.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid., 168-169.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., 170-173.
[22] Ibid., 197.
[23] Ronald Sullivan, “Jurors See Graphic Tape of Nussbaum,” Metropolitan News 4 November 1988, 1 (B) and 6 (B).
[24] An analysis of the divorce sayings appears to be overstatement rather than absolute statements. But for the sake of argument, should one advance the concept that the divorce sayings in Mark and Luke are not overstatements, then, one must deal with the concept of absolutes. Does an absolute statement about divorce forbid the dissolution of marriage under certain circumstances?
[25] This statement is not a blanket condemnation of editors, preachers, or elders. There are many that do not fall into this category. Even though there are a few “bad apples,” this awareness does not warrant censure of all editors, preachers, or elders. For example, the editor of Ensign (Pat Kilpatrick) writes against dictators within the kingdom. In Montgomery, Alabama, there are three congregations (there may be more) in which the elders nor preachers operate as absolute rulers: (1) Vaughn Park Church of Christ, (2) Family of God [Carriage Hills Church of Christ], and (3) Landmark Church of Christ. Because they do NOT enforce traditional interpretations on other Christians, these three congregations are regularly written up by one of the most legalistic congregations in Montgomery, Alabama, that is, the Seibles Road Church of Christ.
[26] See Appendix I for full citations of these Scripture.
[27] Lawrence O. Richards, Expository Dictionary of the Bible Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 234-35.
[28] Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 11.
[29] For further details concerning this concept of just simply quoting a biblical passage without regard to context, see Dallas Burdette, “Bible Speaking” in Ensign 18, no. 5 (May 1990):
[30] “Woman struck by vehicle,” in Montgomery Advertiser 24 June 1981. (I do not have the author’s name or page number.)
[31] “City Woman Badly Beaten,” in Montgomery Advertiser 25 June 1981. (I do not have the author’s name or page number.)