“I hate divorce,” [Mal 2:16]

“Is it lawful for man to divorce for any reason? What God has joined together, let no man separate,” [Matt. 19:6]

“Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so,” [Matt 19:9]

“Divorce” is a legal word meaning full and final separation so that each one is free to remarry or live alone at will. Ray E Baber defines divorce as, “Divorce is merely a process of un-marrying people who have been married. It is an official recognition that their marriage is a failure and therefore has more cause for terminating than for continuing. Divorce indicates the failure of a given marriage,” Marriage and Family, page 443. He notes; from 1867 to 1950 while the population increased fourfold, divorces increased thirty-nine-fold that is ten times faster than the population growth. He cites nine major causes:

1. Adultery
2. Desertion
3. Cruelty
4. Conviction for crime
5. Alcoholism
6. Impotence
7. Nonsupport
8. Insanity
9. Living apart

Drug habit, ante-nuptial un-chastity by wife, joining cults that disbelieves in cohabitation of spouses, vagrancy of husband, crime against nature, violent temper, leprosy, venereal disease, public defamation of spouse, gross misbehavior and wickedness are some of the thirty-nine minor reasons for which divorces were granted in various states as of 1950. According to one study, quoted in Bhoomiyil Parudeesa (Paradise on Earth) by Fr. Dr O Thomas, page192, there were 650 divorces in England in 1911. The number rose in 1951 to 28767, in 1971 to 74400 and in 1980 to 148200. According to United Nations, Demographic yearbook 1954, divorce is peculiar problem of America because each year America grants more divorces than the rest of the world combined. In 1951 America reported 381000 divorces while all other nations combined granted 235000 divorces. In this third millennium, needless to search numbers for, one out of every two marriages ends in divorce and it is on fast climbing trend. As in many aspects in the case of divorce also, “America is the world leader.” Despite the crumbling relations, chaotic social situation and frightfully escalating divorce rate people still attach great importance to the institution of marriage at least in principle, according to a columnist. This being true, peoples’ understanding of marriage and family life is distorted and a source of great distress.

I do not presuppose by a flight of fancy that just because most couples live together without divorce they all are leading virtuous family life. There are couples disdainfully pulling together for various constraints. Looking at divorce by any standard there can be no greater tragedy in the life of individuals and society. Relationships are shattered, children stranded, finance crumbled, violence induced and hopes and aspirations devastated. The anxiety, fear, hate and feeling of insecurity which it creates carry for the rest of the life and pass it on a bad legacy to next generation. No one can ever replenish the void created. It is a dereliction from the basic duties as an individual and an affront to moral standards and God. Divorce itself is no sin but the result of sin.

Children are the most hapless victims. Children need the love and care of mother and father both, grandparents and close relatives to develop positive attitude about life, toward family and society. Children living with parents who constantly argue and fight, single parent, foster parent, etc are more susceptible to all sorts of wild feelings than those who live in lovable family atmosphere. Children, who are isolated from the love of parents live in seclusion, and suffer low esteem. Wantonness induces abuses, addiction to drug, alcohol and sex which in turn incites violence, psychological disorders and ultimately become threat to themselves and society. Words fail to express the havoc that divorce brings into the lives of spouses and children but the staggering question is; who cares? I am yet to come across one single opinion supporting divorce, addiction and violence and yet there is no end in sight; rather addiction, violence and divorce increase unabated. We can point fingers and write volumes on the many reasons and aspects that lead to divorce and all the chaos that it creates. All of them could be condensed in one sentence and that is; humanity driven by outlandish ego first divorced God from life; thus lost the standard point of reference as to what is right and wrong or good and evil. In this case Satan is the victor.

My humble attempt is to search the biblical perspective on divorce. Divorce discussed in Mathew 19:3-9 is the basis of my discussion. Marriage and divorce are two separate subjects meriting detailed discussions because both are closely intertwined and touching on both subjects is inevitable to discuss either one. Chief point of discourse here is divorce; not marriage.

However it is essential to consider Mark’s version on the same subject, Mk 10:1-12, without which discussion on divorce will be inconclusive. A remarkable difference in the two passages is the condition that Mathew says, “except for sexual immorality,”v9, to divorce. Scholars also say that the conditional clause in Mathew 19:9, “except for sexual immorality,” is not found in the oldest manuscripts of Mathew’s Gospel. Similar to the portion in Mark 16:9-20 this was added later by someone more liberal. Liberal thinkers like Baber and Jay Adams think that Jesus justified divorce. This interpretation serves a guide to ‘tidal increase in divorce.’ This condition induces immorality; to commit adultery and divorce; thus rendered more damage than good to the all-time burning issue of divorce. Mark does not mention it at all as a condition to divorce. We need to analytically view both passages. Mark’s presentation is more a natural dialogue than that of Mathew. Most scholars, especially ancient Churches, Orthodox and Roman Catholic, agree that Mark is the first evangelist who wrote a Gospel of our Lord. Mark as the faithful disciple of St Peter wrote his Gospel as per St Peter’s advice and it is undoubtedly the Gospel of Peter himself. Both Mathew and Luke considered the Gospel of Mark as their base. Gospel of Mark is thus more accurate rendering of events. Luke deserves distinction too; he does not mention this lengthy discussion at all. He says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,” Luke 16:18. This is a précis statement banning all kinds of divorce. Surely, Jesus did not conceive a conditional divorce in opposition to the original intent of creator because Jesus said, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent me,” John 4:34.

Roman Catholics consider marriage a sacrament. There is no uniform approach among Protestants, but most consider it a civil union. Orthodox considers marriage not only a sacrament but also a mystery (Roso) beyond human understanding. God in His unfathomable love for humanity makes the impossible, possible that is, unites and makes one male and one female repeating after what He did to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Mathew says that Pharisees brought up the question of divorce to test Jesus. It was a clearly devised snare against Jesus. Divorce was a nagging question for all people of all the time and continues without solution until today. But it was never before as rampant and uncontrollable as of today. Rabbis could not find a common solution for the ravaging problem. Three rabbinical schools were prominent in the days of Jesus totally opposed to one another. (1) Shammai taught that it was legal to divorce wife for reason of infidelity. (2) Hillel taught any reason, as silly as a spoiled dish, would be sufficient reason to divorce. (3) Rabbi Akiba taught an extremely liberal view, ‘if you see a prettier woman divorce the first wife.’ They claimed basis of their teaching in Mosaic Law regarding divorce, Deut 24:1-4. In the light of conflicting rabbinical positions the question to Jesus in itself was not malicious. But the intent was malicious merely because they wanted to drag him in the rabbinical brawl. The group of questioners would have comprised of followers from all disciplines. Depending upon the reply they could easily brand him in one or the other side of Rabbis; conservative, liberal or ultraliberal which would prove detrimental to his authority. Such a situation would cause dissention among his own following. They failed to trap him because Jesus very cautiously handled the situation. He went all the way back to Genesis to clarify the question. He called their attention to the original intent of creation asserting the fact that humanity in His days drifted too far off the original purpose of creation.

In the beginning God created them male and female (in Syriac: Dkar v nekbo bro enoon), Jesus said. Hebrew word for male is tsakar, which means prick or pierce. This imports masculine sense to convey that which is powerful, sturdy, upright, etc. The word for female is neqbah, means perforation, tunnel, etc which imports feminine sense; soft, delicate, etc. Scholars suggest evidence of sexual union and that ‘become one (sarx) flesh’ directly points to sexual union. St Paul agrees to this explanation, “He who is joined to a harlot is one body with her,” 1C6:16. God is the one who designed sex and procreation through sexual union. This happened before the fall and therefore not incidental to fall. What the fall brought upon the humanity is loss of control, desire and misuse of sex through such perverted desire. Sex is the gift of God; not an evil in itself. Proper use of sex is exercising Will of God and a function that fulfills God’s purpose. Biological scientists now think reproduction is possible without sex and man can conceive child!

Man and woman were created to live in perfect unity and harmony, respecting and mutually complementing one another. God expected them to live together forever without parting or death constantly enjoying the company of God and each other on daily basis. Desire, sickness, death and decay came in later as a result of sin. God’s care for their continued welfare was evident from the fact that He made a place where there was no lacking before He placed them there. God did not assign them hard toil. Simple gardening and up-keeping was only expected of them. They were free to move around and do what they liked with a light limitation not to eat fruit of the forbidden tree. Comparing the magnitude of amenities and freedom that were granted the restriction was tenuous. This was to make them know that they ought to acknowledge God, their creator and they were subject to Him. Until then Adam had only two-tier relationship; with God and with other creations. Between Adam and God it was a worshipping relationship for he was subordinate to God. Between him and other creations the relationship was of nurturing and maintaining for he was above them. God introduced a third kind of relationship by creating Eve that was special and equal which until then did not exist so that Adam could relate to it himself in a meaningful way. God wanted man to sustain the whole order of creations.

“Fill the earth and subdue it,” Genesis 1:28. God, by the words, “fill the earth” authorized them to procreate and multiply without which it is impossible to fill the earth. By the word “subdue” God placed humanity above all creations so that he could command and guide them as a duty, not a right. “Subdue” has created certain confusion. Some secular thinkers feel that anchoring on this word “subdue” Christians desecrated the ecological balance by overexploitation and environmental pollution and that other religions are ecologically friendlier than Christianity. While we find solace attributing the causes of ecological imbalances to advancement of science and technology one cannot be passive onlooker to the devastation we have brought upon ourselves. Man, puffed up in his knowledge and self-comfort often forgets that, he has no right to endanger existence of his own kind and other living beings. “Subdue” means, (1) “to bring under control” which certainly requires some kind of force but not to destroy and (2) “to soften, make gentler.” Very thought of exploitation of earth is the aftereffect of man’s fall. Considering the next verse, that is, God commanded that all “vegetables, herbs and fruits that grow in earth shall be their food,” it could be imagined that God was telling them to use sufficient force to till, plow and cultivate, to maximize the fecundity of earth to bear fruits for his sustenance, according to Jerome. There can be no ambiguity that man has no right to exploit earth or other creations so as to cause ecological imbalance. “Subdue” should not be taken as a license for man to treat the earth as he pleases. This is against the very intent of creation.

In the beginning, monogamy: God made one female to one male. God originally intended monogamy as the universal standard for all generations. Anatomical proof I have explained in my article, “Fidelity and Marriage.” Church fathers did not justify polygamy. However, Theodoret of Cyrus, Nestorian heretic is an exception; “Indeed for this reason (to be fruitful and multiply) He did not forbid the ancients to have many wives: so that the race of men might be increased,” The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol III, page 245. I do not find the arguments tenable. Some say, polygamy is the natural order and monogamy is a social triumph (of Christianity?). “Monogamy is a social triumph, always more or less precarious and not a natural state,” says George Crespy, “Marriage and Christian Tradition” page 21. This view is in outright opposition to what Jesus said. By pointing to the order in the beginning Jesus in unequivocal terms declared that what God expects from human beings is to disown the evil that has crept in as the result of fall and adopt the principle of monogamy. Christianity ever-since is known to be the champion of monogamy. If we relate the words of Jesus, “No servant can serve two masters,” Luke 16:13, it is practically proven fact that where there was more than one wife, there was turmoil.

Human mind is not wired to romantically associate with and harmoniously cherish two individuals at once with equal honesty. Sarah compelled Abraham to go to Hagar. When Hagar conceived she despised Sarah. Sarah on the other hand resorted to hard treatment, so severe that Hagar had to flee to desert. The struggle was passed on to Ishmael and Isaac. Then Sarah compelled Abraham to forsake Hagar and the child and he obliged, may be unwillingly. Jacob loved Rachael more than Leah. This attracted jealousy and sibling rivalry. However, polygamy was practiced and tolerated in olden times. Islam and Mormons practice it even today. The reason I suppose; God’s grace to fully distinguish right and wrong was not manifested until it was fully and finally revealed in Jesus Christ. “The word of God says, Man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife, not wives.” Singular number affirms the practice of monogamy, says Hudaya Canon 8: 1.

The basic purpose of creating Eve was companionship, not procreation; some scholars say. Had procreation not the basic intent by partaking in the creative faculty of God to keep up human generation there was no need for companionship. God felt, “It is not good that man be alone,” Gen 2:14. This is because man alone is unable to be happy or procreate. God did not feel ‘it is not good than woman be alone’ because she was not alone at any point; Adam was already there to offer companionship to Eve. Happiness must precede the act of procreation. Here God is realizing that He infused in human the natural instinct to love and to be loved without which life and procreation become monotonous and meaningless. So both companionship and procreation are equally valid and proper. One does not destroy or takes over the other. If the spouse fails to fill the void of loneliness in the other spouse by offering constant companionship and actively participate in the process of procreation, that spouse is living in opposition to God’s will. In the same vein, looking down on a barren couple, especially women, with contempt even if they live in disharmony is opposed to God’s purpose of creation. Even today most of us attach such a cultural taboo to women without knowing that husband or wife could be the cause of infertility. King Henry VIII divorced Catherine saying that she did not bear him male children from which sprouted the Anglican Church. Science has now come to the aid of hapless women proving that men, not women, (xy, x factor) are responsible in such cases.

Roman Catholics for a long time defined the basic purpose of marriage as, procreation mitigating importance of companionship. It seems they understood the folly; later they named it sacrament as a retort to Luther’s reformation and included companionship. They further expanded it saying, spouses ought to mutually accept, live lifelong without separation and in harmony according to the will of God. Giving first place to sexual relationship in marriage is against the original purpose. Sacrificial love, intimacy, companionship, lifelong commitment and unity of mind and higher purpose should precede sexual relationship to make it meaningful, enjoyable and lasting. Sexual relationship without sacrificial, self-humbling love, feeling of oneness and mutual caring between spouses is carnal and hence immoral. Adam when saw Eve for the first time was first elevated to such an ecstatic state that he said, “At last” (some versions), “Ishah” in Hebrew, which is the pinnacle of exultation and identified himself one with Eve saying, “Flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones,” before he had physical contact with Eve. World literature as a whole fails to replace a better expression of the inexorable joy and oneness a spouse experiences from the companionship of the spouse as one’s own flesh and blood. God expects every husband to feel the same way as Adam felt. Whenever he sees her he should look at as if seeing first-time. True love and commitment should first commence before the first contact and steadily grow into maturity as years of life progress together. The wealth of experience, sense of togetherness and oneness progressively climb the ladder to reach celestial heights with increased interdependence. I have heard many older husbands/wives say, “Who will take care of her/him after I had gone.” In physical infirmities, they nurse each other with respect and pleasure. If that does not happen as years go by, in a couple’s life, there is something wrong. On the contrary, one who gives first priority to physical appearance and sex is merely cohabiting for the sake of lust, cannot say married, would surely regret and wean when the brightness of the youth fades away and the body becomes weak. It is not enough saying “honey, darling” when spouse is near and lusting after other men/women when the spouse is away. Such people are sure to wreck the marriage.

[TO BE CONTINUED IN THE NEXT ISSUE]