Cornes: Divorce and Remarriage

Divorce & Remarriage: Biblical principles & pastoral practice

Andrew Cornes 1993 Eerdman’s Publishing  528 pp.  ISBN 0-8028-0577-9

In 1920 in USA, 1 divorce per 7 marriages; in 1940, 1 per 6; in 1977, 1 per 2.   Rate of divorce equal to number of first-time marriages.

Sociological causes of divorce:

• Emphasis on rights rather than duties
• Unrealistic expectations of easy and sustained happiness
  • if Mr. Right found, everything will be perfect; just have to find Mr. Right
  • “I have another chance to be happy and I’m not going to miss it”
  • Emancipation of women
    • women work and so are freed from fear of economic destitution
    • women expect things to be equal and home but they aren’t usually
    • more free time for couple  to spend with each other rather than on essential goals
    • degradation of social network
    • acceptance of divorce and remarriage by society

Remarriage undermines children.  Intense new relationship is disturbing for children.  Past marriage becomes reinterpreted with dark connotations.  Each parent is portrayed as dark by the other.  Step parents resentful of time spouse must spend in visitation with children or resentful of resentful step children.

Political causes of divorce:

• Two world wars each led to a spike in divorce that became a permanent increase.  People got used to divorce.
• Divorce laws were loosened in response to the phenomenon, but then increased the phenomenon themselves.  Once the grounds for divorce were increased past the sole grounds of adultery, the judges couldn’t keep up and investigate every case thoroughly, especially “behavior”.

Arguments for divorce by church folks:

Divorce is an unforgivable sin.  Murder is forgivable because, once repented of, it is over.  Not so with divorce.  Counterargument Cornes uses is that the person can’t marry again because he is already currently married.  Marriage ends only upon death of the spouse.  It’s not a one-time sin, but a lifestyle of bigamy. 

The Bible teaches the ideal.  [But if we accept this, we fail to obey Christ.  There didn’t seem to be options available in Christ’s teaching.  Probably a good idea not to follow Johnny biking along the edge of the cliff.  Listen to our words as we advise our children.]

Life is not black and white.  Each person has his or her own story.  We need to promote stability and healing and use compassion and understanding.  [However, in practice, there will be very few stories we don’t accept and sign on with.  Then we admit there is no discernment needed after all.  So “black and white” is code for “discipline”.  There is no discipline.]

Christ’s instructions are not laws.  It is in fact fairly obvious that we are fully expected to keep the proclamations of the Sermon on the Mount.  [Our salvation and liberation is that we can do so now.]

The Bible is culturally conditioned.  We feel free to agree that this applied to someone else (those people in their time) but not to us.  [As well, our culture is similar to their culture].

We were never married in the first place.  Others point to those who have had several wives or  have lived with many girlfriends.  They believe that Jesus’ expectations can be reduced to the absurd in this way.  [But just because sin complicates someone’s life doesn’t mean it’s not sin.  If anything, it proves the rule.]

A vow was held as permanent in the OT and in English law.  It could only be nullified if it was immediately repudiated by the head of the household (for a daughter or wife, e.g.). 

Marriage

When asked about divorce, Jesus refused to answer it until he first had explained God’s will for marriage. (Mark 10:1-12). 

“Become one flesh” :  the Hebrew is so strong that it is not an action we undertake but is something which happens to us.  It is not a process. 

Jesus’ comments on the Genesis 2 passage reveals that this is an ordinance for all humankind.  It occurred before Abraham. 

The two are now one flesh, and this, again, is not a process.  Since it is proclaimed that “what God has joined together let man not separate” (Mark 10:9), then it is God that does the joining.  It is hard to think of an expression which more completely shows that this is an inseparable institution.  This is regardless of the circumstances of the initiation of the marriage.  Every marriage is “made in heaven”.    This thought was unique to Christianity, an innovation.  Other cultures may have thought it was the will of the parents or the consent of the couple that joins them. 

In marriage, a new fundamental family unit is created [to separate from your wife is like separating from your children]

Paul uses this argument of “the two will become one” to show that prostitution is wrong, uniting the body of Christ with a prostitute.  But sex is only part of getting married, so it is not permanent, only reprehensible. 

A strong marriage is made because of two principles, from Eph. 5:

• loving my partner is loving myself
• in marriage, I am to reproduce my relationship to Christ

Singleness

Some of the Corinthians sought to forbid marriage, since the body being evil and the spirit good.  Paul was responding to this wrong teaching.  “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” was Paul agreeing with this faction.  He goes on to celebrate marriage as well as singleness (1Cor 7:38 & 7:7).  

We sin when we cannot imagine earthly or eternal joy without marriage (Lk. 20:34-36).  In our current culture, everything shouts to say that marriage is vastly superior to the single life.  Mat 9 says “Not everyone accepts this” not “not everyone can accept this” as in NIV; thus, “let him who can accept this accept it” at the conclusion – “let him who has ears to hear”.    We should say to our children:  “if you get married…..”   Marriage in the OT was clearly seen as the blessed state.  Jesus’ message on singleness was revolutionary. 

“each man should have his own wife” may mean simply “have intercourse” not “get married”.  The next verse talks against withholding sex.  “Virgin” in 1Cor. 7 might mean “betrothed.”  However, this section definitely does not apply to the divorced:  “parthenos” does not fit that reading.  When he talks about marrying not being a sin (right after “seeking release” not a sin), he is referring to the unmarried man and his betrothed, not to the divorced.  Otherwise, other verses in 1Cor7 would flatly contradict this.

Paul may have once been married since unmarried rabbis were rare and Paul was probably a rabbi.  He may have been a widower or his wife may have left him when he converted to Christianity.  Even if the latter were so, he, from that position, is dead firm in his insistence on one marriage per lifetime.  However, this is all speculation – he could have never married, especially since he was such a passionate reformer his whole life.

1Cor 7:39-40 (about the widow) is a recap of all of Paul’s positions:  indissolubility of marriage, superiority of singleness.  1Tim 5:3-16 has Paul giving a special role to single widows.