I recently received a comment responding to my Christmas post where I share divorce lessons from the Christmas story (click here to read what I wrote). It is a thoughtful comment that I believe deserves some engagement from my end. So, I decided to pull it out and share my thoughts in response to it.
SingleMomSmiling wrote:
Righteousness and repentance are vital, but we do not choose righteousness over marital commitment. It is true that Joseph took his engagement very seriously, far more seriously than many take Marriage today, and that the same word, “divorce,” is used to describe the ending of the relationship and the intense pain involved in such a break up in both circumstances, but that does not nullify the difference between engagement and Marriage.
Marriage is a sacrament. To say, “the only reason Joseph remains married…” does not recognize the difference between engagement and Marriage when there is a definite difference that was apparent even in early times. Joseph would not have been righteous had he knowingly entered into a sacrament with one who failed to honor the gifts given in the sacrament as Mary would have been guilty of had she not conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not that Joseph was righteous in divorcing her for infidelity within Marriage but that he was righteous for choosing to not enter into the fullness of the sacrament. This is true, not only because of Hosea, but even more because of the New Testament and Jesus’ teachings on sacrifice and unconditional love and Ephesians 5’s, “Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church.” Love despite our continual betrayal and unfaithfulness to Him who sacrificed so much for us. Even more so from John 13, “Love one another as I have loved you.” Christ’s love is sacrificial and unconditional for those who enter into that special covenant with the Lord, even when we break our end of the commitment.
I understand the pain of divorce firsthand and do not wish this agony on anyone. I also do believe serial infidelity may be a last resort cause for divorce and chaste living afterward with continued hope for righteous repentance and reconciliation afterward, but I’d caution anyone against believing divorce is justified, much less righteous in the eyes of God, because of Joseph’s willingness to divorce Mary from the premarital contract.
I disagree with this one piece, but most f to your writing is beautiful and inspirational. Thank you for being a light in the darkness. I wish you a blessed and merry Christmas season.
Dear SingleMomSmiling,
First, thanks for reading the blog and sharing your perspective on what I wrote. I appreciate the engagement.
Let’s begin with the start of your comment. You write,
Righteousness and repentance are vital, but we do not choose righteousness over marital commitment.
Actually, I disagree with this statement. The Old Testament clearly teaches that marriages ought to end in the face of the evil of adultery (see Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus 20:10). This supports my position that God takes righteousness as more important that the enduring of the marriage commitment. It is consistent from Old Testament to this New Testament story.
Next, you continue:
It is true that Joseph took his engagement very seriously, far more seriously than many take Marriage today, and that the same word, “divorce,” is used to describe the ending of the relationship and the intense pain involved in such a break up in both circumstances, but that does not nullify the difference between engagement and Marriage.
We do not divorce fiancées. This statement comes from a narrative work and not a poetic work. My point is the author is telling us what had to happen to end the betrothal in those days. It was a real divorce.
While I do recognize the distinction between marriage and betrothal exists, the reality is Old Testament betrothal is more akin to marriage today than engagement.
You either collapse one distinction or the other. Either the biblical betrothal is treated as nothing more consequential than engagement today, or you treat it as if it was a marriage. I do the later; you seem to be doing the former in your comment. Both are options. I have explained why I treat it as the later, though.
You write,
Marriage is a sacrament.
This is where we may differ significantly in theology. I am a Lutheran minister. This strikes me as a very Catholic statement. As a Lutheran, I do not recognize marriage as a sacrament. It is an important covenant relationship; however, we do not treat it as the Catholic Church does.
This difference in sacramental theology might explain our differences in stances on this matter. Marriage seen as sacrament takes on a heavier weight if you are seeking valid sacraments as opposed to looking at it as Protestants would.
To say, “the only reason Joseph remains married…” does not recognize the difference between engagement and Marriage when there is a definite difference that was apparent even in early times.
Once again, I think we differ as to how seriously we take the biblical betrothal. My point is that Joseph would not remain in relationship with Mary had he believed she was unfaithful. He would not have remained betrothed had he not believed the angel. Joseph would have gone through with the divorce otherwise.
Joseph would not have been righteous had he knowingly entered into a sacrament with one who failed to honor the gifts given in the sacrament as Mary would have been guilty of had she not conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not that Joseph was righteous in divorcing her for infidelity within Marriage but that he was righteous for choosing to not enter into the fullness of the sacrament.
As I read this, sacramental theology is being imposed upon the story. To speculate, I argue, about this being about Joseph respecting the sacramental validity of the marriage is anachronistic.
Returning to one of our differences, the word for “divorce” here in Matthew 1:19 is the same word use elsewhere in the Bible for divorce. It is a real divorce even if only for a betrothal. The Scripture is talking about Joseph deciding to divorce, and this choice is seen as a choice made out of a righteous place.
You continue,
This is true, not only because of Hosea, but even more because of the New Testament and Jesus’ teachings on sacrifice and unconditional love and Ephesians 5’s, “Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church.” Love despite our continual betrayal and unfaithfulness to Him who sacrificed so much for us. Even more so from John 13, “Love one another as I have loved you.” Christ’s love is sacrificial and unconditional for those who enter into that special covenant with the Lord, even when we break our end of the commitment.
The book of Hosea proves my point. It only works as a device to express God’s extreme love for God’s people if it is an extreme and NOT a norm! The opposite of Hosea is what is the norm. What is that? Divorce of unfaithful spouses is the assumed cultural norm that makes Hosea as a book work.
As far as quoting Ephesians 5 and John 13, I would remind you that even Jesus allows for divorce via teachings in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. God never gives us permission to sin. So, choosing divorce must be acceptable behavior for Christ followers.
We are also taught in Hebrews 10:26-27 that people who are arguably part of the Bride will be sent to Hell for continuing in sin. Apparently, unfaithfulness does lead to divorce spiritually even from Jesus.
Furthermore, Romans 11 teaches us that some of the covenant people of Israel are thrown in the fire as well. My point is unconditional love model by God’s relationship with His people is not as simply understood as reading Ephesians 5 and John 13. We need to take in the full counsel of Scripture on these matters.
Continuing on a little later:
I also do believe serial infidelity may be a last resort cause for divorce and chaste living afterward with continued hope for righteous repentance and reconciliation afterward, but I’d caution anyone against believing divorce is justified, much less righteous in the eyes of God, because of Joseph’s willingness to divorce Mary from the premarital contract.
We disagree on this. I do not believe it must be serial infidelity for God to allow a person to divorce without shame. That is not what Jesus says in Matthew 5:32 or 19:9. One sexual infidelity is enough to trigger that permission to divorce as I read the Scripture. Anything else is adding words to Jesus.
We also disagree over the purpose of an allowed divorce. If God allows divorce, He allows remarriage. That is what divorce allows. It clears the way for another marriage legally–and in the eyes of God who allows it. Separation is the other option if chaste living is the goal. However, I respect people if living a chaste life after divorce is their conviction. It is not mine, and I do not see it as the biblical expectation of divorced, faithful spouses.
I understand my position on this story is controversial for many Christians. As I write in other places here, it is important to follow one’s convictions as guided by the Holy Spirit.
I am presenting how I see this story and the lessons I draw from it regarding divorce. Many people live under condemnation over divorcing a cheater that I think is an ungodly burden I am called to help lift as a minister of God.
Thank you, again, for writing into the blog! I appreciate your very thoughtful sharing of your perspective on the story and your kind closing words.
Blessings,
Pastor David (aka Divorce Minister)
