Law and Divorce

Surely nothing is more certain than the condemnation of divorce in the New Testament. Jesus is seen to rebuke Moses for having given into the people of Israel in this matter and not sticking to what had been expressly mandated by God himself (Matthew 19:8-9). The exceptions to the rule are made by the disciples of Jesus and are to designed to soften the rigor of this law, as it seems (Matthew 19:9). They were doing the same thing that Jesus had rebuked Moses for doing.

Now Jesus is not speaking of divorce as something forbidden so much as rather something which is entirely illogical given the concept of the marriage in the first place. The marriage is to be a commitment of two people, to live in a private society of a single, shared consciousness, much like the shared consciousness between each individual and God. In this context (and perhaps alone and solely) it is possible for the human to become fully human. We are individuals and we are a species, and only as members of a group (more than one) can we become our true selves. But in a civil society we must hide ourselves with "fig leaves" and so cannot be our true or total selves. In order to make this completion possible we enter into a special relationship with another person where we both can remove our fig leaves and express ourselves with the unbridled abandon that we must have in order to be individual and thoroughly human. Now it is clear that if there were the least possibility that this union were not sacred in the sense just indicated (total confidentiality leading to total candor), then it would be impossible to find there the total communality of consciousness, i.e., a single consciousness (like a single flesh), and so it would defeat its own purpose, namely the completion of the human. And so of course divorce is an impossibility and illogical and should not even be talked about.

The idea in brief: we cannot be ourselves unless 1. we can express ourselves without inhibition and 2 unless we are in a society of others. We can have No. 1 when we do not have No.2, and we can have No. 2 if we are willing to give up No. 1. The marriage merges these two and gives us a society (of two) and where each can be uninhibited.

And so this prohibition is not a law so much as rather a natural necessity for the human being in order to achieve to his or her highest expression, i.e., a true and unfettered spontaneity in a society.* **

[* And which is unlike the demon, Narcissist, who was so taken with himself that he preferred self love and solitary sex over any company whatsoever.]

[** This sort of openness of spirit should also characterize our consciousness with Christ both now on earth and later face to face. With friends, i.e., people we can trust to love us, e.g., especially with Jesus, we can be ourselves within a society (with at least one other person), and that is our highest calling as human beings. The marriage provides a facsimile of our union with Christ.]

And so this concern does not touch love directly at all, for the marriage seeks to enhance love and sharing. But love touches the marriage and so those cases where the marriage can be determined in truth and goodwill to be out of order, they can be dismantled, although this must be done under the supervision of the church.*

[* The case of the divorce of the Episcopal Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire is such a stunning expression of this love and understanding on the part of the church as to make a person feel ashamed, somewhat like witnessing the iconic acts of Saint Francis and wanting to weep in shame as the pope did at Francis' feet in the masterpiece film "Brother Sun, Sister Moon"!]

A matter of some interest. The "Jewish" or Legalist Christians* are wont to engage in a very curious intellectual exercise in my estimation. In their eyes the scripture speaks equally against divorce and homosexual activity, and yet these Christians excuse the one and condemn the other. I have not yet discovered the logic that justifies this distinction. Let me try to make this very plain, for it is a very curious matter. I will offer a definition for the sake of brevity in argument based on the several relevant New Testament scriptures.

[* A Legalist Christian is the spiritual descendent of the members of the First Church Jerusalem. The members of that church were all Jewish and complied with the traditional Jewish laws and were under the direction of the apostles. This church was also communalist. The Free Christian was a gentile and under the charge of Paul.]

A So-Called Marriage is a union where one member (at least) was married earlier in a Christian marriage (where both members were Christian), and which ended in a divorce which was not predicated upon adultery and where the other member of that earlier union is alive, and regardless of whether remarried or not and regardless of whether both or only one wanted a divorce.

At the moment of the culmination of the So-Called Marriage the couple is committing the sin of adultery and there is an expectation by them and by the church for them to continue in that sinful relationship. Can a sin be forgiven if there is an expectation and intention to continue in that sin, i.e., if there is no repentence? How is this different from two homosexuals, or also even from a man and woman who are "shacking up", who intend to continue in that relationship? How is it that the former, the So-Called Marriage, is considered by the Legalist Christian as acceptable in the sight of God (albeit with a lamentation concerning the "sad necessity" of divorce in the moden culture) while the other (the two homosexuals or two unmarried heterosexuals) remain in continuing sin? In this regard it seems that the Roman Catholics, who do not recognize So-Called Marriages, are much more consistent than the Protestants.