At this point we could bring up an interesting question. Since Fabiola was not permitted to remain with her second husband, what about returning to her former one? Suppose he would have become converted and then desired to be reunited with Fabiola. Could they have done so?
Here is Jerome’s answer to this question:
What I am about to say may sound novel but after all it is not new but old for it is supported by the witness of the Old Testament. If she leaves her second husband and desires to be reconciled with her first, she cannot be so now; for it is written in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Wherefore, I beseech you, do your best to comfort her and to urge her to seek salvation. Diseased flesh calls for the knife and the searing-iron. The wound is to blame and not the healing art, if with a cruelty that is really kindness a physician to spare does not spare, and to be merciful is cruel.
In other words, Jerome was saying that the only right course for Fabiola at this point was to remain single. She could not be allowed to remain in her current (adulterous) marriage. Yet going back to her former husband was not an option either. And while such a verdict sounds extremely cruel and unmerciful, Jerome said, giving her this advice is actually the greatest kindness that could be done for her.
_______________________
Was Jerome’s counsel correct? Was he rightly dividing the Scriptures by his response? Or should we reject his counsel since he was quoting from the Old Testament? After all, aren’t we supposed to be living under the New Testament?
It is correct that we are living in the New Testament age. And it is true that there are a number of distinct differences between the requirements of God in the Old Testament and His requirements in the New Testament. Yet somehow Jerome considered these verses in Deuteronomy 24 to have at least some validity as he sought the will of God regarding this woman named Fabiola.
Paul was very emphatic in His epistles as he warned against the teachings of the Judaizers, who were trying to impose the requirements of the Old Testament laws upon New Testament believers. Many well-meaning believers since the Judaizers have also tried to impose Mosaic laws regarding diet, the Sabbath, and circumcision on New Testament believers.
There is one important difference, however, between the issue of divorce (which Jerome was looking at) and the Sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws of the Old Testament. While Jesus had commanded his disciples virtually nothing regarding diet, the Sabbath, or circumcision, this was not the case with divorce. Rather, he had “raised the bar” on the issue of divorce, repeatedly and emphatically forbidding some of the very actions that would have been permitted under Moses’ law.
If it is true that Jerome was looking to Deuteronomy for the purpose of imposing Old Testament laws on Christian believers, then I would agree that he was in error in doing so. If, on the other hand, he was simply looking to this passage for help in correctly interpreting New Testament commands, then it appears to be a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do.
A question we should ask, therefore, is whether this prohibition in Deuteronomy 24 directly contradicts any of Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament. If it does, then we are absolutely justified in rejecting this prohibition and accepting in its place the words of Christ and the apostles. But if it fits in perfectly with what Jesus taught with no contradiction, then can we honestly say that Jerome was being unreasonable in looking to this passage for answers about what God considers to be adultery?
_______________________
Let us, then, look again at Jesus’ words and see if there is any contradiction between them and the passage in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions three different marriages: 1. The first marriage to the first husband, 2. The marriage to the second husband, and 3. The second marriage to the first husband. This Old Testament passage permits the first two marriages but forbids the final one.
Jesus’ words are, “He who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The woman in Deuteronomy was a divorced woman (i.e. divorced from someone other than her prospective groom) prior to both the second and the third marriages above. Therefore Jesus seems to be permitting only the first marriage mentioned above, but not the second or third ones.
Many have argued against this suggestion by saying something like this. “Since Jesus doesn’t permit remarriage after divorce, therefore He doesn’t recognize it. Since He doesn’t recognize the second marriage, therefore He doesn’t recognize the second divorce. Since He doesn’t recognize the second divorce, therefore this woman is not a ‘divorced woman’ prior to third marriage listed above.” But although it may sound reasonable to formulate a theory based on this kind of analysis, wouldn’t we be walking way out on a limb of logic to make real-life decisions this way?
_______________________
If it is true, as some say, that Jesus lifted the Deuteronomy 4 restriction in the New Testament, it would be the only instance where He loosened the restrictions regarding marital relations from what was commanded in the Old Testament. In all the other teachings Jesus gave regarding marriage and divorce, we find that the standard is higher and the requirements stricter. Should we be willing to make the call that God’s requirements in this one area are less stringent than before, when all the clear teachings of Christ point to the contrary?
_______________________
Another objection that is sometimes raised against the kind of advice Jerome gave goes something like this: “Isn’t God’s heart different in the New Testament in that He now is a God of reconciliation? Wouldn’t this show that the Deuteronomy passage has been nullified since it works against reconciliation?”
I wonder if those who use this reasoning truly realize what they are saying. Are they saying that God in the Old Testament did not have a heart of reconciliation? If so, that simply is not true. God was continually calling His people in the Old Testament to repent and come back to Him. Some of the greatest examples of mercy and forgiveness are found in Old Testament stories of our gracious, compassionate God.
The question we are dealing with here is not whether God is a God of reconciliation, but what the will of God is regarding divorce and remarriage. Once we find out what His will in this area is, then we can know that everything outside His will is sin. Sin is the ultimate separator from God, so if we really care about true reconciliation, we will keep ourselves far from anything that separates from Him, including an adulterous relationship.
_______________________
If it is true that Jesus wanted to nullify the Deuteronomy 4 restriction, and send all divorced and remarried people back to their former spouses, He would have had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate this. In His conversation with the woman at the well, He noted that she had been married to five different husbands. Yet He did not tell her she should go back and get remarried to her first husband. He did not tell her that she had only one “real” husband, and that she should go look for him. Rather, he told her, “Thou hast well said, ‘I have no husband’: . . . In that thou saidst truly.”
For this woman to continue on in a marriage relationship with any of her five spouses apparently would have been an act of adultery against the other four. To remain single, on the other hand, would be a clear act of repentance for her adultery against all five of them.
Obviously we can’t say that Jesus’ primary goal in this conversation was to give a teaching about divorce and remarriage. Yet is it not reasonable to at least take this conversation into consideration as we deal with the many people in this country who are in situations similar to that of this woman?
Be the first to react on this!
