DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
A. Ralph Johnson
Divorce is a serious problem of our times. Preachers have contributed to the problem by
compromising the scriptures to please the ears of people. The world mocks the will of God concerning
both the commitments made to marriage, and adulterous behavior.
In response to this, some have taken the position of
the opposite extreme, that God does not permit marriage to another, even when
the divorce was for fornication. “What saith the scripture?” (Gal. 4:30).
Two passages in the New Testament provide a clear
exception to the general prohibition against divorce.
Matthew 5:31-32.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto
you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:2-11
2 And great
multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3 The Pharisees also came
unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not
read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And
said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to
his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more
twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is
put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of
the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them,
All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is
given.
Nothing could say it much plainer. I find it utterly impossible to confront
these scriptures and honestly deny an exception for fornication.
1.
“The
exception opens the floodgates of divorce.
We must stop this terrible situation.”
ANSWER:
We have no right to change
God’s teachings to justify humanly devised solutions. The present situation is not caused by permitting the exception
God has allowed but because people have failed obey other scriptures.
Denying the exception and
devising our own solution actually compounds the problem. It adds to the stress
situations that tempt people to give up on God’s leaders. It undermines our credibility with those who
know the Bible. It makes us look foolish and arbitrary, undermining people’s
confidence in our judgment and flies in the face of the wisdom of God. God knows where to draw the line better than
we do.
2.
“Some
passages mention no exceptions. They
teach that the person who marries while their mate is alive is guilty of
adultery.”
ANSWER:
It is not valid to pit
scripture against scripture. All that any passage contains is true but no one
passage may contain all of the truth on a subject. Matthew, Mark and Luke are
called “synoptic gospels because they are similar. Each contributes part of the story of the Life of Jesus. We must
beware of the assumptions by critics that the accounts are contradictory. Each supplies something not included in the
others.
The same is true of the
statements by Paul. Jesus promised that
the Holy Spirit would teach the disciples all things, bring to their
remembrance what he said and guide them into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13). These were not their private interpretations
(2Peter 1:20,21).
3.
“The
passages in Matthew were comments about the meaning of the Old Testament. They had nothing to do with things after
Pentecost.”
ANSWER:
The “Sermon On The Mount”
contrasts what Moses said with the teachings of Jesus. Moses said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement.” In contrast, Jesus
said, “but I say unto you,
whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery.” Likewise, in Matt. 19, they cite Moses, but
Jesus gave his own conditions. It is
nonsense to say that everything Jesus said is abolished. Jesus himself said, “The words that I speak
unto you, they shall judge you in the last day” (John 6:63). Again, he said, “...my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).
4.
“The
exception refers to conditions for divorce, not remarriage.”
ANSWER:
It says, “except for fornication and shall
marry another”
(Matt 5:32, 19:9). This is the
grammatically correct way to state the condition. If fornication were the only grounds of divorce there was no need
of adding the phrase concerning remarriage.
If fornication were the only grounds for divorce, it is strange that
Paul does not mention that when he says that if the wife departs she should remain unmarried or return to her husband. The divorce itself would be adultery. Rather, it looks like her remarriage to another would be the
final break in the marriage relationship.
One does not commit adultery merely by divorce. Adultery is only if there is unfaithfulness
or remarriage in the absence of divorce for fornication. No other reading of these passages makes any
sense.
5.
“The
exception applies only to sexual sins of unmarried people. After one is married he cannot commit
fornication and there can be no exception.”
ANSWER:
Why in the world would God
view sin before marriage as more serious than sin during marriage? Pursuing such reasoning to its logical
conclusion makes sexual activity before marriage grounds for divorce and
remarriage, but once married, a mate could be unfaithful with no way out for
the innocent party, even though they might be exposed to a deadly disease.
The Greek word, “porneia,” translated “fornication,” has reference to sexual
sin in general, whether in or out of marriage.
The second edition of Arndt
and Gingrich’s lexicon, p. 693 says it means, “prostitution, unchastity,
fornication, of every kind of unlawful
sexual intercourse.” Then, among
other things it includes, “ 1...Of the
sexual unfaithfulness of a married
woman, Mat. 5:32; 19:9...”
Thayer’s Lexicon, p.532
says, “a. properly of elicit sexual
intercourse in general...used of adultery, Mt. 5:32; 19:9.”
In the Greek Old Testament
(Septuagint) used by the Apostles, we find this word being used to describe
sexual acts of married women.
Jeremiah
3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become
another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly
polluted? but thou hast played the harlot [#2181 zanah = LXX ekporneuw] with many
lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
6 The LORD
said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath
done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and
there hath played the harlot [#H2181 zanah = LXX porneuw]. 7 And I said after she had
done all these things, Turn
thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding
Israel committed adultery
I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared
not, but went and played the harlot
[#H2181 zanah = LXX porneuw]
also.
14 Turn, O
backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you:
Some argue that there are
places where fornication and adultery are both mentioned in the same verse and
thus they cannot mean the same thing.
In response, let it be noted that we did not say that the two words were
totally identical in meaning.
Fornication deals with sexual sins in general (such as homosexuality
--Jude 7) while adultery is explicitly dealing with the violation of the
marriage relationship. The words are
used together sometimes because they stress different factors. This is not unusual. For example, in Rom. 1:29-31; 2Tim. 3:2-4;
Col. 3:5, 8 we have lists of sins that often overlap in areas (such as anger,
wrath and malice).
ANSWER: Because “adultery” would have been too narrow. An unmarried person cannot commit
adultery. Jesus wanted to include
situations prior to marriage. For
example, an unmarried person in an incestuous situation (1Cor. 5:1).
ANSWER: Again, incest is only
one of many sexual acts called,
“fornication.”
ANSWER: Here again we have an
unfounded assumption. Why would it
require a person to endure the horrors of a harlot mate yet be freed if they
had committed fornication before marriage?
Even God divorced his “wives” for such conduct (see Ezekiel and Jeremiah
above). Jesus didn’t just say these
things for Matthew’s Jewish readers, and even the Jews would not have
understood him as restricting “fornication” to engagement.
The exception from guilt of
adultery, when the previous marriage was dissolved for the cause of
fornication, is clear and decisive. A
person who puts away his wife for any other cause, shares the guilt of her
adultery if the mate remarries. A
person who remarries after a divorce for any other cause, commits
adultery. The person who marries
someone who has been divorced for any other cause, likewise commits adultery.
Jeremiah 3
(see above). God put away his wife,
Israel, for committing adultery. The
Church is now the bride of Christ. (Rev 21:2, 9; Eph 5:25-27, 32)
After careful consideration I believe they may.
In the first place, “guilt” is often a shared
thing. I have known wives who left and
vowed they would hold out until their husband turned to someone else so they
could be free to marry again. Thus,
they “caused” their husbands to commit adultery (Matt. 5:31,32). This can be a
powerful pressure tactic (1Cor. 7:5).
Likewise, the problem of a person who has sinned and
repented but is now divorced and the other party has remarried becomes
impossible to bring a reconciliation.
God called that an “abomination”
(Deut. 24:4). Is there no remedy, even
after repentance? Must he remain forever unmarried and “burn”? (1Cor. 7:2)
A careful examination reveals that Matthew 19 does
not teach that if one commits fornication, causing the marriage breakup, they
again sin by re-marrying. It only
teaches that re-marriage for any other cause than fornication is adultery. Fornication is the only grounds for divorce
with the right of re-marriage. Once a divorce on these grounds has been
finalized, both parties are free to remarry.
In the absence of fornication, neither is free to remarry because it
could be solved by returning to each other.
What then does it mean when it says that anyone who
marries her that is put away, commits adultery? (Mat. 19:9) Note that this is all a part of the same
sentence that includes the exception. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except
for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery and he that
marrieth her when she is put away [except for fornication?] committeth adultery.” He is only declaring adultery in
non-fornication re-marriages. In
fornication situations the damage has been done and the former marriage ties
are severed.
Why does the passage not repeat the exception
specifically with reference to the woman who was put away? The rule of conservation of speech does not
require it. The rest of the sentence is
dependent upon this clause for understanding.
To require the repetition makes it unnecessarily redundant.
Are we saying that one can commit fornication in
order to break up the marriage and go Scott-free? Not at all. The person
who does so is accountable for that sin.
He must repent, which includes regret for having done it and a
determination never to do it again, even if faced with similar
circumstances. Consequences will follow
in other ways, just like with David and Bathsheba, but even there, God forgave
and continued the second union.
Since the church may act in such matters, it would
be proper for them to require some “works suitable to repentance” (Luke 3:8;
Mat. 18:17)--perhaps even returning and making up the damage to the injured
mate, if neither of them has remarried.
CONSEQUENCE OF DENIAL OF THE
EXCEPTION.
It is sad that distortions of these passages, in
well-meaning attempts to curb rampant divorce, has created a prison of
oppressive guilt from which even innocent people are unable to escape. They are locked into relationships with
perverted, abusive and ungodly mates, doomed to years of loneliness, struggling
to care for themselves and their children while the mate goes on his way and
remarries. From the beginning, this also
was not so with God. The exception
clause was provided because of hard-hearted mates. There are still a lot of those around today.
Some of the loudest and most dogmatic opponents of
the exception clause that I have known have been men who cheat. It is not that
they care what God said but is a means of controlling their wives.
Another group that I have known are wives who use it
to justify their enabling role for their irresponsible husbands--even if they
are beaten or their own kids sexually abused! “Poor me.” “There is
nothing I can do.” “Look at me the
martyr.” “I am better than other women
because I obey my husband no mater how unfaithful or abusive.”
Worse yet, I sometimes hear church leaders (or wives
of church leaders) laying guilt trips on women that the “poor guy” is crying
his eyes out. She, his wife, ought to
be more “Christian” and forgive the
poor guy. It is easy to decide how
things should be for the other person when they didn’t have to suffer the
indignities.
The guy goes out, gets AIDS or some other disease, comes home stinking drunk and beats her up, turns the children’s lives into a living hell night after night. He gets some other woman pregnant and then has to spend family finances paying for the kid. He is verbally abusive and blows what little money they have on booze, prostitutes and drugs. Yet, she must be a submissive Christian wife! I don’t buy it.
DESERTION AS A BASIS FOR
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
1
Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving
depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to
peace.
The question here is whether “not under bondage” [#1402 “douloo”] means they are free to
remarry. The argument is that
1Corinthians 7:39 uses “bound” in the
sense of being bound in marriage.
However, upon examination of that passage there is serious question
about the claim.
1
Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound
[#1210 “deoo”] by the law as long as her
husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married
to whom she will; only in the Lord.
1
Corinthians 7:27 27 Art thou bound [#1210 “deoo”] unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou
loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
This is essentially the same as found in Romans 7:2:
Romans
7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound [#1210 “deoo”] by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead,
she is loosed from the law of her husband.
First, we note that the Greek word used in 1Cor 7:27, 39 for bound in marriage (#1210 “deoo”) is different than in 1Corinthians 7:15 (#1402 “doulw”), which suggests bondage as a slave (Acts 7:6).
Secondly, no place in the text does it actually
state anything about the right to remarry.
One has to insert that assumption.
“Not under bondage” may only permit divorce, as suggested in verse 11
between believers.
1
Corinthians 7:11 But
and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband
put away his wife.
Thirdly, we note that even the passages cited about
being “bound” to a wife indicate it is for life (1Cor. 7:39; Rom 7:2).
Finally, Jesus specified fornication as the only
exception allowing remarriage. Can that be stretched to include desertion?
It may be objected that this places an unfair burden
upon the Christian. I think not. It is highly likely that soon the unbeliever
will become involved in a fornication relationship which then releases the believer. Or, the unbeliever may choose to reconcile,
as in 7:11, which places no more burden than if a believer divorces a believer.
HOW
CAN A BELIEVER GET FREE FROM AN ABUSIVE MARRIAGE?
The condition for remaining in the marriage is, “if he be pleased
to dwell with her” (1 Corinthians
7:13). That means something better than
wanting to keep her as a slave. We are called to peace (1Cor. 7:15).
Christians are not bound to remain and take abuse, whether he professes
to be a Christian or not. Indeed, if a
man doesn’t provide for his own he has denied
the faith and is worse than an infidel (1Tim 5:8). 1Cor. 7:10 admonishes them not to depart but
7:11 seems to recognize that some circumstances will result in divorce, in
which case they are to remain
unmarried or be reconciled.
This leaves the door open to resolve the situation so long as one of the
parties does not turn to someone else.
CONCLUSION:
A Christian should marry “only in the Lord” (1Cor. 7:39).
This avoids a lot of the pitfalls resulting in these situations.
If a Christian is married to an unbeliever and he is
willing to dwell in peace, she should not leave (1Cor. 7:12-14; 2Cor 6:14-17).
If he will not live in peace, let him depart, she is not bound.
A wife should not leave her husband. However, if she leaves she should remain
unmarried or return to her husband (1Cor. 7:10, 11).
If he is unfaithful, she is free to put it behind
her and begin a new life. She is free
to remarry.
Marriage may be broken by adultery. The sin was in committing the act that
destroyed the marriage. Once the
marriage is ended on these grounds (with a writing of divorcement) there is no
sin in remarriage.