DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
Elliott Nesch
Marriage was created for God's covenant people that He might seek a godly seed (Malachi 2:15). Therefore, this is a study of utmost importance for the church because the Bible says if any of God's married people get a divorce then it is not recognized by Him (because the two have been made one flesh) and any remarriage afterwards is not a legitimate marriage but adultery (Matthew 5:31,32; 19:8,9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18). The only lawful terminations of marriage implied in the Bible is the death of one spouse (Romans 7:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:39), fornication (Matthew 5:32:19:9), or when an unbeliever departs from a Christian in a religiously mixed marriage (1 Corinthians 7:15). An accurate understanding and interpretation of these exceptions will be explored in this study.
I. GOD'S STANDARD FOR MARRIAGE
Ideally, marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God that cannot be broken until one of the two spouses be dead. First, we will look at the following three witnesses: Mark and Luke (quoting Jesus) and Paul who present the Christian standard for marriage. Together these three witnesses seem to have the clearest statements on the subject of divorce and remarriage.
Mark 10:11,12
[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
[12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18
[18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Romans 7:1-3
[1] Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound 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.
[3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
1 Corinthians 7:39
[39] The wife is bound 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.
With these four passages from three witnesses, it is clear that marriage is a lifelong covenant for Christians.
1. Whoever divorces his wife or her husband and marries another commits adultery (Luke 16:18).
2. Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Mark 10:12). If the divorce was not based on biblical grounds (1 Corinthains 7:15), then the Christian who marries the divorcee is considered an adulterer.
3. A woman is bound by the law to her husband as long he lives (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).
This is the clear and holy standard for God's people when entering into a marital covenant. Paul later gives separate instructions to those involved in religiously mixed marriages (1 Corinthians 7:12-24) which we will consider later.
The implications of these verses are grave: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9,10); "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).
II. EXCEPTION CLAUSE
Next, look at Jesus' words in Matthew's gospel in light of God's standard for marriage presented earlier.
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 19:3-9
[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.
Jesus assumes that in most situations, a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriag. Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage adultery. Unlike the record kept in Mark's and Luke's gospels, Matthew records an exception clause wherein Jesus said, "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. . . 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"
But how can this exception be reconciled with the standard presented earlier that allow for no exceptions? Jesus' words casts out Moses' allowance of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) on the grounds that it was written for the hardness of their hearts and was contrary to God's original intention. To suggest that the exception was never said by Jesus at all would imply that Matthew did not accurately quote Jesus and that his gospel is not the inspired word of God. Obviously, this is not the case and there is some explanation.
We will consider three of the most common options of interpretation to this exception clause being:
1. An allowance of divorce for marital unfaithfulness,
2. An Old Testament context
3. An application to the betrothal period
A. An allowance of divorce for marital unfaithfulness:
When I say marital unfaithfulness, I am referring to an act of sexual immorality or adultery committed by one spouse with somebody other than their husband or wife.
Some will explain the discrepancy by saying there are other exceptions in Scripture that are in certain passages while omitted in parallel verses on the same subject. For instance, Jesus said in Mark 8:12, "There shall no sign be given unto this generation," which sounds absolute but then in Matthew 12:39, there is an exception given: "there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." In this sense, Matthew is just giving us more information than Mark, Luke and Paul.
Because of this exception clause, many believe that a man may divorce his wife if she is unfaithful to him in the marriage. Some people would go even further and suggest that a woman can divorce her husband for unfaithfulness (but the Scriptures would not give that impression in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9).
There are problems with this interpretation which I will mention before introducing the third option of interpretation to this passage.
B. An Old Testament context:
Some interpreters argue that the context of the exception clause is in the Old Covenant law. Notice the following Scriptures:
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
[13] If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
[14] And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
[15] Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
[16] And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
[17] And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
[18] And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
[19] And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
[20] But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
[21] Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
[1] 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.
[2] And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
[3] 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;
[4] 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.
The argument goes something like this: Moses' law only allowed a man to divorce his wife when he found that she had fornicated prior to the marriage and that Jesus confirms this allowance for divorce if a man found indecency in his wife when he married her.
However, this seems to be a misinterpretation because the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Matthew 19:3) implying that the uncleanness or indecency found in Deuteronomy was not just fornication but was a much more broad definition. It is taken for granted by the Pharisees that the law gave allowances for divorce.
It is also possible that the Pharisees taught that a man may divorce his wife for any cause as an idea apart from the Old Testament. But even the Old Covenant allowed for the divorced woman to be remarried (Deuteronomy 24:2) while Jesus would call that adultery, so Jesus cannot be reiterating the Mosaic law, but giving a new and more narrow commandment.
Jesus is making a clear distinction between His commandment and the Old Covenant command: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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 5:31,32). Jesus criticized the Pharisees' failure to recognize in the books of Moses God's original intention for marriage so He quoted from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. . . Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Jesus therefore raises the standard of marriage for His disciples to God's original intention in the creation.
The following is an argument on this topic:
"Some believe that Jesus changed the law at this point, by speaking against divorce. Moses had no prohibition on divorce; while Jesus is now saying it is illegal to do so. However, Jesus did not change the law, for he also said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Yet again, it seems clear that Jesus is indeed intensifying the law, i.e. changing the law by requiring inner transformation that will make an individual truly good. This is especially proven by the recurring motif throughout Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "It hath been said . . . But I say unto you," implying a change or magnification of the previous law.
So what is meant by Jesus when He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17)? Typical interpretations suggest Jesus' intention was that He would fulfill the predictions of the prophets concerning the future and Messiah. While this is true, it seems Jesus is conveying something much more. It was the goal of every rabbi in Judaism to "fulfill" the law in the sense of explaining its true meaning. "Fulfill" or pleroo in Greek means:
c) to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment
Thus, Jesus is simply saying that His teachings explained the true meaning and ministered deeper revelation to the Old Testament law and prophets. While the moral implications of the Old Testament still stand today and are reaffirmed in the New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ, the civil ordinances and ceremonial laws are no longer binding to the Christian because Jesus fulfilled their true meaning which was Himself the Christ.
It should be noticed, however, that there were clues within the Mosaic law that the divorce concession was on the basis of the hardness of man's heart and really did not make divorce and remarriage legitimate because the woman who remarried was said to be defiled (Deuteronomy 24:4).
C. An application to the betrothal period
We should entertain the possibility that the exception clause mentioned in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statements found in Mark 10:11,12, and Luke 16:18. First, I will present the problems I have when interpreting these verses with the most common understanding that the exception clause applies to marital unfaithfulness.
1. In Mark's and Luke's gospels, Jesus said adultery is caused by remarriage for both spouses (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18). The exception clause, however, states that a wife who is divorced because of her fornication (assuming fornication is marital unfaithfulness) is not an adulterer if she marries another! Jesus said, "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." In other words, adultery is not caused for the woman if the divorce is made because of her fornication. Why would a divorce caused by the wife's sin of sexual immorality not cause the wife to be an adulterer while any other divorce and remarriage would make her an adulterer? This is what Jesus said.
Read it carefully: "whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." If she is not an adulterer then she is free to remarry even after her fornication. Here's a similar analogy. If a man is speeding in his car, unless it be an emergency, he will be given a speeding ticket. In this case, if a man is speeding for an emergency (the exception), then the speeding ticket is not caused. Likewise in Matthew 5:32, if the divorce is for fornication (the exception), then adultery is not caused. Any cause for divorce besides fornication would make her an adulterer and this is simply not true. That is, if a man divorces his wife for fornication, then she is not caused to commit adultery.
When approached with this problem in interpreting the exception for fornication not causing adultery in regard to a married couple, some will respond:
"Why the Lord does not consider it adultery, He never says. But nonetheless, He does say such a set of circumstances does not constitute adultery."
Jesus teaches that a man divorcing his wife for grounds other than fornication causes her to commit adultery (assuming her remarriage). Why would the difference of her sin not cause her to be an adulterer if she remarries. In other words, divorce on the grounds of her fornication let's the wife "off the hook" and she is not considered an adulterer (if she remarries) even though her sin of sexual immorality gave her husband grounds to divorce her! A man makes his wife an adulteress except in the case where she has made herself one. I would assume that since an innocent wife who is divorced and remarried commits adultery (Matthew 5:32), therefore the guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, then one is put in the position of saying to a married woman, "If you commit adultery, it will be lawful for you to remarry." But this is the understanding we reach if we conclude that Jesus is referring to marital unfaithfulness when He says, "fornication."
From another article, somebody said:
"The reason divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality is not considered adultery, is because, under the law of Moses, anyone who was married and committed an act of sexual immorality was to be killed. Therefore, death would be involved in such a case. Thus, theoretically, the marriage bond would be broken via death under the law."
What? I don't think Jesus still intended us to be thinking under the Mosaic law, but quite the opposite. Jesus did not intend for the woman to be stoned to death!
The only logical way to work out this problem, if fornication is marital unfaithfulness, is to suggest that the wife caused herself to commit adultery (not her husband) by her unfaithfulness which resulted in her husband divorcing her and her subsequent remarriage. Thus, the husband did not cause her to commit adultery but adultery was caused, nevertheless, by the wife's unfaithfulness, just not caused by the husband. This suggestion would work. However, there are further problems with this interpretation of fornication being marital unfaithfulness which I will offer before sharing a logical conclusion.
2. If Jesus was referring to marital unfaithfulness, then this would elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital disunion.
Furthermore, if sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can't remarry (as Jesus does say in Luke 16:18) assumes that her divorcing husband (the guilty party) is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another (for this also would be an unlawful breaking of the marriage bond). This is an unsafe, unfair, and unlikely assumption.
3. Why does Matthew use the word porneia ("except it be for fornication") instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Most commentators make the assumption that porneia means adultery in context. Did Jesus deliberately use this word to convey something entirely different?
The view that seems most persuasive and logical to me regarding the exception clause will consider that during the betrothal period of an unmarried couple, they were regarded as "husband" and "wife," and the fornication to which Jesus is referring is not after a marriage covenant has been made but during the betrothal period. This view answers all three of the concerns presented above. While I cannot be totally persuaded that this view is correct, I believe it is the safest view to have regarding the topic in view, and I believe it has the best argument.
Today, we would understand the betrothal period to be an engagement. There is much internal evidence within the Bible and the book of Matthew itself in support of this interpretation. For instance, in the Mosaiac law, a betrothed spouse is considered a husband or wife even though there has not yet been a marriage:
Deuteronomy 22:23,24
[23] If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 20:7
[7] And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
Notice that in the following verses Mary and Joseph are "husband" and "wife" even though they are not yet married, only an espoused or a betrothed couple, what we would call fiances:
Matthew 1:18-25
[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
[22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
With this understanding, we can read Matthew's exception clause maintaining the three witnesses of Paul, Mark and Luke (of which there is no exception for divorce other than death). The exception of fornication would be pertaining to a betrothed (engaged) couple regarded as husband and wife. This is the only way God's word can prohibit divorce (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39) and at the same time allow it (Matthew 5:31,32; 19:3-9) specifically concerning the putting away of an untaken wife for the cause of her fornication.
Logically, Jesus must be referring to an unmarried couple. Then the discrepancy is solved. If Jesus was referring to an unmarried couple in which the engaged "wife" committed fornication and the engaged "husband" subsequently called off the marriage (or divorced), then they would both be free to marry another spouse and adultery is not caused (because they were never married, only engaged). Thus, Jesus would be understood as saying, "It hath been said, 'whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement,' but I say unto you, 'that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication [in the case of a betrothed, untaken, or espoused wife], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery'" (Matthew 5:31,32).
Therefore, the woman who is put away for fornication is not caused to committ adultery if she remarries, since both the man and the woman remained single in this type of divorce and never actually entered into the covenant of marriage. In any other divorce, she would be an adulterer but here (Matthew 5:32) she is only considered a fornicator because there was no marriage, only betrothal. Thus, adultery is not caused after the divorce of the unmarried couple. Then, by her fornication, the "husband" (or fiance) decides not to marry her and there is therefore no adultery in remarriage; both the man and woman are free to marry and adultery is not caused just like Jesus says!
Remember, Matthew's Gospel was written for the Jews, not to say that a Gentile Christian should have a different standard (there is no longer Jew or Gentile in Christ). I only say that because the Jews would have understood the culture and customs concerning the betrothal period. It is possible that Mark and Luke left out the exception because they were not writing specifically to a Jewish audience.
Furthermore, the word fornication can be insightful. Notice, Jesus did not say, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for adultery, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." He said "fornication" implying that no marital covenant has been made. Fornication was mainly used to speak of pre-marital sex. Granted, the Greek word porneia for "fornication" can include adultery. It is defined as:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
The word "fornication" would be the most concise word to the sexual immorality of a betrothed unmarried "wife" (or fiance) The word for adultery describes what is committed when two people are married and one has intercourse with somebody other than their spouse. Moicheuo is the Greek word for "adultery" and is defined as:
1) to commit adultery
a) to be an adulterer
b) to commit adultery with, have unlawful intercourse with another's wife
c) of the wife: to suffer adultery, be debauched
Jesus and the New Testament writers also made a distinction between fornication and adultery. It is interesting that the only other places besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is 15:19 where it is used alongside moicheia. "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries [moicheia], fornications [porneia], thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Matthew 15:19). Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something totally different than moicheia.
Additionally, in the following references fornication does not include adultery (it is given separately and a distinction is made when mentioned alongside fornication): Mark 7:21; 10:11,12; Romans 13:9; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Galatians 5:19-21.
Another clue can be found in John 8:41 where the Jewish religious leaders accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. They said to Him, "We be not born of fornication [porneia]; we have one Father, even God" (John 8:41). They did not accept the virgin birth but indirectly accused Jesus' mother of committing fornication.
Joseph was about to put away his betrothed wife Mary for fornication, not for adultery. Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also to show that the kind of "divorce" that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication is not included in Jesus' absolute prohibition of divorce for His people.
If the divorce of an already married couple was allowed for the exception of adultery, then Jesus would have been allowing the hardness of heart permitted under the Old Covenant. On the other hand, consistent with the view that Jesus was speaking of a betrothed couple, no exceptions are made for unforgiveness throughout the New Testament (Matthew 6:14,15; Ephesians 4:31,32).
Did Jesus abolish divorce for the hardness of heart in the New Covenant or did He not? "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:4,5). How could Jesus say such a thing and then go on to allow divorce and hardness of heart? God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). The prohibition of divorce would fall in line with the other deeds Jesus did not allow in the Sermon on the Mount (killing, adultery, swearing, revenge and hatred) when He began with "Ye have heard that it was said . . . But I say unto you."
Some have objected the approach shown here to Jesus' exception clause because it suggests premarital sex or fornication is a greater sin than an adulterous affair after a marriage covenant has been made. Such an argument uses the Old Testament to verify that adultery was a greater sin than fornication (Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:22). However, Jesus said divorce was permitted in the Old Covenant for the hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:4,5) which He does not allow, and elsewhere the New Testament states that marriage is for life (Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39) in spite of any acts of adultery that might occur within the mariage.
Once a marital covenant has been made by those in the New Covenant, only death can break it! We Christians should know the severity and permanence of marriage that not even adultery can separate what God has joined together as one flesh. Some argue that a divorce is a genuine separation based on Jesus' words, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). They say that divorce does indeed put asunder the one flesh marriage. But if this was true, then the second marriage wouldn't be adultery. The point Jesus was making is that man's divorce does not separate what God has made one flesh, otherwise the second marriage would not be called adultery.
Some Christians and even unbelievers do not divorce their wives after their wives commit repeated adultery! Are they holding to a higher standard than Jesus? In Psalm 15, the question is asked, "Who shall dwell in thy holy hill?" and answered, "He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." Even many unbelievers have God's holy law of marriage written on their hearts and can forgive an adulterous wife without divorcing her and likewise wives can forgive their unfaithful husbands and not divorce them. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Romans 2:14-16). One can see the righteousness and favor of forgiving an unfaithful spouse and not putting them away; it is written on our hearts.
The prophet Hosea is a good example of one God called in righteousness to remain faithful to his wife even though she committed radical sexual immorality. She was a woman who already had children as a result of her prostitution (Hosea 1:2), who continued to live in adultery during her marriage to Hosea (Hosea 3:1). Nonetheless, God called Hosea to do this as a type of His relationship with Israel.
In sum, the New Covenant gives no exception for Christians to divorce (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39) but death of the husband or wife. The exception of fornication (Matthew 5:31,32; 19:3-9) refers to pre-marital sexual immorality committed by a betrothed "wife." This is the standard by which a Christian should live in marriage. If both Christians in a marriage lived by this standard, there would never be divorces, even if a spouse was unfaithful and committed adultery.
This is the most narrow and safest view regarding divorce and remarriage. When approaching the situation of a Christian being born again into their second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. marriage, I don't believe the same standards will apply for reasons that we will explore next.
Commonly, the early Christian writers are quoted in support of the conservative viewpoint to which I will agree applies to all Christians. However, many will neglect the following quotes which show that the early Christians, even Tertullian (who was a Montanist and had a very high standard of marriage), permitted a Christian to stay married to the spouse they were with at the time of Christian conversion:
Tertullian said, "'If you are bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed. If you have been loosed from a wife, do not seek a wife. But even if you have taken a wife, you have not sinned.' [1 Cor. 7:27, 28]. He says that because to a man who had been loosed form a wife prior to believing [in Christ], his wife will not be counted as a 'second wife.' Because she is his first wife after his believing." The Apostolic Constitutions compiled in 390 AD said, "He who has been twice married after his baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot be made a bishop, presbyter, or deacon--or indeed any of the priestly category." Though the man could not be acknowledged in the priestly category, his second marriage after his baptism was legitimate, assuming the previous marriage was prior to conversion. Also, it says, "after his baptism" making a distinction between a person twice married before baptism who, apparently could have been made a leader in the church.
III. WHAT DOES PAUL HAVE TO SAY?
Paul presented the holy standard of marriage for God's covenant people. We have already looked at Romans chapter 7. 1 Corinthians chapter 7 contains Paul's most detailed account of the subject at hand. He addresses four separate groups which we will look at one by one: (1) unmarried and widows, (2) the married, (3) the rest (a Christian who became a believer in Christ while in a marriage with a pagan), and (4) virgins.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul addresses the unmarried and widows and exhorts them to remain single in order to care for things of the Lord. This doesn't mean marriage is a dishonorable calling; the Bible says the opposite (Hebrews 13:4). However, Paul explains that a single Christian cares for the things of the Lord, but a married Christian cares for the things of the world and how they may please their spouse (1 Corinthians 7:32-33). When Jesus' disciples heard His holy standard for marriage being so narrow, they said that it is good not to marry. Jesus then said something similar to what Paul taught in these verses: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:11,12). Beware of some who will take these verses to an extreme by forbidding to marry. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:1-3).
But, he says, if they marry they do not sin. Those who had fallen into fornication prior to Christian conversion would be grouped into this category of "unmarried" because Paul later addresses virgins (who are also unmarried but not grouped in this category). I believe this would apply to a Christian who was divorced prior to conversion as well. Since divorced people are not addressed specifically, Paul probably grouped them in this category if their situation did not apply to verses 10 and 11. The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 7:8 for "unmarried" is agamos which means and includes:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single
However, "unmarried" cannot refer to a Christian who wishes to become unmarried by divorcing their spouse, because they are married. These would not be free to remarry for Paul later addresses this category of marriages and does not give permission for that (vv. 10-11) unless it is the specific case found in verses 12-16. He never gives any Christian permission to divorce their spouse! Since those in this category of "unmarried" are free to remarry, he cannot be referring to a divorced Christian who was married to another Christian because the Bible clearly states that those are not free to remarry but are still married to their spouse in the eyes of God (see Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3) as confirmed by Paul in verses 10-11. We must use the more clear passages, such as those we looked at earlier and those following to interpret this passage.
Paul addressed everyone's current situation by binding forever those who are currently married and giving a marriage license to the currently unmarried.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
[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.
Paul is simply reiterating Jesus' commands concerning marriage, hence, "unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." Most likely, Paul is aware of a specific saying from the historic Jesus which addressed this issue. These verses look very much like Mark 10:11-12 because both the husband and the wife are addressed. Also, remarriage is excluded by verse 11 in the same way it is excluded in Mark 10:11-12.
Both Christian marriage partners are commanded not to depart from the marriage. By deducing from the information in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, we can identify those in this marriage as two Christians. Therefore, since both are accountable to God, they cannot abandon the marriage no matter what the other spouse has done.
We will get into further detail of the Greek in the following verses, but the word "depart" is from the Greek word chorizo which means:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart
a) to leave a husband or wife
1) of divorce
b) to depart, go away
It is clear that Paul is talking about divorce and remarriage in this sentence, "But and if she depart [divorce] let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." Again, "put away" comes from Greek aphiemi which first meaning is:
1) to send away
a) to bid going away or depart
1) of a husband divorcing his wife
Hence, the woman who divorced or departed from her husband is to remain "unmarried" or agamos:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single
1 Corinthians 7:12-16
[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[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.
[16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
The conjunction "but" (v. 12) is used to contrast what has previously been mentioned. Previously mentioned was this: "Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (v. 10,11). "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord" (v. 12), that is, the Lord had not spoken to this case as to the former case of divorce with two Christians. This does not mean that the apostle spoke without authority from the Lord, or made a conclusion from his own wisdom without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul is addressing a group that Jesus never addressed (a married couple of a Christian and an unbeliver). Jesus' commands (Matthew 5:31,32; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18) were to God's covenant people, i.e., Jews married to Jews or Christians married to Christians today. Some interpret these verses incorrectly, I believe, because they cannot accept the supposed contradiction to Jesus' commands.
However, Paul has this in mind and is fully aware he is giving separate commands because he is addressing a group of people which Jesus never addressed before by saying, "to the rest speak I, not the Lord." The obvious solution for the conflict in commands is because the marital situations were different and, therefore, there can be variance in directions. Paul makes it clear that he is not contradicting Jesus commands but introducing a new set of instructions to a new group, namely a Christian in a religiously mixed marriage.
Since Paul is addressing a religiously mixed couple and indicates that these were circumstances which Jesus never addressed (v. 12), then we can deduce that Jesus only addressed same-faith marriages (those marriages wherein both spouses were also in covenant with God). What is the difference? In Jesus' scenario, she that separates from her husband must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband (v. 11), i.e. no divorce and no remarriage, whereas Paul said that the Christian is "not under bondage" (v. 15) in a marriage with the exact same scenario except, the difference is, with an unbeliever who divorces the Christian.
Just as Israel received the Torah, God's authoritative instruction, at the foot of Mount Sinai, so also, when Jesus began to give His holy instructions, He too ascended to a mountain and gathered His disciples, "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them" (Matthew 5:1,2). These commands and laws given by Jesus are to be written on the hearts of His people (Christians). When Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount and gave His commands concerning marriage, it was to His disciples (Matthew 5:1; Luke 6:17). The laws of love of the New Covenant are intended for followers of Jesus and, therefore, cannot be imposed upon expected to be kept by the unregenerate and unbelievers.
When Jesus said, "whosoever," in "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18), I believe He was speaking to a Jewish audience of His disciples when He addressed divorce and remarriage, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Matthew 5:27), because those who heard that it was said by them of old time were the Jews (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18). The command also applies to Christians because we are the Israel of God, but not to unbelievers. Jesus said Himself that He was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24,10:6).
This contextual evidence that Jesus was speaking to His disciples is also confirmed in 1 Corinthians 7 because Paul gives commands contrary to Jesus' commands when he says, "speak I, not the Lord . . . 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", yet the only variable is the unbelieving spouse. Therefore, Jesus never addressed the pagan unbelievers when giving His commands concerning marriage, only His disciples and God's covenant people. God makes the distinction between Christian marriages and religiously mixed marriages and that must be acknowledged here. Paul addressed the letter and his instructions concerning marriage to Christians: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:2). Paul was not writing to unsanctified unbelievers but to Christians.
What is the meaning of "not under bondage"? Some have suggested that "under bondage" (v. 15) does not refer to the marriage but to the bondage of the Christian to stay with the unbeliever, rendering due benevolence to the unbelieving spouse, to a guilty conscience, or to a continual contentious spouse. All of these arguments can be strengthened and considered safest with Paul's words: "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth" (1 Corinthians 7:39). No doubt this is the ideal situation and should be the heart of every Christian. This is why no permission is granted to the Christian to abandon a marriage. If any of these possibilities were the case, Paul wouldn't have had to give a second set of instructions because the conclusion to both parties would be the same, remain unmarried or be reconciled! Why address this other group and give a second set of instructions?
Paul must be speaking of the bondage of marriage by saying, "not under bondage." The sentence structures addressed to Christian marriages and unequally yoked marriages begin the same: "But and if she (a Christian married to a Christian) depart (v. 11) . . . But if the unbelieving depart (v. 15)." The next statement pertains to the marriage covenant in both sets of instructions, "let her (the Christian married to a Christian) remain unmarried (v. 11) . . . let him (unbeliever) depart" (v. 15). Then he addresses the future instructions, "or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife (v. 11) . . . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace" (v. 15). Unlike the previous case of two married Christians, wherein the abandoned partner should remain unmarried or be reconciled, a Christian whose pagan spouse departs is not under the same obligations of remaining unmarried and being reconciled. This is the only difference between the contrasting sets of instructions.
Paul could have addressed both groups in the same category by giving the same set of instructions. Rather, he makes a distinction and gives separate instructions, namely, one Christian is under bondage to remain married or be reconciled and not to put away their spouse whereas the Christian married to the unbeliever is not under the same moral imperative. Since the unbeliever is not accountable to God, the unbeliever may put away the marriage.
The Christian calling does not dissolve the marriage covenant, but bound the two persons together. A Christian is not by faith in Christ loosed from matrimonial bonds to an unbeliever, but is at once bound and made to be a better spouse through Christ. Though a Christian wife or husband should not separate from their unbelieving spouse, if the unbeliever desert the Christian, and no means can reconcile to cohabitation, in such a case the brother or sister is not under bondage (v. 15) to cleave to the deserter or to live unmarried after all means of proper reconciliation have been tried. In such a case, the deserted Christian is free to marry another, only in the Lord. Such a desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage covenant as death itself.
How is it possible that two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to depart from or divorce the Christian spouse. In that case, there is nothing the Christian can do to restore the marriage.
Some commentators have suggested that this passage is not at all dealing with divorce but only leaving a spouse. One commentator writes,
"Most present day translations, together with the King James Version, make it clear that Paul is talking about leaving a spouse, not divorcing one. But even then, he says that Christians shouldn't leave their spouses. The Greek word Paul uses is aphiemi, which is usually translated as 'leave' in other passages, but never as 'divorce.' It is an entirely different word from apoluo, the term Jesus used in Matthew 5:32 when He spoke about divorce."
While this commentator is partly correct about the usage of aphiemi, the word for "depart" in the same passage comes from the Greek word chorizo which does mean divorce. Aphiemi can mean divorce as well, which seems likely in this instance because the translators chose to translate "put away"; it's definition is:
1) to send away
a) to bid going away or depart
1) of a husband divorcing his wife
b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
c) to let go, let alone, let be
1) to disregard
2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
a) of teachers, writers and speakers
3) to omit, neglect
d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
a) in order to go to another place
b) to depart from any one
c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
d) to desert wrongfully
e) to go away leaving something behind
f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
i) abandon, leave destitute
The word "depart" in, "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart," is the Greek word chorizo which means:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart
a) to leave a husband or wife
1) of divorce
b) to depart, go away
While aphiemi, the Greek word Paul uses for "depart" is an entirely different word from apoluo, the word Jesus used in Matthew 5:32 when He spoke about divorce, this word chorizo is the exact same word used when Jesus was talking about divorce in Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6, "What therefore God hat joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). In that case, we could read verse 15 as follows: "But if the unbelieving put asunder, let him put asunder. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." Reading the text with that understanding would not lead us to believe that the unbeliever is not only departing but actually putting away the marriage and divorcing their spouse.
The two words aphiemi and chorizo are almost used interchangeably within the section of Scripture: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart [chorizo] from her husband: But and if she depart [chorizo], let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away [aphiemi] his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away [aphiemi]. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him [aphiemi]. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart [chorizo], let him depart [chorizo]. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."
Finally, Paul says to those in mixed religious marriages, "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" (v. 16). In other words, you don't know whether or not you will save your unbelieving spouse. Because of this uncertainty, the Christian is not under bondage to pursue the marriage with a spouse who has forsaken them. Again, if Paul were instructing them to remain unmarried or be reconciled, He could have addressed all Christian marriages and mixed marriages together, but he says they are not under the same obligations.
How can Paul be making a concession for divorce? First of all, accommodation is not being made for the Christian but for the unbeliever who has not surrendered themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Accommodation was made for divorce under the Mosaic Law for the hardness of man's heart (Matthew 19:5-9). As in the Old Testament, this accommodation made by Paul is for the protection of the innocent spouse. Dissolution meant that the innocent spouse no longer had to remain in a hopeless situation (1 Corinthians 7:12-15). It is very important to note that a divorce is permitted in this special circumstance, but never commanded! This is clearly indicated in Hosea 1-3, where the adulterous wife is forgiven and restored. If the Christian (the innocent party) in this divorce, it may be preferable that he/she wait until the other spouse has remarried in order to preclude any possibility of reconciliation. Thus, divorce is permitted in Scripture in accommodation to man's sin for the protection of the innocent spouse. Since divorce is only a concession to man's sin and it is not a part of God's original plan for marriage, all Christians considering divorce should have the same attitude toward divorce as God does.
This, I believe, is the only biblical grounds for divorce. In other cases where a divorce is obtained between Christians on nonbiblical grounds, the person who remarries commits adultery (Matthew 19:9) and the Christian who marries another Christian who was previously divorced on nonbiblical grounds also commits adultery (Luke 16:18). The New Testament allows remarriage if the divorce was based upon biblical grounds such as these (1 Corinthians 7:15). However, in the cases where the divorce was not on biblical grounds, the Christian is exhorted to seek reconciliation or to stay unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
1 Corinthians 7:17-24
[17] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
[18] Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
[19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
[20] Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
[21] Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
[22] For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
[23] Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
[24] Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
Here, Paul brings up circumcision (v. 18) and slavery (v. 21). Before and after this interjection he is still speaking of marriage, so this must also be regarding marriage, though the commands apply to those particular situations as well. There is no way one who is circumcised can become uncircumcised (v. 18), but Paul is using the illustration to make a point.
Paul says almost the exact same words three times, "as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk . . . Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. . . . let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God." In the context of marriage, Paul is instructing all those new Christians to stay where they are. A Christian is to see every circumstance that they are in when they became a believer as from God. If they are called while married, they are not to seek a divorce.
It is important to note that Paul does not address those married couples who had been previously divorced and instruct them to put away their current spouse and return to their former. He addresses the current marital situations at hand. Salvation means that a person has a new life. The Christian is responsible to live up to what God has revealed about marriage and divorce from the point of his or her salvation and sanctification in the blood of Jesus Christ. It is clear that a person who becomes a Christian in a pagan marriage sanctifies that marriage (1 Corinthians 7:14).
The Bible says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). This does not mean that Christ erases painful memories, bad habits or the underlying causes for past marital problems and previously committed sins, but that He begins a process of transformation through the blood of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. A sign of saving faith and repentance toward God will be a willingness to obey what Christ has commanded about marriage, divorce and remarriage in His Word.
In other words, if a person has been married seven times and now becomes a Christian, then they are not to return to their first spouse (as some churches today will teach), but they are to remain with the spouse they are currently with. Even if their current spouse is an unbeliever, they are to stay with them unless the unbelieving depart (v. 15). If they become a new Christian and they are single or have been divorced previously, Paul advises them to stay single, but if they do marry in the Lord (2 Corinthians 6:14) then they have permission (v. 15).
1 Corinthians 7:25-28
[25] Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
[26] I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
[27] Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
[28] But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Next, Paul addresses the fourth group: virgins. Along with verse 12 in which Paul says, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord," verse 25 is also unique to the entire Bible, "I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." Thus Jesus gave no specific command to those categories of people (religiously mixed marriages and virgins), but Paul gives his best judgment (which we know today to be inspired by God as Paul was ordained an Apostle of the Christian faith).
Paul says it is good for the present distress to remain as a virgin (v. 26). He then says, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife" (v. 27). We need not go into the Greek meaning of these words, but simply look at the immediate context to find the true meaning. Paul is clearly addressing virgins (v. 25) being bound or loosed in betrothal (engagement).
1 Corinthians 7:29-40
[29] But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
[30] And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
[31] And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
[32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
[33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
[34] There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
[35] And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
[36] But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
[37] Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
[38] So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
[39] The wife is bound 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.
[40] But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Paul elaborates on the trouble in the flesh by marriage. On the other hand, Jesus does not deny the tremendous difficulty in the command of being single for He said, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:11,12).
A Christian is prohibited to marry an unbeliever (v. 39; 2 Corinthians 6:14) because they aren't in a covenant with God and cannot be expected to uphold the same holy standard as a Christian, but sometimes an unbeliever becomes a Christian while being married to an unbeliever.
Paul, in writing to the Christian Corinthians, again mentions God's perfect will in marriage: "The wife is bound 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" (v. 39).
IV. GOD'S HEART AND HATRED TOWARD DIVORCE
Divorce is a sin because it is a separation of what God has joined together. A Christian can never ever initiate the divorce. As we saw in Paul's instructions, an unbeliever can initiate a divorce. Thus, a marriage covenant between two Christians can never be put asunder.
Professing Christians seeking a second marriage fail to realize that while God can forgive them for divorce, their marriage is not a sin and therefore cannot be forgiven or put asunder. A marriage is for life and you cannot repent of a lawful marriage because it is holy. The grounds for Jesus' and Paul's prohibition of divorce and remarriage is based on the fact that the lawful husband and wife are not two, but "one flesh", as long as they are alive (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:5-9; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Genesis 2:23,24). Thus, both a divorce and/or remarriage on unbiblical grounds can and should be repented of.
Malachi 2:14-17
[14] Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
[15] And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
[16] For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
[17] Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?
Similar to the situation recorded in Ezra, some of the returned exiles contracted unlawful marriages with pagan women after divorcing their Jewish wives. By Malachi, God objected to the treachery committed against their first wives and said He hates divorce because it covers one's garments with violence! Additionally, godly seed or children is one of the primary reasons why God hates divorce and makes two one flesh (Malachi 2:15,16). Finally, it is God that makes the two one flesh: "And did not he make one?" (Malachi 2:15). God has made the two one flesh.
Along with Malachi, the New Testament affirms that a "one flesh" relationship is between a man and a woman in covenant with God (v. 14). "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). "And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed" (Malachi 2:15). Thus, God makes the two "one flesh" that he might seek a godly seed. It is evident from 1 Corinthians 7:14 that the pagan husband and wife are not sanctified and their children are unclean unto the Lord. Unclean children are definitely not godly seed, so God would not make the unbelieving parents sanctified according to His purpose in making the two "one flesh": "That he might seek a godly seed." All of God's purposes of marriage, mainly but not limited to godly seed, are fulfilled in the marriage of two people in covenant relationship with God.
The idea of God binding marriages and making two of His people one flesh while other marriages are unsanctified is seen elsewhere in Scripture. Notice the marriage of Abraham and Hagar: "And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife" (Genesis 16:3). In Genesis 21:12, 14, God commanded Abraham to cast out Hagar, "And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. . . . And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba." "Sent her away" (Genesis 21:14) is translated "shalach" in Hebrew which can mean "be put away, be divorced." "Cast out" (Genesis 21:10) is "garash" in Hebrew which means "to drive out, expel, cast out, drive away, divorce, put away, thrust away, trouble, cast up." This was a godly divorce because Abraham was obeying a direct command of God (Genesis 21:12). The reason for this divorce was because in Isaac his seed would be called (Genesis 21:12). God's whole intent for making husband and wife one flesh was for a godly seed (Malachi 2:15) and that seed was in Isaac through Sarah his wife. This divorce was also symbolic of God's two covenants which God made with the children of Israel (Galatians 4:25-26). God never would have allowed or commanded Abraham to divorce his wife Sarah because they were one flesh. "And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed" (Malachi 2:14). Their marriage is symbolic of a Christian marriage which God has joined together. Therefore, in the perfect will of God, Abraham could put asunder the marriage to his wife Hagar because God did not make them one flesh.
What the Bible defines as marriage cannot be achieved by two unbelievers living outside of the life, love and knowledge of Christ. What is marriage and what did God create it for? Marriage was created by God (Genesis 2:22) for a man and woman in covenant with each other (Malachi 2:14) and with Him. He makes the man and woman "one flesh" for the purpose of godly seed (Malachi 2:15) and a demonstration of the relationship between Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:31,32).
It is also clear from Malachi 2:14 that a covenant must be involved for a relationship to be considered a marriage. Some have argued, based on 1 Corinthians 6:13-21 that a marriage is nothing more than fornication. God's intention, of course, is that sexual union was meant for marriage. There is a clear distinction in the Old Testament between sexual union in marriage and fornication (sex outside marriage).
Notice in Genesis 34:3-4, Shechem's fornication with Dinah did not make them husband and wife, but he later asked Hamor his father to get her as wife after he had defiled her with fornication. Judah also thought his daughter in law Tamar to be a harlot and fornicated with her. She even conceived (Genesis 38:15-26) but this did not make Judah and Tamar married for their fornication. Their sexual union was clearly outside of a marriage covenant. "And he knew her again no more" (Genesis 38:26); in other words, he never had sex with her again. Also, Hosea was commanded by God to take for himself a wife that was a whore (Hosea 1:2). If marriage was defined as fornication, then Gomer the harlot would have been married already by her fornication and God would have been commanding his prophet to commit adultery but this is not the case. Fornication does not make male and female "one flesh," as a covenant does.
In God's perfect will, He not only abolished divorce with Jesus' words, but God Himself shows the example of a loving and forgiving husband even though His espoused wife, the nation of Israel, played the harlot in unfaithfulness to God:
Jeremiah 3:1
[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 with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
God first entered into a covenant with Israel at Sinai and warned them that their worship of other gods would be equivalent to fornication or whoredom (Exodus 34:15-16). God also warned that such unfaithfulness on Israel's part would result in a breaking of the covenant between Himself and them: "Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them" (Deuteronomy 31:16). God was patient and longsufering with His "wife" Israel sending them His prophets, one of which was Jeremiah through whom God spoke, "Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD. A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God. Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God" (Jeremiah 3:20-22).
Eventually, God did divorce Israel due to her spiritual fornication with false gods. Speaking of His divorce from Israel, the Almighty said, "Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away" (Isaiah 50:1); "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 also" (Jeremiah 3:8). Yet, He still promised her forgiveness and restoration is she repented (Jeremaih 3:1) which she did not. God's marital covenant with national Israel is now broken. God said, "And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it assunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people" (Zechariah 11:10).
God is now betrothed and will be married to His true bride, the church which includes a remnant of natural Israel (Hosea 3:18-20) along with the Gentile believers. "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" (Revelation 21:2).
Another divorce is found in the book of Ezra chapters 9 and 10 when the Israelites married foreign women in defiance to God's command in Deuteronomy 7:1-3, "When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee . . . the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee . . . thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son":
Ezra 10:10-19,44
[10] And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.
[11] Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
[12] Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.
[13] But the people are many, and it is a time of much rain, and we are not able to stand without, neither is this a work of one day or two: for we are many that have transgressed in this thing.
[14] Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.
[15] Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah were employed about this matter: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.
[16] And the children of the captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, with certain chief of the fathers, after the house of their fathers, and all of them by their names, were separated, and sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine the matter.
[17] And they made an end with all the men that had taken strange wives by the first day of the first month.
[18] And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.
[19] And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.
[44] All these had taken strange wives: and some of them had wives by whom they had children.
Shechaniah said, "Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law" (Ezra 10:3). Some have used this passage to justify all kinds of ungodly divorce between Christians in our day. However, Christians are no longer under the same law of the Israelites today. We have a higher law wherein a Christian may never put away their spouse l (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). However, unholy or adulterous marriages should be put away like the example in Ezra.
We ought to stand for this truth of the sanctity of Christian marriage. Jesus said of John the Baptist, "Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist" (Luke 7:28). John the Baptist stood for His convictions on this subject. He was put in prison and eventually murdered for rebuking Herod in taking his brother Philip's wife (Mark 16:17,18). The New Testament doesn't mention a divorce between Philip and Herodias, yet Herod took her to be his wife after repudiating his first wife Aretas. Some say that this union was unlawful because Herod was in adultery by marrying his brother's wife. However, John the Baptist was considered an Old Testament prophet, not a New Testament prophet (it was in the New Covenant whereby Jesus gave the commands concerning divorce and remarriage being adulterous). Therefore, I believe there could be another reason within to the Old Covenant whereby John the Baptist proclaimed Herod's marriage unlawful. John the Baptist probably said that the Jewish king Herod's marriage to his brother Philip's wife was unlawful because of what was written in the Leviticus: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness" (Leviticus 18:16). "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless" (Leviticus 18:21). Nonetheless, we Christians as prophets of the New Testament should likewise stand in righteousness against unlawful and adulterous marriages as John the Baptist did.
VI. APPLICATION
Pray for wisdom. In dealing with marriage and sometimes the involvement of children, we must approach this matter in the fear and trembling of God with love and longsuffering for our neighbors, brothers and sisters involved.
Christians who pursue divorce on nonbiblical grounds are subject to the church discipline because they openly reject the Word of God. The one who obtains a divorce on nonbiblical grounds and remarries, and the one who marries a divorced person who was divorced on nonbiblical grounds, both alike are living in a continual state of adultery since God does not recognize the validity of the original divorce (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). These Christians are subject to the steps of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13).
In cases where divorce took place on nonbiblical grounds and where the guilty party repents, it is assumed that the repentant party will endeavor to restore the marriage whenever possible as a sign of true repentance. A true sign of repentance will be a desire to implement 1 Corinthians 7:11 by remaining unmarried or being reconciled.
In cases where a Christian obtained a divorce on nonbiblical grounds and remarried, the second marriage is recognized as living in adultery (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). One notable Christian teacher writes concerning this situation, "If repentance takes place, it is recognized that to obtain a second divorce would disobey Scripture (Deut. 24:1-4) hence, they are to remain in the second marriage." Another notable Christian pastor also writes citing Deuteronomy 24:1-4, "The prohibition of a wife returning to her first husband even after her second husband dies (because it is an abomination) suggests very strongly that today no second marriage should be broken up in order to restore a first one."
While their point may seem Scripturally compelling, I disagree because the New Testament deems nonbiblical remarriage as adultery. Likewise, "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 with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD" (Jeremiah 3:1). Why would anybody want to continually live in a state of adultery if such will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)? I am aware that this is breaking the Old Testament law, but have you not read what David did, "when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?" (Matthew 12:4-5). Likewise concerning divorce and remarriage and the law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 prohibiting a wife to return to her former spouse, have you not read what David did when his wife married another, yet he commanded her to be taken from her husband and be reconciled to him, her legitimate spouse (2 Samuel 3:13-16)? Therefore, it is biblical for a Christian who has divorced and remarried on nonbiblical grounds to be reconciled to their former spouse. As Ezra chapter 10 would provide a shadow of these types of unclean marriages, I believe these adulterous marriages should be put away because the previous marriage is sanctified in Christ.
The church has a responsibility to uphold the biblical ideal of marriage, especially exemplified in its leadership. 1 Timothy 3:2,12 sets the marital qualifications for leadership within the church. However, the phrase "husband of one wife" does not mean that that bishop or deacon cannot have had a divorce in the past (either on biblical grounds of 1 Corinthians 7:15 or as an unbeliever) because none of the other qualifications listed refer to specific sins in the past (prior or subsequent to salvation), but rather qualities which currently characterize a man's life.
The possibility of persons being ignorant or having a different understanding of Jesus' command concerning divorce and remarriage is worth consideration. "For where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Furthermore, "sin is not imputed where there is no law" (Romans 5:13). God dealt with the Israelites through Moses, but deals with us one on one through the work of the Holy Spirit teaching His commands. The Sabbath, for instance, was given to Israelites and they were not to be stoned for not keeping the Sabbath a year prior to having received the law.
I truly believe the view of divorce and remarriage to which I hold as presented in this study is correct, yet I know and realize many of my Christian friends have made major life decisions based on a different understanding of the Scriptures than I have. "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7). Consider the situation with Moses Ethiopian wife: "And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman" (Numbers 12:1). God commanded the Israelites not to intermarry with the pagan nations (Deuteronomy 7:1-3), yet this was before Moses took himself an Ethiopian wife. I consider this passage a warning to me not to presume God has not joined together two people who are in their second, third, fourth marriages, especially if they are raising godly seed and living godly lives after they had remarried in ignorance. "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb" (Numbers 12:9-12).
It is much easier to address these marital issues such as divorce and remarriage in the present as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 7, rather than having to dig up a person's past motivations and relationship with the Lord. Not to say that the passage of time doesn't affect moral obligations. Reuben slept one time with his father's concubine, and this matter carried lifelong infractions decades later: "And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve . . . Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch" (Genesis 35:22; 49:4). Likewise, Moses disobeyed God in not circumcising his son Midian and may have thought it was not an issue after time had passed. However, his moral responsibility remained unchanged. "And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision" (Exodus 4:24-26). Therefore, if a Christian knows that they have remarried and committed adultery on a former and faithful spouse, even if years have passed, they are obligated to return to that spouse.
Because of the variations of views on this subject all held within the true Body of Jesus Christ, it is important to remember, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity" (1 Corinthians 13:12,13). For this cause, I believe that Christians holding different views on this subject may still fellowship with one another within reason. Since there is room for error in interpretation of this subject, I'd rather err on the side of mercy than on the side of judgment (James 2:13).
For example, I know Christians who have divorced their spouse and remarried because their spouse committed adultery against them. While this is not my understanding of the exception clause, I can see how one might interpret it that way and have many reasons for doing so. Other Christians I know hold to a much more strict interpretation than myself, but I believe they should be able to fellowship with others who have conflicting views. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4). There are others who believe that a person whom I'd consider to be in an adulterous remarriage should not return to their former spouse based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, illustrating that another divorce would not be the answer to a previous divorce based on the fact that God hates divorce, and because Jesus never told the woman at the well to return to her first husband (John 4:16-19). Some will hold to a much more strict and narrow view than that which I believe to be taught in Scriptures by suggesting that once a person comes to Christ, they are obligated to divorce their current spouse and return to a another previous spouse to which they were married before being born again which, I believe, is binding heavy burdens, grievous to be borne (Matthew 23:4). Nevertheless, I can fellowship with these Christians even though I believe their convictions to be in error. I can see how some might reach these reasonable conclusions through the Word of God. We will all stand before God and give an account. There are more liberal and lawless views, however, which I myself cannot see any genuine and sincere interpretation of the Scriptures justifying, just weak and powerless Christianity with no regard for God's Word.
Personally, I know for certain that any Christian coming to me for advice regarding this issue does not have my support or fellowship in any divorcing their spouse! There are no excuses. This is my personal conviction. Choose according to your conscience and please inform me if you believe I am in error.
Divorce is wrong. Based on Malachi 2:14, nobody with the Holy Spirit can divorce their spouse because the Spirit of God and a godly husband is concerned about raising godly children. Marriage was created for God's covenant people that He might seek a godly seed (Malachi 2:15). Thus a Christian is prohibited to marry an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14) but sometimes an unbeliever becomes a Christian while being married to an unbeliever. Not only divorce, but even sexual separation that is not agreed upon for prayer and fasting is forbidden for a Christian in a marriage (1 Corinthians 7:5,9; 1 Peter 3:1,7).