|
DIVORCE
AND REMARRIAGE |
|
|
|
“Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:
and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis
2:24). These words are almost as old as mankind himself. In fact, only Adam
and Eve were alive when God gave this law of marriage. God created man, and
then upon seeing it was not good for him to be alone, He created woman also
(Genesis 2:18). Upon creating the woman, God also gave the law which would
govern the relationship between the two. God did not make a mistake when He
created man or woman, nor when He instituted marriage. God is perfect, He
does not make mistakes! (Matthew 5:48). His original marriage law was, and
still is, perfect. The original law for marriage was one of the very first
of God’s laws, but since that time God has had relatively
little to say about the subject. Man, however, has written untold volumes of
material, especially in the past few decades. This issue has set many
brethren at odds with one another and has divided untold numbers of
congregations. It would seem that when there is so little material in the
Bible relevant to this subject, it would be hard for man to find an area of
disagreement. But somehow men have managed to derive all manner of
conclusions from these few passages. I do not claim to have any special
insight into this subject, nor have I been studying it for the past sixty
years. However, I do not believe either is necessary to understand God’s word in its simplicity. God would not make something which is so
important to so many difficult to understand. Almost everyone marries during
their lifetime; certainly God would make His laws concerning marriage easy
enough for everyone to understand. The Bible is not hard to comprehend, when
man will simply accept what is before his eyes and cease trying to cloud the
issue with totally irrelevant arguments. Now let us get down to exactly what God’s divine word has to declare about this issue. As we have already seen,
the original law was one man for one woman for life. The man would “cleave” unto his
wife. Strong’s renders this word as “cling,
join, adhere, and stick.” We also
see that they will be “one flesh.” This implies some type of bond which cements or glues
the two together. When something is one flesh it can never be two again. Think
about your own body; it is a single unit of flesh. There is not a single part
of the body that can be removed and will be able to survive on its own. You
cannot derive two self-sustaining pieces of flesh from one. Neither can two
people, once joined by God, ever be two again. Both of these items show that
the marriage tie involved a very serious commitment. We also see that there
was no polygamy mentioned; neither was divorce mentioned. The bond was
permanent and lasted as long as both partners lived. Reason would next compel us to seek out any subsequent
passages which may alter, confirm, or supersede this law. The first passage
which we encounter that has a direct and serious impact on marriage is
Leviticus 20:10. “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely
be put to death.” How does this impact marriage? I know of little which
will affect a marriage more than the death of one of the partners. Other
sexually related sins are also mentioned in Leviticus chapter 20, which will
likewise result in the death of the guilty party(s). The giving of this law
would mean that many marriages would end much sooner than they would have
otherwise. So we can see that when a person was guilty of fornication (this
term denotes all manner of sexually related sins) they were put to death and
this of course allowed the “innocent
party” to remarry. These laws against sexual immorality found in Leviticus
chapter 20 did not change the original law, but rather they added another
dimension to it. But the next major development, which we find in Deuteronomy
chapter 24, differs vastly from the original. Why would God change a perfect
law? It might seem puzzling at first, but I believe we can rationalize it
quite easily. This passage is part of the law given by Moses. This new law
marked the departure of the Children of Israel from the rest of the world, as
far as the laws they were subject to. All men were still under the original
laws, but now the Israelites had many additional laws. It may even seem to be
more perplexing that God would leave the “heathen” Gentiles under a perfect law and give an imperfect law to His people.
A law which was even referred to as “the
handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us” (Colossians 2:14). We now need to try to understand God’s intent and purpose in giving this type of law to His chosen people. The
Apostle Paul answers this question for us in Galatians 3:24. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ.” So we can now see that this new law was merely a tool
or instrument used by God to guide and control these people. Why did He have
to use a different and imperfect law to do this? I do not pretend to know the
thoughts of God, but I believe the Israelites behavior can easily explain
this. They constantly disobeyed God and refused to follow His commandments. So
in many cases He allowed an exception to what He really wanted and expected
from them. God is all wise and knew what would be required to maintain
sufficient control of His people. As far as the part concerning divorce which
we are interested in, Christ told us exactly why it was given. “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this
precept” (Mark 10:5). Now let us pause for a moment and see where we are at. The
majority of the world is still under God’s original
marriage law, but God has given a new law to the Israelites. It would now
seem appropriate to examine this new law and see exactly what it is. Beginning
with the first verse of Deuteronomy chapter 24 Moses records, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it
come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some
uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it
in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of
his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And
if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and
giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter
husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent
her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for
that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to
sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) The major development with this new law is that death
is no longer the only thing which severs the marriage bond. Although God does
not like divorce, and He did not include it in the original marriage law, He
is now going to allow it in the Jews case, but only because of the “hardness of their hearts.” This
provision was given for the benefit of those women who had hard-hearted
husbands. These men would divorce their wives regardless of what God said. So
He commanded that the woman be given a “bill of
divorcement.” This was to protect women from being charged with
deserting their husbands, or with adultery if they remarried. Now proceeding further, let us try to determine the
cause(s) for which a man could divorce his wife under this law. Moses said he
could do so if “she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found
some uncleanness in her.” It is not just that she loses her husbands favor, but
that she does so because she is guilty of some “uncleanness.” If we can define the term “uncleanness” then we will have the answer in hand. Thayer defines this word as
follows: “nudity, literally or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):
nakedness, shame, uncleanness.” Unfortunately,
this does not really nail down any specific sins which the wife might commit
that would place her husband on legal grounds to divorce her. But I do
believe that it does at least indicate the nature of these transgressions. The
idea of nakedness would seem to suggest some sort of sexual misconduct. There is
another passage which does help shed some light on this subject. If
any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 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: 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: and the damsel’s father shall say unto the
elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 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. And the elders of that city
shall take that man and chastise him; 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. But if this thing be
true, and the tokens of
virginity be not found for the damsel: 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
(Deut. 22:13-21). There is a similar passage a few verses later. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not
betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the
man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be
his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days (Deut. 22:28-29). The
interesting thing about both of these cases is that the man has lost the
right to divorce his wife in the future, regardless of anything she may do.
Is this because the only cause for divorce was finding out on the wedding
night that your bride was not a virgin? This would make no since because she
will be stoned if this is the case. The cause for divorce must be something
that occurs later on. Whatever it is, it can be nullified if the husband
falsely accuses her of fornication before their marriage or if he actually
engaged in fornication with her. This makes it evident that this “uncleanness” is sexual in nature. There is
an obvious answer to this question: adultery. If
a woman committed adultery, and there were witnesses, she should be stoned to
death (Deut. 22:22). However, if there were no witnesses, the husband would still
have the option of divorcing her if he chose. Were there men who took
advantage of this and brought false charges against women just to get rid of
them? Absolutely. God knew He was giving evil men a blank check here. At
least innocent women would be less likely to suffer abuse or even murder. How
does this explain the two cases in Deuteronomy 22 where men can never divorce
their wives? In the first instance, the man has already falsely accused his wife
of sexual misconduct once. He has proven himself to be a liar and will not be
believed in this matter even again. In the second instance, well, you get
what you ask for. He married a woman who had slept with him before they were
married. He knew she was not exceptionally chaste so he has no grounds for
complaint, if she fools around on him after marriage. Now we need to determine what is meant when it is said
this precept was given because of the hardness of their hearts. The
Israelites were, without doubt, a very stubborn and rebellious people. They
quite often set about to do as they wished, even if their actions displeased
God. And quite often God gave in to their demands. God did not wish for
israel to have a king, but He did allow it. And in doing so He said Israel
had rejected Him (I Samuel 8:5-7). It was because of their hard-heartedness
and stubbornness that He allowed them to have a king. The provision for
divorce in Deuteronomy chapter 24 was no different. They were hard-hearted
and insisted on divorcing their wives. So, eventually, God relented and
allowed it. It was never His plan nor His will for things to be this way. He
did choose the most heinous act of marital unfaithfulness, adultery, to be
the only cause for divorce. Now as we move forward once again, we must go almost to
the end of the Old Testament before we find another passage of importance to
our discussion. In Malachi 2:16 we find that “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.” This substantiates the idea that God hates divorce, which was
mentioned earlier. It should not surprise us that God would allow something
He did not like. Surely He did not like the suffering His Son Jesus went
through upon this earth. But He knew it was necessary so He allowed it to
occur. Likewise, He knew what type of laws He would have to give to the
Israelites in order to adequately control them until Christ came. Let us again summarize what we have learned. In the
beginning, God created man and woman and instituted marriage between the two.
This union was not to be severed except by death. But some hard-hearted
Jewish men insisted on divorcing their wives. So to Jews only, God gave a
provision for divorce. But we also found that God hates divorce. With these
things remembered let us proceed. As we move into the New Testament, we now have the
greatest and wisest teacher in all of history to learn from. The blessed Son
of God Himself. What, if anything will He do concerning this matter? Will He
do away with the original law and keep the Law of Moses? Or might He do away
with the Law of Moses and keep the original law? Or perhaps He will do away
with both and give a totally new law? Well, He answered this question before
he ever uttered a single word concerning marriage. He said to “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.” (Matthew 5:17-18) He lets us know in very plain and
unmistakable words that He did not come to personally change any existing
laws or to give any new ones. Rather, He came to fulfill the Old Law. He
fulfilled it through His death on the cross. He also made it very clear that
until everything was fulfilled the Old Law would remain completely valid and
in force. How could He then teach a new law without violating this? How could
someone teach one thing and expect His audience to follow something else? The
following example should illustrate the problem with this. Put yourself in the place of an average Jewish man in
the early first century. You are a very devout and righteous Jew. You are
well versed in the scriptures, and you know what the Old Law teaches. Lately
you have heard much talk about a man who is the source of a great deal of
controversy in the region of Judaea; a man called Jesus. This man is supposed
to be a prophet of God, some have even said He could be the long-awaited
Messiah. Finally, one day, you get the opportunity to see this man for
yourself. You see Him perform many miraculous works. You see Him heal people
you personally know to have been ill or crippled for many years. You realize
that this man is indeed sent from God. He stops and begins to teach the
people. You press closer, having a great desire to hear what this man of God
has to say. You hear Him teach many things that day, and naturally you
believe everything He said was inspired of God. Is there any reason why you
would not immediately begin to follow his teachings? Of course not; after all
He was sent from God. And He never told you not to follow what He taught, or
that you had to wait a while, until what He taught would become valid. Obviously,
this prophet, Jesus, intended for you to hear and obey His teachings NOW.
If anything He taught differs from what Moses taught, then you have a
decision to make. Do you follow the Law of Moses, which you have learned from
the Scribes and Pharisees, or do you follow this Jesus, whom you have seen
perform miracles with your own eyes, and whose doctrine you have heard with
your own ears? You would most certainly follow Jesus’ teachings, even if you thought He was teaching something different
from the Law of Moses. A righteous Jew, upon hearing Christ, would have
certainly become His disciple. He would have began to follow Christ’s teachings immediately, even if they were a little different
from what Moses taught. The only way he would not have done so would be if
Christ told him not to. But would it make very much sense to teach something,
and then turn right around and tell the people they could not follow it yet? And
besides, where do we find Him telling the people this? Why wouldn’t they begin to follow His doctrine immediately? The only way to escape
this dilemma, without pronouncing Christ a liar and a hypocrite, is to
realize that He did not teach anything contrary to the Law of Moses before
His death. After His death, however, the Old Law could be renounced and the
New Law freely taught. Well if Jesus was not sent to teach a new law, then
what was He sent here to do? We know that He did teach during His life, but
what exactly did He teach? We can find that “Jesus went
about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of
the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease
among the people.” (Matthew 4:23) Is this “gospel of
the kingdom” the same gospel we are taught and expected to obey
today? The word gospel as defined by Thayer means “good news” or “good
tidings.” The good news which Christ taught was that God’s kingdom was about to be established (Matthew 4:17). But the good
news, or gospel, which was preached by the apostles was different. Paul
declared the gospel which he preached in I Corinthians 15:1-4. He says it was
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Certainly Christ did not teach
this good news, for while He was yet alive it was not news at all! Christ was
sent here to preach about the coming of the kingdom, and to make the necessary
preparations for its establishment; namely His death on the cross. It was not
necessary for Christ to teach the laws which would come into being in this
kingdom in order for Him to accomplish His mission. In fact, teaching laws
which were not yet valid would only have complicated the situation. He also taught us that “No man
putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to
fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do
men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine
runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles,
and both are preserved.” (Matthew 9:16-17) He would not be teaching the New
while the Old was still in force. It would be like patching up something that
was old an worn out and needed replacing. The Old law was ready to pass away
and He would not begin to teach the New until the Old was actually gone. Now that we have established His objectives and
restrictions, let us proceed to examine the content of Jesus’ teachings concerning marriage. The first case we encounter is in His
Sermon on the Mount. He says “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) He first addresses what “has been said.” Well the obvious question is, who said it? At the time
of Jesus’ ministry there were two schools of thought concerning
the regulations of marriage. The school of Hillel taught divorce for almost
any reason, while the school of Shammai correctly taught only fornication as
a legal cause. He seems to be referring to the doctrine spread by the
followers of Hillel. But He says this doctrine is incorrect. He then proceeds to teach them the law as it should be
followed. He taught that a man caused his wife to commit adultery if he
divorced her for any cause other than fornication. Why was fornication the
exception to this? Christ is teaching here that when someone is divorced they
then become subject to the temptation of fulfilling their sexual desires in
an unlawful manner. The other spouse is then partly to blame for their sin,
since they are no longer filling their proper role in the marriage. But if
that person is already sexually immoral, that is, they have already committed
fornication before the divorce, then their spouse is not to blame. In short,
you cannot cause a person to become what he or she already is. So we see that
in this case Jesus was true to His mission. He did not change or alter in any
way the laws which were in effect at that time. He simply showed one of the
evil consequences of divorce. Twice now the word fornication has been used in a very
generic way. It was used to refer to any and every sort of immoral sexual
behavior. Regardless of whether it is adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism,
incest, prostitution, bestiality, etc. We should now pause to verify this
usage of the word. It is from the Greek word “porneia,” which Strong’s defines as “harlotry
(including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry:-fornication.” Thayer’s definition includes “of illicit
sexual intercourse in general.” Our next passage is Matthew 19:3-9. “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?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto
him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put
her away? 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. 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.” First let us note the situation and context of this
conversation. A question is asked by the Pharisees with the particular motive
of trying to “tempt” Jesus. In
other words, they were trying to discredit Him in some way by getting Him to
teach something contrary to the Law of Moses. If we are to understand His
answer to the question they posed, we first need to understand the question. They
asked “is it lawful?” They wanted His teachings concerning the law that was
valid and binding then and there. They did not ask Him His opinion on the
subject but rather what His interpretation was of the law they were then
living under. Now with this in mind let us see how He answered them. He asked them if they had ever read the original law
which is found in Genesis 2:24. He quoted this law and then in verse 6 He
adds to that passage by emphasizing that men should not divorce what God has
joined together. This is nothing new at all but merely a reemphasis of the
law God gave when He first instituted marriage in the beginning. This shows
that this original law was still valid, even for the Jews. Despite the fact
that God had given them permission to divorce we know this is not what He
really intended from the outset. Therefore, it was still His desire to see
them follow the original law. At this point, Jesus has concluded His answer. He has
told them what the law for marriage was. As far as He was concerned, He had
answered their question and the discussion was over. But the answer that
Jesus gave the Pharisees did not agree with either of the schools of thought
of that day. So they quickly question Him about what He said. They ask Him
about the provision Moses gave for divorce in Deuteronomy chapter 24. They
ask why Moses commanded them to divorce their wives if such a thing was
wrong. Jesus quickly corrects them about this and tells them that Moses’ statement was an allowance not a commandment. Moses allowed them to
do it but only because of their hard hearts. It was their unrighteousness
which brought this about not God’s
righteousness. He then tells them that this provision for divorce was not so
from the beginning. In other words, God never intended for divorce to exist
when He first instituted marriage. Jesus, in effect, negates Moses’ provision. Not that they weren’t allowed
to follow it, but if they wished to do what was truly pleasing to God, they
wouldn’t follow it. He then proceeds to teach them the law which they
should be following. He tells them that any man who divorces his wife and
marries another commits adultery, unless she is a fornicator. If the husband
truly has evidence that his wife is guilty of fornication then he should have
her stoned to death. If he lacks this evidence, then why is he divorcing her?
Because of doubt, suspicion, rumor, or simply the fact the he is tired of her
and this is the only legal way to get rid of her? What happens if a man
divorces his wife because she is a bad cook, then he marries again? He commits
adultery just as Jesus said. But what if a man’s wife
does commit adultery? If there is proof, then she is stoned. If there is no
proof, then a righteous Jewish man keeps her. How does he really know she did
it anyway? A hard-hearted Jewish man, looking for a reason, divorces her. A
devout Jew who was a good student of the law would see the contradiction
between the original law and what Moses allowed. It is doubtful he would
avail himself of this allowance. We established earlier that fornication
(adultery) was the only legitimate cause for divorce as allowed under Moses’ Law. In Matthew 19, again we see that Jesus was true to His word. He
did not attempt to change the present laws, or to teach new ones, but merely
showed the supremacy of the original law over that of Moses. Next we find another record of this same discussion in
Mark 10:2-12 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it
lawful for a man to put away his wife? Tempting him. And he answered and said
unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write
a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto
them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the
beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall
a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain
shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house
his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery
against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to
another, she committeth adultery.” This passage contains basically the same information
that we just covered in Matthew chapter 19, except for one notable difference.
That is the phrase “except it be for fornication,” is missing. Before we attempt to discuss the reason for this seeming
discrepancy let us also note Luke 16:18. “Whosoever
putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever
marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” This passage also omits the phrase “except it
be for fornication.” We must now find some way to reconcile these two
passages with Matthew 19:9. (I do not include Matthew 5:32 because it does
not even mention remarriage). Obviously, the Bible should not contradict
itself, but it seems that it has. If Christ was actually teaching that a person
could divorce their spouse and remarry, then there would be no possible way
to reconcile these teachings. But, as we have already seen, this was not what
He taught. He taught that fornication was the only lawful way someone could
remarry. If this was proven, death was certain, and if proof was lacking, divorce
was only an option for the hard-hearted. In the two current passages, the
heart of Jesus teaching is all that is recorded. The “exception” was not necessary to complete what was being taught in
Matthew chapter 19, but it did help explain it. That phrase was not the heart
of the teaching, but rather served to reenforce the point. There is also a very good reason why the “exception” would appear in Matthew’s account
of the gospel but not in Mark’s or Luke’s. I believe that it is obvious to everyone that the writers of the
gospels often paraphrased the words of Christ. They essentially said the same
thing He said, only they used different words to say it. This is why the
accounts of some events in the gospels often differ significantly in wording,
although they are always identical in meaning. Matthew was a Jew and wrote
his gospel account from a Jewish perspective. He was very familiar with the
Old Law and his use of the phrase “except it
be for fornication” served to give a fuller meaning to this passage when
viewed from the Jewish perspective. Mark, like Matthew, was a Jew, but his writing shows a
definite Roman influence. This is very evident in Mark 10:13. Here he speaks
of a woman putting away her husband. This was something unheard of in Jewish
society but very prevalent in Roman society. Lacking this Roman influence,
Matthew and Luke did not make such a statement. From Mark’s perspective, the phrase “except it
be for fornication” would have probably done little to edify his readers. But
potentially it could have done a lot to confuse them, just like it does those
today who are not adequately familiar with the Law of Moses. Luke, unlike Matthew and Mark, was not a Jew. And being
a Gentile he wrote from a Gentile’s
perspective. Why should he make reference to a law the Gentiles did not
understand in order to instruct them in this matter? These people would only
be confused by this phrase. We must realize that Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:12,
and Luke 16:18 teach the same thing. For this to be so, the “exception” has to be only a help to that which is being taught,
and not part of what is being taught itself. Once again let us stop and see where we are. God’s original marriage was: one man for one woman for life. This law has
never ceased to be valid, even for the Jews. However, God did grant a
provision for divorce that they could follow, but this was in conflict with
His design and intent for marriage. The gentiles have always had only the one
law. Christ came on the scene and taught nothing new, He only reenforced His
Father’s original law. This is only reasonable; not even
Christ could improve on God’s perfect
design. We now proceed beyond the crucifixion of Christ to the
establishment of the Church. The Law of Moses is now gone, the Apostle Paul
tells us that Christ took care of that. “Blotting
out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:14). What sort of law can we now expect for the
Christian era? Before we examine the Bible, let us pause to reexamine a few
of our past observations and conclusions. We found that God created man and
woman, and instituted marriage between the two. This was a perfect
institution. It had remained unchanged for about 4,000 years. The only
exception to this was the provision in the Law of Moses. But we found that it
was man’s hard-heartedness which brought this about. The Law of
Moses was referred to as a schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ. That has
been accomplished and the need for that system of imperfect laws is gone. Is
there any reason, that with all this behind, all men would not again be under
the original law? Another point of consideration is the nature of the
Church and the New Law. The Church is to be perfect. “That he might present it to himself a glorious church,
not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy
and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:27) The New Law is also considered
perfect. It is referred to as “the
perfect law of liberty” in James
1:25. In short, the New Testament dispensation is a perfect system unlike the
Mosaic dispensation which was a very imperfect system. We have already noted
in Malachi 2:16 that God hates divorce. I now ask, is there any logical way
to state that a perfect system can contain something God hates? Logic, common
sense, and all manner of reason forbid such a conclusion. So it would seem certain
that God’s original and perfect law for marriage would still be
in effect during the Christian era. But I realize we cannot accept it on this
basis alone. We must be able to find concrete proof of this in the New
Testament scriptures. There are only three passages left which are concerned
with this issue, and they were all written by the Apostle Paul. The first is
an indirect reference in Romans chapter 7. Although his goal here is not to
teach about the marriage law, he does shed some light on the matter for us. He
is trying to show the Jews their relation to the Law of Moses and to Christ. He
uses the marriage law to do this. “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? 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. 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.” (Romans 7:1-3) Although the marriage law is not his focus here, he is
relying on his audience’s knowledge of it to get his point across. I will have to admit that we can in no way conclude
that Paul has necessarily given a complete teaching about marriage here. But
we can make one observation. Any statement which Paul made must be true. The
use of an analogy does not license a person to twist the truth in order to
strengthen their case. Besides, Paul said he was speaking “to them that know the law.” So certainly everything he taught would have been in harmony with the
law. There are two phrases which we need to pay special attention to in this
passage. (1) “The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to
her husband so long as he liveth.” (2) “if, while
her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress.” These two statements are certainly true, regardless of
why Paul used them. So from this it is easy to see that only death can break
the marriage bond, and that if someone has a living spouse and is married to
another person, then they are guilty of adultery. Allow me to go ahead and address one objection that is
certain to surface concerning the conclusion which I have just reached. The
point could logically be made that Paul has only given a partial teaching
here, and that there could be more to it, even an exception for fornication. It
could be like Acts 16:31, which says “Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” This can be said to be a partial teaching on salvation, since baptism
is also a necessity. But this does not mean that Acts 16:31 is untrue even
when read alone. Man is indeed saved by faith. Faith is necessary in order
for a person to have a desire to obey God. It is faith which directs man
along the pathway that leads to salvation. But when Paul says, “The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to
her husband so long as he liveth,” if there is actually an exception for fornication, or
any other reason for that matter, then he has lied. This statement can only
be true if there is no exception. The second passage is found in I Corinthians chapter 7.
Paul writes, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the
Lord, 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. 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. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth
not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 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, let him depart. A brother or a sister is
not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. (I
Corinthians 7:10-15) Many people have difficulty with the phrases “yet not I but the Lord,” and “but to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” To help us understand these, let us back up to verse 6 of this same
chapter. Here Paul said, “But I
speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” What he goes on to say in verses 7 through 9 really has no bearing on
our study. But what we need to realize here is that at some point Paul must
rescind what he said in verse 6. If he were not to do this, then we would be
forced to assume that the remainder of this book was written “by permission.” And indeed in verse 10, we find that he does rescind
his comment. This is where he says “yet not I
but the Lord.” This phrase also has another application. Paul also
means that what he is about to say has already been taught by the Lord and
that all he is going to do is repeat it. And this is exactly what he
proceeded to do. He restated Christ’s
teachings, as found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is his own
words. But again we must notice that at some point Paul must
rescind his statement made in verse 10. If he were not to do this then we
would be forced to assume that the remainder of the book was simply a
rephrasing of Christ’s teachings, and this clearly is not the case. There is
no record of Christ publicly teaching everything which Paul intends to say
here concerning marriage. When Paul concludes with what the Lord did teach,
he must let his readers know. He did this in verse 12. This is the source of
his comment “but to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” This in no way means what he said was uninspired, or that it was also
spoken only “by permission.” Most of what Paul taught is found no where else in the
Bible. The Lord did not speak these things directly to us. He spoke them to
Paul, through the Spirit, and Paul in turn, gave them to us. If Paul is
teaching “by permission” in verse
12, where does he stop and begin to teach by commandment again? We would
probably have to dismiss the rest of the book under this assumption. In verses 10 and 11, Paul restates what Jesus said,
which similarly was a restatement of God’s original
law. So as we had already assumed, that very same law still applies today. Paul
then goes on to mention a situation that the Lord did not; that being a “mixed marriage” between a believer and a non-believer. Paul teaches
that a believer should remain with his spouse, even though he or she is not a
Christian. Had he left off at that there would have been problems. Imagine
the lengths some zealous Christians would have gone to in order to try to
keep a spouse who wanted to leave from doing so. So Paul goes on to say that
if the unbeliever wishes to depart, them let him depart. He says, “A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such
cases.” But bondage to what? Not under bondage to the command
he has just given; that is, to stay with your unbelieving spouse. A Christian
should try to stay with their unbelieving spouse, but there comes a point at
which they must relent and allow them to leave. I believe Paul says this
point is peace. Paul says, “God hath
called us to peace.” In other words, a Christian should try all peaceable
means to keep their spouse, but if these fail, then they are no longer under
bondage to the law Paul just gave which says they are to remain with their
spouse. He is not at all teaching that the marriage bond is broken. As we
have seen from Genesis to now, only death can break what God has joined together. In verse 39 of this same chapter, Paul again makes a
statement that has a bearing on our discussion. He says, “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.” This is very similar to the wording of Romans 7:2. But
this time it is not clouded by being part of an analogy. It is just a simple
statement of truth, and it denies any possibility for scriptural divorce and
remarriage. The last passage for our consideration is Ephesians
5:31. Again here, as in Romans 7, Paul did not set out to teach about
marriage, but rather is using it as part of an analogy. Here he talks about
the relationship of the Church to Christ: the fact that the Church is the
Bride of Christ. But as in Romans 7, whatever he does teach here has to be
true. He will not tell a lie to prove his point. Paul writes, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
(Ephesians 5:31) Doesn’t this passage sound a little familiar? God said it in
the beginning, Christ reaffirmed it, and now Paul leaves no doubt but that it
still applies in the Christian era. Paul does not simply quote it as
something that was once said, but includes it right in the middle of his
discourse without any comments about it no longer applying. This tells me
that Paul recognized it as a valid law which he was free to include in his
discussion for the purpose of emphasis. I believe it is a most fitting end
for the subject. These are the first and last words we find in the Bible
concerning the marriage law. Now that we have found what the Bible teaches
concerning marriage, let us examine some of the implications which proceed
from it. What is to be done, for instance, when it just isn’t possible for two people to live together any longer? There are many
reasons why this might be the case. Suppose one is continually unfaithful to
the other and will not cease their immoral behavior. Or suppose one
physically abuses the other. There are certainly other circumstances where it
would be very difficult for one person to stay with the other. Certainly no
one would tell a battered wife she had to remain with her husband. She could
leave him as Paul said in I Corinthians 7:11. But there still is no way to
rationalize SCRIPTURAL divorce and remarriage. Many people want to
lean on the “innocent party” appeal. What
about this poor innocent young woman? Should the rest of her life be ruined
just because the man she married was not quite what she thought he was? Oh
the argument sounds good, and will touch your heart. But it still provides no
scriptural grounds for this woman to divorce her husband and remarry. I
believe that people who look at things this way need to go back and look a
little closer at what Jesus taught. He said, “If any man
come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And
whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27) Does not this teach us that sacrifice might be
necessary? Unfortunately, to many people, the riches of Christ are not worth
forsaking worldly pleasures. Sure it would be nice to be happily married. But
is that the most important thing in life? Is not pleasing God more important?
Christ also said, “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 19:12) It might be necessary to make ourselves eunuchs for
the kingdom of heaven’s sake. In other words, we might have to remain
celibate in order to be a Christian. No one likes to think about being in
this situation, but it does occur. It is simply a matter of what is more
important to us. The situation is often brought up of a couple who is
married and one or both have been married previously and are divorced with a
living ex-spouse. These two have been married for several years now and maybe
even have children. The question is then asked, would a merciful God demand
that this couple separate, especially if they have children? But this is not
a matter of mercy, it is a matter of right and wrong. I believe Paul stated
clearly enough that it can never be right for a person to have a living
spouse and be married to another. “So then
if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress.” (Romans 7:3) The Bible also gives us a very clear example of a case
when God commanded married couples with children to separate. The reason was
that they had disobeyed God’s law when
they married in the first place, just as when someone divorces and remarries
today. The example I am referring to is found in Ezra chapters 9 & 10. Many
of the Jewish men who had returned from the Babylonian captivity had married
women from other nations; a thing which God had strictly forbidden
(Deuteronomy 7:3). When the transgression was discovered by Ezra, he was very
distraught and wept before God because of Israel’s sins. Eventually the situation was corrected, when the people agreed
to right their wrongs by dissolving their unscriptural marriages. “And they gave their hands that they would put away
their wives...All these had taken strange wives: and some of them had wives
by whom they had children.” (Ezra 10:19, 44) Clearly, demanding that an unlawful
marriage be broken up is not beyond what God might ask of us. Would we allow
a converted Mormon, who had two wives, and children by each wife, to retain
both wives as a member of the Church? Certainly not. We can see here a clear
cut case where a family would have to be broken up for righteousness sake. The
same is true for an adulterous marriage. Conclusion Common sense tells us that two wrongs do not make a
right. It is wrong for anyone to divorce and remarry. Would the further wrong
of remaining in an adulterous union justify the whole situation? We should
not consider God merciless for not allowing something unrighteous to continue
when the parties involved brought it on themselves by disobedience to God in
the first place. One only has to look at the evil divorce has brought to
our society to realize God’s wisdom
in not allowing it. If remarriage was not an option, most divorced people today
would have found a way to make it work. In the end, how much better off would
they and their children have been? Yes, a few individuals may suffer by not
being allowed to remarry, but society and the Church is much better off as a
whole. This is a case where the few must suffer physically so that the many
may prosper spiritually. The Lord is not cruel in asking
the “innocent
party” to
remain unmarried. That person must make a sacrifice for the good of the
Church and the good of mankind. As long as divorce was almost nonexistent the
family was strong. As a result society, the nation, and the Church
flourished. But in the last few decades since divorce has become accepted and
commonplace...well just look at the mess we’re
in! |