|
Divorce
and Remarriage A Position Paper Pastor William Heinrich June 2011 DISCLAIMER: After
years of reading both the Bible and books on the subject of divorce and
remarriage, it must be concluded that there are many different conclusions on
the subject. Most of these have solid
Bible evidence and respected theologians who hold them. It is therefore not the goal of this paper
to recognize the errors or veracity of any of the various views. Should one who seeks membership at SBGC
have a view differing from the conclusion of this paper, he will be asked to
read and study these conclusions.
Should he continue to hold another view, he will be asked to defend it
from scripture. If as a matter of
conscience he feels he must hold another view, he will be received equal to
all who hold the views of this paper.
The goal of this paper is not to attack those who have been divorced,
but to put forth what we believe concerning marriage. Doctrine: Reasons why all divorce and
remarriage is prohibited while both spouses are alive Reason No. One: Marriage above all else is
to picture the marriage of Christ and His church. 1.
It was true in
the Old Testament. CF
Hosea 11-3; Jer. 3; Ez. 16:26 2.
It is true in
the New Testament CF
Matt. 22; Eph 5 ·
In Eph. 5:22-23 it is very clear Christian marriage
is to illustrate Christ and His church.
For example: v. 22 as to the Lord v. 23 as also Christ is the head of the church. v. 24 just as the church is subject to Christ v. 25 just as Christ also loved the church v. 27 a glorious church v. 29 just as Christ does His church v.
32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 3.
It is true that
we are united to Christ forever, and that must be the picture given in Christian
marriage. 4.
It is true that
He will not divorce us and marry another, and that
must be the picture given in Christian marriage. ·
God did not divorce Reason No. Two: God hates divorce. 1.
Malachi
2:16: “For the LORD God of ·
Sin adheres to such a one as a stain adheres to a
garment. 2.
It is
unreasonable God will in certain cases allow what He hates. a.
Did He not
refuse their sacrifices for doing what He hates? Mal. 2:10-17 b.
Did He not
require one spouse for God-fearing children?
Mal. 2:15 c.
Did He not call
divorce a treacherous deed? Mal. 2:11,
14, 15, 16 Reason No. Three: Divorce is out of the
spirit of the whole scripture. 1.
Divorce makes
the Christian a liar, for he promised God and witnesses to cleave to his wife
until death and for better or worse. 2.
Divorce causes
a believer to go to law against his wife who is a sister in Christ. Believers are forbidden to go to law
against each other. I Cor. 6:1 3.
Divorce is to
reject scripture when it says all things work together for good for the
called toward the purpose of being conformed to the image of Christ. 4.
Divorce settles
problems in a sinful way, not God’s way.
Matt. 18:15-17; Gal. 6:1-3 5.
Divorce is
hate, not love, and Christians are to love one another. 6.
Divorce is to
oppose God who said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate.” 7.
Divorce is
without faith. “Whatsoever is not of
faith is sin.” Note: Reasons Four through Fourteen are taken word-for-word from the position paper of John Piper. (You can read it on their website here) Reason No. Four: Luke 16:18 calls all
remarriage after divorce adultery. Luke
6:18: “Everyone who divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery, and he who
marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” a.
“This verse
shows that Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in
God’s sight. The reason a second
marriage is called adultery is because the first one is considered to still
be valid. So Jesus is taking a stand
against the Jewish culture in which all divorce was considered to carry with
it the right of remarriage.” b.
“The second
half of the verse shows that not merely the divorcing man is guilty of
adultery when he remarries, but also any man who marries a divorced woman.” c.
“Since there
are no exceptions mentioned in the verse, and since Jesus is clearly
rejecting the common cultural conception of divorce as including the right of
remarriage, the first readers of this gospel would have been hard-put to
argue for any exceptions on the basis that Jesus shared the cultural
assumption that divorce for unfaithfulness or desertion freed a spouse for
remarriage.” Reason No. Five: “Mark 10:11-12 call all
remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who
does the divorcing.” Mark
10:10-12: “And he said to them,
‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery.’” a.
“This text
repeats the first half of Luke 16:18 but goes farther and says that not only
the man who divorces, but also a woman who divorces, and then remarries is
committing adultery.” b.
“As in Luke
16:18, there are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.” Reason No. Six: “Mark 10:29 and Matthew
19:3-8 teach that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ justification of divorce from
Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted the purpose of God in creation that no human
being separate what God has joined together.” Mark
10:2-9: “And some Pharisees came up to
Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man
to divorce his wife. And He answered
and said to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ And they said, ‘Moses permitted a man to
write a certificate of divorce and send her away.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your
hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God
made them male and female. For this
cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one
flesh; consequently they are not longer two, but
one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let no man separate.’” Matthew
19:3-9: “And some Pharisees came to
Him, testing Him, and saying, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for
any cause at all?’ And He answered and
said, ‘Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made
them male and female, and said, “For this cause a man shall leave his father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one
flesh”? Consequently they are no more
two, but one flesh. What therefore God
has joined together, let no man separate.’ They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses
command to give her a certificate and divorce her?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness
of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning
it has not been this way. And I say to
you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.’” a.
“In both
Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him
whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in mind the passage in
Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply describes divorce as a fact rather than giving
any legislation in favor of it. They
wonder how Jesus will take a position with regard to this passage.” b.
“Jesus’ answer
is, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you do divorce your
wives.’ (Mt. 19:8)” c.
But then Jesus criticizes
the Pharisees’ failure to recognize in the books of Moses God’s deepest and
original intention for marriage. So he
quotes two passages from Genesis. ‘God
made them male and female…For this reason a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ (Genesis 1:27; 2:24)” d.
“From these
passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, ‘So they are no
longer two, but one.’ And then he
makes his climaxing statement, ‘What therefore God
has joined together, let no man put asunder.’” e.
“The
implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees’ use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and
raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God’s original intention
in creation. He says that none of us
should try to undo the ‘one-flesh’ relationship which God has united.” f.
“Before we jump
to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of
the exception clause (‘except for unchastity’)
mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that
the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the
absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, (‘let no man put asunder’) especially since the verses that follow
this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception
when they condemn remarriage. More on
this below.” Reason No. Seven: “Matthew 5:32 does not
teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after
divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and
that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second
marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.” Matthew
5:32: “But I say to you that everyone
who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity,
makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.” a.
“Jesus assumes
that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a
husband will be drawn into a second marriage.
Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second
marriage adultery.” b.
“The remarkable
thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the
remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless
adultery: ‘Everyone
who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity,
makes her (the innocent wife who has not been unchaste) an adulteress.’ This is a clear statement,
it seems to me, that remarriage is wrong not merely when a person is guilty
in the process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent. In other words, Jesus’ opposition to
remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness
of the marriage bond by anything but death.” c.
I will save my
explanation of the exception clause (‘Except on the ground of unchastity’) for later in the paper, but for now, it may
suffice to say that on the traditional interpretation of the clause, it may
simply mean that a man makes his wife an adulteress except in the case where
she has made herself one.” d.
I would assume that
since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries,
therefore a 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, just because the guilty woman’s adultery has broken the ‘one flesh’
relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an
innocent divorced woman, ‘If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for
you to remarry.’ This seems wrong for
at least two reasons.” 1.
It seems to
elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in
marital union and disunion. 2.
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) assumes
that her divorcing husband in not divorcing to have sexual relations with
another. This is a very unlikely
assumption. More likely is that Jesus
does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with
another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the
‘one-flesh’ relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses
are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.” Reason No. Eight: “1 Corinthians 7:10-11
teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who
divorces should not remarry.” 1
Corinthians 7:10-11: “To the married I
give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her
husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her
husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” a.
“When Paul says
that this charge is not his but the Lord’s, I think he means that he is aware
of a specific saying from the historical Jesus which addressed this
issue. As a matter of fact, these
verses look very much like Mark 10:11-12, because both the wife and the
husband are addressed. Also,
remarriage seems to be excluded by verse 11 the same way it is excluded in
Mark 10:11-12.” b.
“Paul seems to
be aware that separation will be inevitable in certain cases. Perhaps he has in mind a situation of
unrepentant adultery, or desertion, or brutality. But in such a case he says that the person who
feels constrained to separate should not seek remarriage but remain
single. And he reinforces the
authority of this statement by saying he has a word from the Lord. Thus Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’
sayings is that remarriage should not be pursued.” c.
“As in Luke
16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 and Matthew 5:32, this text does not explicitly
entertain the possibility of any exceptions to the prohibition of
remarriage.” Reason No. Nine: “1 Corinthians 7:39 and
Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a
spouse.” 1
Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is bound to
her husband as long as he lives. If
the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the
Lord.” Romans
7:1-3: “Do you not know, brethren –
for I am speaking to those who know the law – that
the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her
husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from
the law concerning her husband. Accordingly,
she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her
husband is alive. But if her husband
dies she is free from that law; if she marries another man she is not an
adulteress.” “Both
of these passages (1Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2) say explicitly that a woman
is bound to her husband as long as he lives.
No exceptions are explicitly mentioned that would suggest she could be
free from her husband to remarry on any other basis.” Reason No. Ten: “Matthew 19:10-12 teaches
that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ’s disciples to sustain
them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of
Christ.” Matthew
19:10-12: “The disciples said to him,
‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to
marry.’ But he said to them, ‘Not all
men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from
birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are
eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven. He
who is able to receive this, let him receive it.’” a.
“Just preceding
this passage in Matthew 19:9 Jesus prohibited all remarriage after
divorce. (I will deal with the meaning
of ‘except for immorality’ below.)
This seemed like an intolerable prohibition to Jesus’ disciples: If you close off every possibility of
remarriage, then you make marriage so risky that it would be better not to
marry, since you might be ‘trapped’ to live as a single person to the rest of
your life or you may be ‘trapped’ in a bad marriage.” b.
“Jesus does not
deny the tremendous difficulty of his command. Instead, he says in verse 11, that the
enablement to fulfill the command not to remarry is a divine gift to his
disciples. Verse 12 is an argument
that such a life is indeed possible because there are people who for the sake
of the kingdom, as well as lower reasons, have dedicated themselves
to a life of singleness.” c.
Jesus is not
saying that some of his disciples have the ability to obey his command not to
remarry and some don’t. He is saying
that the mark of a disciple is that they receive a gift of continence while
non-disciples don’t. The evidence for
this is 1) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 13:11, 2) the parallel
between Matthew 19:12 and 13:9, 43; 11:15, and 3) the parallel between
Matthew 19:11 and 19:26.” Reason No. Eleven: “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does
not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that
the ‘one-flesh’ relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by
divorce or even by remarriage. Deuteronomy
24:1-4: “When a man takes a wife and
marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he
has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce
and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his
house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband
turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her
hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took
her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed
to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an
abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which
the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.” a.
The remarkable
thing about these four verses is that, while divorce is taken for granted,
nevertheless the woman who is divorced becomes ‘defiled’ by her remarriage
(verse 4). It may well be that when
the Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was legitimate he based his negative
answer not only on God’s intention expressed in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but
also on the implication of Deuteronomy 24:4 that remarriage after divorce
defiles a person. In other words,
there were ample clues in the Mosaic law that the
divorce concession was on the basis of the hardness of man’s heart and really
did not make divorce an remarriage legitimate. b.
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 (for Heth and Wenham’s explanation of this see Jesus and
Divorce, page 110).” Reason No. Twelve: “1 Corinthians 7:15 does
not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she
is free to remarry. It means that the
Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the
unbelieving partner insists on it.” 1
Corinthians 7:15: If the unbelieving
partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or
sister is not bound. For God has
called us to peace.” “There are several reasons
why the phrase ‘is not bound’ should not be construed to mean ‘is free to
remarry.’” a.
“Marriage is an
ordinance of creation binding on all of God’s human creatures, irrespective
of their faith or lack of faith.” b.
“The word used
for ‘bound’ (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same
word used in verse 39 where Paul says, ‘A wife is bound (deo)
to her husband as long as he lives.’
Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of
the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; 1
Corinthians 7:39), or to one’s betrothed (1 Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not
being bound in 1 Corinthians 7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which we would expect him to do if he were not
giving a deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he gives to a
spouse whose partner has died (verse 39). c.
“The last
phrase of verse 15 (‘God has called us to peace’) supports verse 15 best if
Paul is saying that a deserted partner is not ‘bound to make war’ on the
deserting unbeliever to get him or her to stay. It seems to me that the peace God has
called us to is the peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving partner
insists on departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live in
perpetual conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in
letting him or her go.” d.
“This
interpretation also preserves a closer harmony to the intention of verses
10-11, where an inevitable separation does not result in the right of
remarriage. e.
“Verse 16 (‘For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your
husband? Or how do you know, husband,
whether you will save your wife?’) is an argument
that you can’t know, and so should not make the hope of saving them a ground
for fighting to make them stay. This
supports the understanding of verse 15 as a focus on not being enslaved to
stay together, rather than not being enslaved to stay single.” *
“Paul did not see the single life as a life of slavery and so would not have
called the necessity of staying single a state of being enslaved.” Reason No. Thirteen: “1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does
not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should
seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.” 1
Corinthians 7:27-28: “Are you bound to
a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a
virgin marries, she does not sin.” “Recently some people have
argued that this passage deals with divorced people because in verse 27 Paul
asks, ‘Are you free (literally:
loosed) from a wife?’ Some have
assumed that he means, ‘Are you divorced?’
Thus he would be saying in verse 28 that it is not sin when divorced
people remarry. There are several
reasons why this interpretation is most unlikely.” a.
“Verse 25
signals that Paul is beginning a new section and dealing with a new
issue. He says, ‘Now concerning the
virgins (ton Parthenon) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion
as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.’ He has already dealt with the problem of
divorced people in verses 10-16. Now
he takes up a new issue about those who are not yet married, and he signals
this by saying, ‘Now concerning the virgins.’ Therefore, it is very unlikely that the
people referred to in verses 27 and 28 are divorced.” b.
“A flat
statement that it is not sin for divorced people to be remarried (verse 28)
would contradict verse 11, where he said that a woman who has separated from
her husband should remain single.” c.
“Verse 36 is
surely describing the same situation in view in verses 27 and 28, but clearly
refers to a couple that is not yet married.
‘If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin,
if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.’ This is the same as verse 28 where Paul
says, ‘But if you marry, you do not sin.’” d.
“The reference
in verse 27 to being bound to a ‘wife’ may be misleading because it may
suggest that the man is already married.
But in the Greek the word for wife is simply ‘woman’ and may refer to
a man’s betrothed as well as his spouse.
The context dictates that the reference is to a man’s betrothed
virgin, not to his spouse. So ‘being
bound’ and ‘being loosed’ have reference to whether a person is betrothed or
not.” e.
“It is
significant that the verb Paul uses for ‘loosed’ (luo)
or ‘free’ is not a word that he uses for divorce. Paul’s words for divorce are chorizo (verses 10,11,15;
cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphienai (verses 11, 12, 13).” Reason No. Fourteen: “The exception clause of
Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a
person to be remarried. All the weight
of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against
this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so
that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that
remarriage after divorce is prohibited.” Matthew
19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for
immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” a.
“Several years
ago I taught our congregation in two evening services concerning my
understanding of this verse and argued that ‘except for immorality’ did not
refer to adultery but to premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman
discovers in the betrothed partner.
Since that time I have discovered other people who hold this view and
who have given it a much more scholarly exposition than I did. I have also discovered numerous other ways
of understanding this verse which also exclude the legitimacy of
remarriage. Several of these are
summed up in William Heth and Gordon J. Wenham,
Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).” b.
“Here I will
simply give a brief summary of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to
it.” “I
began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus’
denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12
and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause
is a loophole for divorce and remarriage.
I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that
Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly
understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.” “Would
they really have assumed that the absolute statements included
exceptions? I have very strong doubts,
and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew’s
exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.” “The
second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use
the word porneia (‘except for immorality) instead of
the word moicheia
which means adultery? Almost all
commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. The question nags at me why Matthew would
not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.” ”Then
I noticed something very interesting.
The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses
the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used
alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence
for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than
adultery. Could this mean, then, that
Matthew conceives of porneia
in its normal sense of fornication or incest (1 Corinthians 5:1) rather than
adultery?’” “Isaksson agrees with this view of porneia and sums up his research much
like this on pages 134-5 of Marriage and Ministry: “Thus
we cannot get away from the fact that the distinction between what was to be
regarded as porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was very strictly maintained in pre-Christian
Jewish literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course, denote different forms of
forbidden sexual relations, but we can find no unequivocal examples of the
use of this word to denote a wife’s adultery.
Under these circumstances we can hardly assume that this word means
adultery in the clauses in Matthew.
The logia on divorce are worded as a paragraph of the law, intended to
be obeyed by the members of the Church.
Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that in a text of this
nature the writer would not have maintained a clear distinction between what
was unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not porneia was used to describe the wife’s adultery. From the philological point of view there
are accordingly very strong arguments against this interpretation of the
clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which the wife was guilty of
adultery.” “The next clue in my search for an explanation came
when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly
accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other
words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had
committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to
study Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.” “In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as
husband (aner)
and wife (gunaika). Yeet they are
described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the
words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that
betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is
today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves ‘to
divorce’ Mary. The word for divorce is
the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says
that Joseph was ‘just’ in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on
account of her porneia,
fornication.” “Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the
narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in
chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by
Jesus) and yet to allow for ‘divorces’ like the one Joseph contemplated
toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). Therefore, Matthew includes the exception
clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also in general 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.” “A common objection to this interpretation is that both
in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is
marriage not betrothal. The point is
pressed that ‘except for fornication’ is irrelevant to the context of
marriage.” “My answer is that this irrelevancy is jus the point Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted that the breakup
of an engaged couple over fornication is not an evil ‘divorce’ and does not
prohibit remarriage. But we cannot
assume that Matthew’s readers would take this for granted.” “Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for
us to exclude ‘the case of fornication’ (since we can’t see how a betrothed
virgin could be ‘made an adulteress’ in any case), it may not be pointless
for Matthew’s readers. For that
matter, it may not be pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, ‘Every man who divorces
his woman makes her an adulteress,’ a reader could legitimately ask: ‘Then was Joseph about to make Mary and
adulteress?’ We may say this question
is not reasonable since we think you can’t make unmarried women
adulteresses. But it certainly is not
meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for Matthew to make
explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal.” “This interpretation of the exception clause has several
advantages: 1.
It does not
force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke and
the whole range of New Testament teaching set forth above in sections 1-10,
including Matthew’s own absolute teaching in 19:3-8. 2.
It provides an
explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia. 3.
It squares with
Matthew’s own use of porneia
for fornication in Matthew 15:19. 4.
It fits the
demands of Matthew’s wider context concerning Joseph’s contemplated divorce." “Since I first wrote this exposition of Matthew 19:9
I have discovered a chapter on this view in Heth
and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce and a scholarly defense of it by A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the “Conclusions
and Applications” “In the New Testament the question about remarriage
after divorce is not determined by: 1.
The guilt or
innocence of either spouse, 2.
Nor by whether
either spouse is a believer or not, 3.
Nor by whether
the divorce happened before or after either spouse’s conversion, 4.
Nor by the ease
or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth, 5.
Nor by whether
there is adultery or desertion involved, 6.
Nor by the
on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart, 7.
Nor by the cultural
permissiveness of the surrounding society.” “Rather it is determined by the fact that: 1.
Marriage is a
‘one-flesh’ relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary
significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8), 2.
Only God, not
man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9 – this is
why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus:
he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32;
Luke 16;18; Mark 10;11, 3.
God ends the
one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the
spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39), 4.
The grace and
power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced
Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,
26; 1 Corinthians 10:13, 5.
Temporal
frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience
of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the
life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).” “Those who are already remarried: 1.
Should
acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second
marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness 2.
Should not
attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2
above) 3.
Should not
separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less
sin because all their sexual relations are acts u adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for
this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having
significant standing in God’s eyes.
That is, there were promises made and there has been a union
formed. It should not have been
formed, but it was. It is not to be
taken lightly. Promises are to be
kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a
second marriage is God’s will for a couple and their ongoing relations should
not be looked on as adulterous.” Note: Reasons
Four through Fourteen were taken word-for-word from the position paper of
John Piper. Reason No. Fifteen: Adultery brought stoning,
not divorce. Deuteronomy
22:13-30: “If any man takes a wife,
and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct,
and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came
to her I found she was not a virgin,’ then the father and mother of the young
woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to
the elders of the city at the gate.
And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my
daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her; now he has charged her with
shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet
these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the
elders of the city. Then the elders of
that city shall take that man and punish him; and they shall fine him one
hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman,
because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of “If
a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them
shall die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so you shall
put away the evil person from “If
a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her
in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate
of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman
because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his
neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil person from among you. But it a man finds a betrothed young woman
in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the
man who lay with her shall die. But
you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin
worthy of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills
him, even so is this matter; for he found her in the countryside, and the
betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. “If
a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes
her and lies with her, and they are found out, give to the young woman’s
father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has
humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. “A
man shall not take his father’s wife, nor uncover his father’s bed.” 1.
Those married
who commit adultery were stoned.
22:13-22 2.
Those betrothed
who commit fornication were stoned.
22:23-27 ·
Betrothed is a married couple who have never lived
together. Usually a year of
preparation was given. 3.
Those not
married or betrothed who commit fornication must marry and must never
divorce. 22:28-30 Reason No. Sixteen: The holiness code includes
fornication. 1.
Leviticus 18-20
was known as the holiness code. 2.
Most believe
that was what was referred to in Acts 15:20. Acts
15:20: …“but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols,
from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” 3.
If that be
true, Jesus was not allowing divorce for adultery, but for fornication. Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you, whoever divorces
his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries
another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits
adultery.” * Listed in Lev. 18-20 are immoral
acts done with near to kin, homosexuality, and bestiality. Adultery is always between two married
people. Reason No. Seventeen: Fornication involves an
unmarried couple. 1.
Betrothed
couples were engaged or married without yet living together. 2.
Should one be
unfaithful before they came together, Moses allowed divorce, but only because
of their hard hearts. 3.
Should the
betrothed maid lose her virginity by rape and she cried out but none heard
her, Moses allows a divorce, for she was contracted to be a virgin. The divorce paper must explain why she was
no longer his so should she marry and it be discovered she was not a virgin,
she would be protected from stoning. Reason No. Eighteen: God forgives and uses all
kinds of people and does not require church discipline for penitent people
who are divorced and/or remarried. 1.
While we do
believe the original marriage covenant is not to be broken and those who
divorce are guilty of breaking God’s command (Matt. 19:6), we do not believe
it the unpardonable sin and/or worthy of excommunication. 2.
Further, those
who remarry after this sin are not unforgivable in God’s eyes or guilty of
the only unpardonable sin either (Mark 3:29). 3.
Even further is
the fact that many godly scholars and Pastors have differing views of this
subject and we choose not to lack charity to those who hold another view than
ours by imposing discipline or rejection of church membership on those who
out of conviction would not hold it.
We recognize that our conscience is not authoritative over others – we
are not God, so we move carefully in these matters recognizing the thoughts
and positions of others. 4.
There are
Biblical examples that tell us God not only does not excommunicate people
guilty of breaking His covenant, but forgives and uses them. Further, God expects promises and covenants
to be kept – even those entered into after a divorce, remarriage and in
situations where there is an unequal yoking.
In short, people are no less obligated to keep promises when they are
made under bad pretenses, outright sin, ignorance and/or misinterpretation of
God’s Word. a. In
Joshua 9 & 10 the Gibeonites worked craftily (and successfully) in order
to trick Joshua to not destroy them in the conquest of Canaan. Joshua 9:16 says it only took three days to
find out of the deception. For the purpose
of this paper we bring attention to the fact that even though Joshua was
deceived and he unintentionally was unequally yoked with those he should have
destroyed, God held him to his vow of protection and expected him to honor
it. We conclude that this is also true
of marriages (albeit not officially the first marriage covenant) that are
entered into under means not allowed in Scripture. This would hold true for divorced people
and for those married with unbelievers.
God does not require the believer to leave the second marriage. And further, He requires the promises made
– even under possibly sinful conditions – be kept. So serious was this requirement in the case
of the Gibeonites that God chastened Israel years later when Saul failed to
honor it in 2 Samuel 21:1ff. God did
not punish the Gibeonites, nor did he tell Joshua to break the covenant. God actually protects the liars
(Gibeonites) and those who were fooled (Israel). Surely His grace also extends to the
divorced and to those who remarry. b.
Joshua is not the only example of someone in an unlawful relationship that
God expects to be honored. We must
note that even the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel who will be the Twelve Tribes
– even promised in the future Kingdom of Christ came from two mothers. Two mothers in a polygamous relationship
mess no less! Should we conclude God
must exclude the Sons of Rachel born to Jacob because she is a second wife? Joseph was born of Rachel and used to save
the nation. Obviously God forgives and
uses people who do not do things His way.
He did not exclude Rachel or her children from blessing, nor are we
required to exclude divorced or remarried people from the Church. c.
It is even more striking that the Lord actually forgives and uses the
offspring of an adulterous affair!
This is directly related to this discussion. In asking the question of what we do in
light of an unlawfully married person(s) we can actually find no greater
example than King David himself the man after God’s own heart. Would anyone say he ought to be disciplined
or excluded from blessing when God speaks of him in this way? God not only forgives and uses David, but
He uses the son of this adulterous and murderous relationship with Bathsheba
(Solomon) to build His Temple!
Remember, David himself prior to this was already a polygamist. Even more striking is this is the line of
David’s family the Messiah, Jesus comes from (Matthew 1:6,7)! God does not exclude him from blessing and
fellowship, nor his wives, nor his children born from them given David’s
clear repentance (Psalm 51). d.
Obviously the sinful actions of the above-mentioned people – whether
believers or unbelievers – are never condoned. But it is not a stretch to say that God is
not required to exclude people who act sinfully from blessing or membership
in His Church. On the contrary, He
extends great forgiveness for those who need it and in repentance ask for
it. This includes those who sinfully
divorce and those who sinfully remarry. 5.
The simple
conclusion of this section: While God does not allow divorce or divorced
people to remarry, there is forgiveness for all who acknowledge their sin
before God and repent. Repentance and
confession ensure fellowship with God.
And further, repentance does not mean it is necessary to separate from
the second marriage as God requires those second promises to be kept. So, we do not believe church discipline is
required for those who have repented before the Lord for He will ‘by no means
cast them out’. |
