Divorce & Remarriage: A Sticky Wicket, part 2

In part 1 on this topic I addressed God’s view of marriage; answering the questions, What is marriage? and What is marriage all about? I then identified the four major positions on divorce and remarriage within the broader scope of Christianity and called us to let God define and regulate marriage through a careful study of biblical revelation on the subject. In this post I shall endeavor to examine the relevant biblical material so that we might draw a conclusion regarding the topic of divorce and remarriage.

Common Misconceptions About the Bible and Divorce

Before we can dig into the biblical text on this subject can begin, we must clear away some false presuppositions and misconceptions Christians can make about what the Bible does and

does not say regarding divorce and remarriage.

The Bible Does Not Allow for Divorce

This misconception is simply untrue. When God instituted marriage (Gen. 2:24) He said nothing about either divorce or remarriage. Yet, God regulated and allowed for divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances in the Mosaic Law (Deut. 24:1-4). God’s statement that He hates divorce in Malachi 2:14-16 must be viewed in its proper context. Israelite men were divorcing older, faithful wives just so they could marry younger women. It was this kind of divorce God said he hated, not all divorce. Jesus allowed for divorce and remarriage for the cause of sexual immorality in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12. Luke 16:18 states the allowance and regulation of divorce as part of the Mosaic Law. 1 Corinthians 7:15 allows for divorce and remarriage in the case of abandonment of a believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse. Four out of the seven passages that refer to divorce and remarriage allow for it and regulate it; none outlaw it. Saying that the Bible does not allow for or permit divorce and remarriage is just not true.

Marriage is Always Unbreakable and Indissoluble

Again, this is untrue. Some who hold to this misconception say that Genesis 2:24’s reference to a husband and wife becoming “one flesh” means they become something akin to “blood relatives” which is an unchangeable status. The problem is that the term  לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד (basar echad) does not support this inference. The term refers simply to the physical union of man and woman as “one body”. This passage is quoted in 1 Corinthians 6:6 with reference to sexual relations with a prostitute; which is hardly an indissoluble relationship. If “one flesh” truly means an unchangeable relationship equivalent to “blood relatives” then once married a husband and wife are in an incestuous relationship which is clearly disallowed in Scripture. We must consider too that true blood relatives are free to marry others. This misconception just doesn’t hold water.

It is also stated, in support of this misconception, that the aorist tense of the verb συνέζευξεν (sunezeuxen – joined together) in Mark 10:9 points to the permanence of the marriage union in that the aorist tense is a “once for all action”. Again, this is a misunderstanding of the aorist tense verb. The aorist tense implies nothing about the action of the verb, but merely sees the action as a whole; that it happened in an undefined time in the past. In the case of Mark 10:9, it simply references the fact that a marriage union occurred.

Perhaps the best summary of these misconceptions regarding divorce and remarriage has been made by Thomas Edgar, “Whatever we may think of these arguments, no line of reasoning or any number of arguments regarding an alleged indissoluble nature of marriage can overrule direct statements of Scripture which allow for divorce and remarriage. God, who created marriage, can also declare if and when divorce and remarriage are valid. Therefore, since an alleged indissoluble nature of marriage cannot overrule God’s direct statements, the proper focus is on the study of those passages which seem to allow for divorce and remarriage.” (H. Wayne House, gen. ed. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, [Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1990], p. 155.)

Battleground Passages Related to Divorce and Remarriage

The Exception Clause

Jesus’ statements in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are commonly known as The Exception Clause. The context of Matthew 5:32 is important. Matthew 5:21-48 is a section of the Sermon on the Mount which records a series of statements by Jesus denouncing Pharisaic traditions and interpretations of the Mosaic Law. Toward the end of that series, Jesus addressed that divorce for any reason, except for marital unfaithfulness, was not permissible. The implication is that initiation of divorce and remarriage by an innocent spouse when marital unfaithfulness is the issue is perfectly permissible. The context of Matthew 19:9 is equally important. Verses 1-3 demonstrates that Jesus was being tested by Judean Pharisees while He was ministering in the coasts of Perea. The nature of the test was to determine with which school of Rabbinic thought Jesus aligned Himself: Shammai – more stringent or Hillel – divorce for almost any reason. Jesus did not really align Himself with either camp, but upheld a high view of marriage and supported what the Mosaic Law says; divorce and remarriage are permissible by the innocent spouse when marital infidelity is present. The meaning of both of these texts is clear. There are no odd grammatical or syntactical problems present that might confuse the understanding of the verses. Neither of these texts forbids remarriage. These two passages are also equally reconciled with each other. Because Jesus uses the same language in Matthew 5:32 as he does in 19:9 the two can be interpreted the same way. Thus, the exception clause allows the innocent spouse to divorce the guilty spouse and remarry without sin or stigma.

The Desertion Clause

Paul adds to the exception put forth by Jesus when he addressed divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15. The entire context of chapter 7 deals with the matter of marriage, virginity, divorce, remarriage, and singleness. The immediate context (vv. 10-16) deal specifically with divorce and remarriage. Verses 10-11 uphold the teachings of Jesus in the gospels and assume the exception clause. Matthew 5:32, 19:9, and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 concern the party who initiates divorce. They reveal the general rule, that marriage is to be maintained and that it is wrong to divorce one’s spouse and marry another unless it is because of marital unfaithfulness (sexual immorality, adultery, fornication) on the part of the divorced spouse. These passages are equally clear that if a spouse initiates divorce for any other reason they are to remain single and celibate or be reconciled to their divorced spouse.

Verses 12-16 deal with a subject foreign to the context in which Jesus addressed the issue and must be dealt with in their own context. Paul is dealing with mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers which had become commonplace in the Gentile Church (cf. vv. 12-13). In dealing with this issue, Paul was attending to the inappropriate practice of divorcing one’s spouse simply because the spouse was not a believer. Paul states that if the unbelieving spouse is content to remain married to the believer, then the believer is to happily remain married, for the gospel witness to the believing spouse’s spouse and children are at stake (cf. vv. 14, 16). Verse 15, however, deals with a new situation which was not contemplated by the people in Jesus’ context. Paul says that if the unbelieving spouse leaves (χωρίζεται chorizetai, “to leave, depart, go away”) then the believing spouse is to let him/her go. The implication in relation to the context is that if the unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage because he/she is not happy to remain married to a Christian, the believing spouse is not to seek to keep the marriage intact by compromising their faith/Christianity, but is to let the unbelieving spouse leave. The result, Paul says, is that the believing spouse is not bound (οὐ δεδούλωται ou dedoulotai – “not been enslaved, bound, subjugated”) in such cases. The marriage vows posses no authority over them anymore; they are no longer bound by marriage. Why is this true? Simply because the unbeliever, by his/her desertion, has broken the marriage contract and freed the believing spouse from its stipulations. Paul further says that God has called believers to live in peace. This would not be possible if the believer were to force or persuade the unbeliever to stay in the marriage when the unbeliever just doesn’t want to do so. As a result, Paul recognizes that such desertion by an unbeliever leaves the believer no other choice but to legalize the divorce. In this case, the believer is free to remarry, but this time a believer.

Conclusion

The Bible specifically states that God intended for marriage to be maintained. Just as specifically, Jesus states that there is only one valid reason for which a person may properly divorce the other and subsequently marry someone else – sexual marital infidelity on the part of the spouse being divorced. This is clear and specific and there is no valid basis on which to reject the Lord’s teaching. 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not specifically mention remarriage, though it is definitively implied, therefore it is not as clear as Jesus’ statements. However, the best and most hermeneutically sound interpretation of the passage leads us to understand that if an unbelieving spouse initiates a separation due to his/her spouse’s Christianity, the deserted spouse is free to initiate divorce and marry another – this time a believer (2 Cor. 6:14). Neither of these exceptions/allowances overlooks sin and responsibility. The sin and responsibility in both situations lie with the fornicator and deserter, not the innocent spouse or the Christian; depending on the circumstances.

Marriage is an institution created by God for mankind. We should not so lightly sever that which God has joined. The problem we face so often is that many, even Evangelicals, seem more interested in disallowing the divorced to remarry than in avoiding the need for divorce and remarriage by strengthening marriage in the first place. However, it is not the Church’s responsibility to punish the legitimately divorced by disallowing their remarriage. Scripture is clear that for these two reasons, and only for these reasons, the divorcing/remarrying spouse is without sin in the matter and should not be treated as such.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what do we do about those who divorce and remarry outside of biblical prescription? We must remember that we, as Christians, are expected to live by grace. No sin is without forgiveness and restoration. No member of the Body of Christ is without giftedness and a place of ministry within the Church. If we focus on strengthening biblical marriage and extend grace to one another to help those who are suffering from divorce, we would do well. Every divorce comes with pain and after effects and every marriage, whether 1^st, 2^nd, etc., must be strengthened and brought into biblical conformity. Divorce and remarriage is truly a sticky wicket and a difficult mine field to manage. God is clear that He takes a high view of the institution He ordained. Because God ordained and instituted marriage, He reserves the right to regulate it, including when and how it is permissible to end it. If Scripture is our authority and guide, we would be much better equipped to deal with the unavoidable matter of divorce and remarriage.