Hey, Bert
I'd heard about that denomination from other posts on this forum. I notice they aren't part of NAPARC, and I can see why. We confessional Reformed folk usually don't have too much time for that sort of authority to be invested in our leadership.
This is less than a charitable reply, which does not direct itself to the arguments actually made in the linked article.
For example, how do you respond to these important words from Rev. Gritters:
"Why this strict teaching of Scripture? Because marriage is a bond made by God, to be broken only by Him. No legal contract that can be broken by the parties at their will and whim, marriage is God's bond (I Corinthians 7:39). Genisis 2 says, "They two shall be one flesh." No man can do that."
Personally, I think there is a faulty understanding there of what it means to be "one flesh", and this is what leads some people to think that remarriage is never permitted, even when divorce is. Rev. Gritters' paper even suggests that remarriage is worse than divorce itself: "Divorce is an evil because of the sin it often leads to: remarriage." I think this is backwards, and I also don't think it makes much sense.
First, all of the biblical passages that relate to divorce and remarriage, it seems to me, are focused on divorce itself. In Matthew 19, the pharisees asked about divorce, and that is the question Jesus answers. His statement that you commit adultery by marrying another is to emphasize the nature of divorce and the offense against the divorced spouse. The Jews thought divorce was okay, as long as you gave your wife a certificate. Jesus says no, the certificate means nothing. If you divorce your wife to marry another, you are cheating on her; and since it is assumed that she will marry again also (note Matthew 5:32: "makes her"...), then there is adultery against that original marriage all the way around, by virtue of the divorce. The point, I think, is not to prescribe rules for a subsequent remarriage; it is to say "don't get divorced in the first place, as this is a grave thing." Obviously, if there is no divorce, then remarriage will not be an issue.
We see a similar thing in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Some people key in on "she should remain unmarried", but once again, notice what the passage is about. He is talking about divorce. He starts out with "the wife should not separate from her husband" and he ends up with "and the husband should not divorce his wife." The statement about remarriage is sandwiched in between. Paul does not bounce between a rule on divorce, then a rule on remarriage, and then back to a rule on divorce, all in the same short sentence. Rather, the whole passage is about divorce. He says, as the Lord did, "don't get divorced". But then he says, "but if she does....". So now he is addressing a woman who had unlawfully separated from her husband, and he gives the command we would expect: Go no further, stay where you are or be reconciled, you should not have separated in the first place. He may be referring to a particular person in a particular situation here, but either way it appears that reconciliation is at least still an option: "stay unmarried or be reconciled". He is not, I believe, even beginning to address a circumstance where a divorce is, say, 10 years old and the former spouse has long since remarried, etc. He is not laying down a rule for the subsequent conduct of your life; rather he is laying down a rule for not irreparably separating from your spouse in the first place.
Second, back to the issue of "one flesh". To say that this forever prohibits remarriage is, I think, to view this phrase in metaphysical or ontological terms that scripture does not recognize. Scripture views marriage as a covenant. (Mal. 2:14). Adam's statement in the garden "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" is best seen as a covenant declaration. Adam is not telling God something that God already knows, he is making a covenant vow. See the similar language at 2 Sam. 5:1, where Israel makes its commitment to King David: "Behold, we are your bone and flesh." So it is a covenant, not a metaphysical reality that can never be broken. The idea that "you are still married in God's eyes", because somehow this "one flesh" union, once forged in the cosmic furnace, can never be broken, simply does not appear in scripture.
Now to call marriage a covenant is not to take it lightly, as it is a most solemn, life-long covenant. But, the fact is, it can be broken. Jesus does not say, "what God put together, man CANNOT put asunder." He says, "what God put together, LET not man put asunder." He recognizes that man can break the covenant of marriage; this is precisely why he says, "don't."
I think the "metaphysical" view of "one flesh", while ostensibly taking marriage as seriously as possible, actually leads not only to a lot of confusion and difficulty, but to a mixing up of priorities. The church ends up taking little of an active role in addressing actual divorces, thinking that as long as people don't remarry then all is not lost. And of course it's easier to prohibit remarriage in every case than it is for pastors to get there hands dirty and deal with the particulars of each situation. I could say a lot more on this topic, having dealt with this as a divorced person in the church these last 10 years, but I think I've droned on long enough.
Briefly, on several other points:
Some of Rev. Gritters' citations are not relevant. Romans 7:1-3, for example, simply has nothing to do with this issue.
Rev. Gritter's take on "enslaved" in 1 Cor. 7 is at least highly debatable. I don't have knowledge of Greek myself, but many scholars apparently disagree with his view. See, for example, Tom Schreiner's "Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ" at 430-431.
Rev. Gritter's statement that "repentance from that sin [remarriage] is to leave the new spouse and remain unmarried, or be reconciled to the original spouse" is a bit perplexing to me, because it would seem directly to violate Deuteronomy 24:4, "her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled [remarried], for that is an abomination before the Lord." Jesus Christ abrogated Deuteronomy 24:1-3, and it is often pointed out that God does not positively allow divorce there, but merely acknowledges its practice; but it appears that 24:4 is an actual command of the Lord. I don't see why that is not still in effect, so to speak.
