Divorce and Remarriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I'm not too concerned about the State here...the State can condone homosexual marriage and it not be recognized by the church...just as a church can enact a marriage that is not recognized by the state (I know of such cases). My concern is on where we are supposed to be standing as a church.

Marriage is by definition between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman; hence the comparison is irrelevant. You would have been better off raising the issue of consanguinity or affinity; but even then the Bible appears to regard the union as valid, even though unlawful.

You might need to ask the prior question of whether or not the church should insist that the adulterer be punished. If so, his punishment might solve the problem, particularly if the church believes in the death penalty.

However, since the State does not seem willing to punish adulterers at all, you will have to reckon with the fact that they are afforded the liberty to remarry, and the church has no say in the matter, seeing that marriage is a civil ordinance.
 
Originally posted by SRoper
"I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other."

Would the existence of children produced by the adulterous relationship change anything?
They had not had children from the affair.
 
This is hard for me to do but here it goes. Usually this does NOT go very good at least it hasn't in other christian forums. I AM divorced. My wife committed adultery with NUMEROUS men & ultimately got pregnant by someone other than me. Veriable as she was away (Ukraine) during the time she got pregnant so obviously not mine. I was devastated obviously. My pastor KNEW my wife & flat out told me she was wrong & not saved. He gave me a book by Ray Sutton called "Second Chance : Biblical Principles of Divorce & Remarriage". Gary North was the General editor. Sutton is Reformed & in that book he covers almost all the points brought up here. He mentions about God "divorcing" Isreal etc.
The book talks heavily about covenant & specifically what the covenant of marriage is. Very heavy & good book. It truly set me free.
But the ugly scar of divorce still hurts & is a painful reminder of what happens when you marry someone who is NOT elect but merely a "professing" christian. Very tough way to learn that difference. I pray God will bring a good God fearing & loving lady my wife. I think I might have met her but we are currently seeking God on this & putting His will above ours.
I would recommend that book to anyone whether or NOT they are divorced. I think it is a good book for married couples PERIOD.
 
I've studied up on this issue a bit and I found that Jay Adams' book "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible" is one of the best, if not the best book out there on the subject. I think that 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 clearly says that it is not sin for divorced people to get remarried. 1Co 7:27-28 "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (28) But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." Divorce is not the unpardonable sin.
 
"I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other."

Would the existence of children produced by the adulterous relationship change anything?

Christ came from the lineage of the fruit of David and Bathsheba's marriage, both who were adulterers that married.
 
Quick interjection here: Is the case of an abusive spouse not a scenario for church discipline (and perhaps civil, that is, criminal discipline)? What is the scriptural basis for a divorce in this case?
 
What is the scriptural basis for a divorce in this case?

I believe it would be the principle that God desires mercy more than sacrifice. Persistant, unrepantant abuse is just as great a violation of the marriage covenant as fornication or desertion. For those who want to stick strictly to the only fornication or desertion is a valid reason line, I wonder if they are as strict with 1 Corinthians 7, which says the only reason for a couple to abstain from sexual relations is prayer and fasting. I guess that rules out illness or medical reasons then...
 
kvanlaan;

I would think 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 would come in to play here...

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she is pleased to dwell with him, let her not be put away. And if the woman hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."

So is a person that abuses their spouse really pleased to dwell with them?

if they were pleased to be with them, would they be abusing them?

And in the case of church discipline, would it apply IF one is not a member of a church body?

Quick interjection here: Is the case of an abusive spouse not a scenario for church discipline (and perhaps civil, that is, criminal discipline)? What is the scriptural basis for a divorce in this case?
 
20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That 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.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

So what is the import of this passage on the issue of divorce and remarriage. The marriage bond is a picture, a type of the covenant relationship of Christ and His church. Christ NEVER divorces His church. Now I know, that in case of adultery there is a Biblical warrant for separation between spouses. However, in the eyes of the Lord, however, the marriage bond is never totally severed. Same as in the case of a marriage where the unbelieving spouse departs. The marriage bond can only really be severed by death.

32But 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.

And this text specifically condemns remarriage, of both the guilty and the innocent party.
 
However, in the eyes of the Lord, however, the marriage bond is never totally severed. Same as in the case of a marriage where the unbelieving spouse departs. The marriage bond can only really be severed by death.

Burt,

What is the bible support for this? The bible never uses the langugue of couples being allowed to seperate but their marriage bond is still intact, it says divorce. The fact that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church does not mean every aspect of that relationship is similar in marriage. Marriage ends after death, but the same is surely not so for Christ and his church's relationship.

As for the Matthew passage, isn't the passage addressing divorce for improper causes (ie for causes other than fornication). The passage is saying that man who divorces his wife for a wrong reason causes her to committ adultery, and anyone who marries that woman - who has not been properly divorced - commits adultery since the previous marriage was not properly dissolves. It says nothing about remarriage after lawful divorces.
 
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery

The plain reading does not say: whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, saving for the cause of fornication, committeth adultery.

The part in the italics only applies to the first part of the sentence. At least that was the way I was taught the English language.
32But 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.

This is a good booklet on the topic:

Until death do us part, by Prof. Engelsma:

http://www.prca.org/current/Marriage/Pages 1-58.htm

Does Scripture Then Contradict Scripture?

There is one text in the Bible that might seem to approve remarriage after divorce. One text! If understood as approving remarriage, this text would approve the remarriage only of the "innocent party," that is, the married person whose wife (or husband) has fomicated. All other remarriages are forbidden as adultery.

This one text is Matthew 19:9:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall many another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Against the seeming approval of the remarriage of the "innocent party" m Matthew 19:9 stand a number of texts that clearly forbid all remarriage after divorce, regardless of the ground for the divorce. These passages condemn all remarriage after divorce as adultery.

Mark 10:11, 12: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and many another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

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.

I Corinthians 7:10, 11: 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.

I Corinthians 7:39: The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Romans 7:2, 3: 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.

The prohibition of remarriage in these passages is absolute.

Romans 7:2,3 and I Corinthians 7:39 ground the absolute prohibition in the nature of marriage as a lifelong bond by virtue of God's sovereign ordination as Creator and Governor of this world.

One text apparently conflicts with this absolute prohibition of remarriage by a seeming approval of the remarriage of the "innocent party."

If Matthew 19:9 does, in fact, permit the remarriage of the "innocent party," it flatly contradicts Scripture's teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the passages quoted above, especially I Corinthians 7:3 9.
 
The plain reading does not say: whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, saving for the cause of fornication, committeth adultery.

The part in the italics only applies to the first part of the sentence. At least that was the way I was taught the English language.

Yes, the part in italics is applies to the first part of the sentence. But it sets the context for the second half. Who is the 'her that is divorced' in the second clause? The improperly divorced woman from the first clause.

If we look at the larger context of Matt 5, Jesus Christ is dealing with ways the pharasees tried to get around the Seventh Commandment. He deals first with fantasies, than with improper or frivolous divorces. By context we understand when he condemns remarriage it is not any remarriage but remarriage subsequent to one of the Pharasee's frivolous divorces.
 
So Christ is speaking out of both sides of His mouth (spoken with reverence):

The parallels from the other synoptic Gospels:

Mark 10:11, 12: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and many another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

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.
 
So Christ is speaking out of both sides of His mouth (spoken with reverence):

I am not sure what you mean by 'speaking out of both sides of his mouth'. Prehaps you could explain? My point was that his condemnation of remarriage must be understood in context of his condemnation of divorce for improper causes. The remarriage is sinful not because all remarriages after divorce are sinful per se, but because the initial divorce was not for a proper reason, hence the woman was not truely free to remarry.

The parallels from the other synoptic Gospels:

Again I would maintain that in all of Christ's controversy with the pharasees about divorce and remarriage, we must understand the context that the pharasees were fond of divorce for frivolous reasons. These are not examples of Jesus explaining the situation of a man or woman divorced because of fornication and commenting on the propriety of their remarriage. Matt 5 already sets the context that Jesus was condemning the pharasees for their frivolous divorce practices. We see this again in Matt 19:3 when the pharasees come to him 'tempting him' and asking 'Is is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Mark 10:2 reitterates that the context of his discussion on marriage was the pharasees were 'tempting him'. I believe all the passages when understood togeather show that Jesus is condemning remarriage after unlawful divorces, not all remarriage whatsoever.
 
1Co 7:27-28 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (28) But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Paul clearly teaches here that divorced people may remarry. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that divorce is only finalized in death.

Lev 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or a harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

Lev 21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

These two verses teach that priests could not marry divorced women. If marrying divorced women was forbidden by all, then this prohibition for the priesthood would not make any sense. Clearly it is implied here that others married divorced women but priests were forbidden to.
 
Bobbi, point taken, but where then does Matthew 19:9 come in (it seems pretty cut and dried)? Let's confine this argument to two hypothetical believers, one abusive to the other in a physical manner. This is then a case for church discipline, is it not? (And perhaps criminal justice). But the Lord hates both sins, and to divorce for a reason not fully borne out by scripture is merely adding to the pile. While the man may rightly go to jail for beating his wife, is it right for her to divorce him?

My point is not to argue the common sense of it but to seek where scripture would lead in this case. Common sense says yes, do it and do it quickly. But does scripture not point to discipline by the church, his coming to repentence, and a resumption of the relationship? If he will not repent, does the Bible not point to divorce and single life for the woman?
 
does the Bible not point to divorce and single life for the woman?

Kevin,

I am sincerely interested in this. Where do you get the bolded portion of your last statement from? If the bible points to divorce for a woman, why do you automatically jump to 'and single life'? What is the biblical reason for that? This is a genuine question. I have seen many christians make the same conclusions and I genuinely cannot understand why.

Regarding if abuse is a legitimate cause for divorce, at this point in time I believe it is. In the gospels it sounds like the Lord Jesus is saying fornication/adultery is the only valid reason but Paul under divine inspiration adds another reason for desertion. We also see cases in the Old Testament where God commanded his people to divorce pagan wives. I think we should understand that in this case Jesus was not trying to set down a list of the only possible reasons for a legitimate divorce, but using fornication as an example of a severe breach of the marriage covenant that would allow a divorce. As I mentioned in a post earlier, I think this is a similar situation to 1 Corinthians 7 where Pauls langugue sounds like prayer and fasting is the only acceptable reason for a couple to abstain from marital relations. But most christians, I believe, would understand that Paul is using that as a example of a 'serious reason' not saying that is the only possible reason, ever. It is a similar case to the Lord's teaching on acts of mercy on the sabbath day. No one interpretes his teaching to mean the only acceptable act of mercy is there specific act of helping your ox, but we understand him to have used that specific example as a representation of a general category.

Off course, even if there is a legitimate reason, divorce should be the absolute last resort. Given the importance of marriage and the emphasis on forgiveness in the bible, every attempt at converting the sinning party and restoring the marriage should be made. Only in a case of complete unrepentance and hard-heartedness should divorce be resorted to.
 
Mark,

My lead into that was the prohibitions against remarriage for one divorcing for reasons other than infidelity. This is a fairly new topic for me, I am unaccustomed to any dealings with divorce in my immediate and extended family. This is also the reason that my posts may seem a bit harsh - I have no personal experience with it, so I feel more (perhaps unreasonably) comfortable pontificating from an objective, Scripture-only view. I'm sure that if I had any personal experience with it, I would be changing my tune a bit.

:2cents:
 
Kevin,

I did not mean to imply your posts were harsh, I did not find them so at all. I too have no personal experience with divorce in my extended family. I did try my best to show why I think divorce and remarriage are allowed for reasons other than infidelity. I would be interested to know what you think.
 
Mark, thanks for the reply - I didn't think you were saying that the posts were harsh but for those on this forum that have been through divorce or seen it close at hand, my comments might seem a bit clinical and heartless (like Calvinistic poetry in motion!)

Let me look this up a bit and I'll get back to you...
 
Actually, a quick rejoinder on this (before I start digging) would be that if we have the words of our Lord in Matthew 19:9 stating one and only one legitimate reason for divorce (fornication), Paul's statement must then be put in that context, the context of Christ's words on the subject. To me, that is the contextual bubble from which we cannot depart. Paul's later statements may be inspired, but they surely would not contradict Jesus' statement.

A quick peek shows me that my Greek word studies books don't (for some reason) cover Matthew. Any clues from the Greek that anyone else can see?
 
Where would Matthew 18:18-20 play into this process?

"Verily verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: And whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again, I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them."

It seems to be a continuation of the reconciliation process in the previous verses, and then in the following verses Jesus goes into the teachings on forgiveness.

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?

Doing a word search on defiled....in such a case it seems the reason he can not remarry her is because HE pronounced her unclean...when he divorced her...

2) to pronounce unclean, declare unclean (ceremonially)

In Deut. 24:2 it says "And when she is departed out of his house, she MAY go and be another man's wife." So that tells me remarriage is allowed.

What was unclean about her? it doesn't say..

And in verse 1 it also says he is to give the wife a certificate of divorce..so looking up the word divorce...

1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant

Wouldn't this mean the covenant itself has been cut off...and would no longer be valid and would certainly seem the marriage covenant had been severed, or loosed as refered to in the above passages...

In looking at the root word of Put away...it doesn't seem to mean the same thing as divorce.

1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time

So in terms of someone who has been 'put away' looking at the root word, it would mean they are still married, so it would be adultery if they married another...so yes, it makes sense if a man puts away his wife...she couldn't marry someone else..
 
Last edited:
Joshua, excellent blathering, I quite enjoyed it! The difference in the situation does shed some new light on it.

(Still digging...)
 
On the net I found this analysis on D & R, which is actually similar to what Joshua and Greg have already said.

1 Cor 7:15 says:

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.

The thing to ask, off course, is what does it mean to ‘not be under bondage’?

Verse 27 of the same chapter says:

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

I think it is reasonable to infer from this that if you are not bound to a wife, you are loosed from one. If you are not bound, or in bondage to you marriage, you have been loosed from it. And what does the bible say about those who are loose from marriage?

Verse 28:

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

They can marry without sinning. I think Paul is teaching here that those whom have been abandoned by a pagan spouse are free to remarry if they choose. I think we can draw the general principle from this: if someone is divorced for a reason the bible allows, as opposed to a fivorlous or carnal reason, they are free to remarry.
 
A Hard saying - Divorce and Remarriage

To people whom I'd like to give input:

Being older and unmarried, a previous fornictor and fearing God so as not to defile my future wife and staying in an adulterous relationship should I marry, I had to do some research.

My final conclusion is fornicators cannot marry without sinning (unless they abstain from sex) and unless death of the spouse occurs, the two are still married before God. Do you know of any old resources that may address fornicator's marrying (I had asked Christ to save me at an earlier age before the fornication. This is not about me so much as God's overall view on the matter so I can direct others in similar situations - it may even impact my church as elders are asking me to research the topic) I may re-look at Adam's book again.

Below is Piper's Essay.

Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage After Divorce Is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive
1. Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.

Luke 16:18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

1.1 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.

1.2 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.

1.3 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.

2. Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who does the divorcing.

Mark 10:11-12: And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'

2.1 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.

2.2 As in Luke 16:18, there are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.

3. Mark 10:2-9 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. 3 And He answered and said to them, 'What did Moses command you?' 4 And they said, 'Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.' 5 But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 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?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 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'? 6 Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?" 8 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. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

3.1 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.

3.2 Jesus' answer is, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives" (Mt. 19:8).

3.3 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).

3.4 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."

3.5 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.

3.6 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.

4. 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.

4.1 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.

4.2 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.

4.3 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.

4.4 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.

4.41 It seems to elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital union and disunion.

4.42 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 is 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.

5. 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 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

5.1 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 ll the same way it is excluded in Mark 10:11-12.

5.2 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.

5.3 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.

6. 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? 2 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. 3 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.

6.1 Both of these passages (1 Corinthians 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.

7. 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.' 11 But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuches who have been so from birth, and there are eunuches who have been made eunuches by men, and there are eunuches who have made themselves eunuches for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

7.1 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.

7.2 Jesus does not deny the tremendous difficulty of his command. Instead, he says in verse ll, 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 live a life of singleness.

7.3 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 l) 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.

8. 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, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 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, 4 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.

8.1 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 and remarriage legitimate.

8.2 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).

9. 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.

9.1 There are several reasons why the phrase "is not bound" should not be construed to mean "is free to remarry."

9.11 Marriage is an ordinance of creation binding on all of God's human creatures, irrespective of their faith or lack of faith.

9.12 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; l Corinthians 7:39), or to one's betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in l 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).

9.13 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.

9.14 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.

10. 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. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.

10.1 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.

10.11 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.

10.12 A flat statement that it is not sin for divorced people to be remarried (verse 28) would contradict verse ll, where he said that a woman who has separated from her husband should remain single.

10.13 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."

10.14 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 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.

10.15 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).

11. 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.

11.1 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).

11.2 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 porneiais 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 (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?

A. 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). Yet 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 just 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 an 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:

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
It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew's exception clause instead of moicheia
It squares with Matthew's own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19
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 New Temple (1965).

Conclusions and Applications
In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:

The guilt or innocence of either spouse,
Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not,
Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse's conversion,
Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,
Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved,
Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,
Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.


Rather it is determined by the fact that:

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),
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),
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),
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),
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:

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
Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
(Bryan's note: Piper doesn't convince me here. I want to research more) Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of 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

End of Piper's Essay.

I have presented this to the head elder of my church (who I am grateful does not automatically dismiss Piper's work) and will be doing so again to our other elders. We have 3 others, one of whom may be entirely against this interpretation.

Word from you all?:deadhorse:
 
Dear Bryan,

The first part of your post indicates you believe even unmarried people who fornicated before are barred from marriage? Why do you believe this?

I do not think Piper's article addressed it.
 
Personality probably

I may not have much grace is the short answer.

My pastor does not agree but here are some quick answers.

1. OT examples of people apparently staying single after even rape. - Tamar after being defiled by her 1/2 brother went to Absolom's home "desolate" to live. M Henry seems to indicate he believes she stayed that way.

2. Judah did not touch the other Tamar and their is no mention of her getting married after her sin with her father in law.

3. In the Law, fornication was punishable by death or the two were to marry.

4. No mention of Dinah getting married after her fornication/rape.

Now, the only possibilty I see would be in Jesus' response to the Samaritan woman. I need to sift through this text. Here Jesus says she has had 5 men and the one she has now is not hers. Point being, union did not make him her man (yet somehow the others were hers...)

Henry says:

Observe, (1.) How discreetly and decently Christ introduces this discourse (v. 16): Go, call thy husband, and come hither. Now, {1.} The order Christ gave her had a very good colour: "Call thy husband, that he may teach thee, and help thee to understand these things, which thou art so ignorant of'' The wives that will learn must ask their husbands (1 Co. 14:35), who must dwell with them as men of knowledge, 1 Pt. 3:7. "Call thy husband, that he may learn with thee; that then you may be heirs together of the grace of life. Call thy husband, that he may be witness to what passes between us.'' Christ would thus teach us to provide things honest in the sight of all men, and to study that which is of good report. {2.} As it had a good colour, so it had a good design; for hence he would take occasion to call her sin to remembrance. There is need of art and prudence in giving reproofs; to fetch a compass, as the woman of Tekoa, 2 Sa. 14:20.
(2.) How industriously the woman seeks to evade the conviction, and yet insensibly convicts herself, and, ere she is aware, owns her fault; she said, I have no husband. Her saying this intimated no more than that she did not care to have her husband spoken of, nor that matter mentioned any more. She would not have her husband come thither, lest, in further discourse, the truth of the matter should come out, to her shame; and therefore, "Pray go on to talk of something else, I have no husband;'' she would be thought a maid or a widow, whereas, though she had no husband, she was neither. The carnal mind is very ingenious to shift off convictions, and to keep them from fastening, careful to cover the sin.
(3.) How closely our Lord Jesus brings home the conviction to her conscience. It is probable that he said more than is here recorded, for she thought that he told her all that ever she did (v. 29), but that which is here recorded is concerning her husbands. Here is, {1.} A surprising narrative of her past conversation: Thou has had five husbands. Doubtless, it was not her affliction (the burying of so many husbands), but her sin, that Christ intended to upbraid her with; either she had eloped (as the law speaks), had run away from her husbands, and married others, or by her undutiful, unclean, disloyal conduct, had provoked them to divorce her, or by indirect means had, contrary to law, divorced them. Those who make light of such scandalous practices as these, as no more than nine days' wonder, and as if the guilt were over as soon as the talk is over, should remember that Christ keeps account of all. {2.} A severe reproof of her present state of life: He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. Either she was never married to him at all, or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery. Yet observe how mildly Christ tells her of it; he doth not call her strumpet, but tells her, He with whom thou livest is not thy husband: and then leaves it to her own conscience to say the rest. Note, Reproofs are ordinarily most profitable when they are least provoking. {3.} Yet in this he puts a better construction than it would well bear upon what she said by way of shuffle and evasion: Thou has well said I have no husband; and again, In that saidst thou truly. What she intended as a denial of the fact (that she had none with whom she lived as a husband) he favourably interpreted, or at least turned upon her, as a confession of the fault. Note, Those who would win souls should make the best of them, whereby they may hope to work upon their good-nature; for, if they make the worst of them, they certainly exasperate their ill-nature.

What I don't necessarily agree with is the idea "Now you are saved, all things have passed away, new things have come, get married depite your past." I've heard that before but even here, with the Samaritan woman, I do not see a go-ahead for marriage. Any Elihu's out there that might care to tackle this? It may take some effort to uproot this thinking.
 
Not everyone who is divorced is entitled to "remarry so long as there is repentance involved." Paul is fairly clear, when he states that there are cases (of abandonment) where the believer is not to consider him/herself "under bondage." The "bonds" are the marriage bands, the covenant of faithfulness. If the unbeliever has cast them off, the believer is not bound to fulfill them "one-sidedly." It is no more a covenant, period.

But just because the righteous one is free, does not mean that the guilty party is free of sin's consequence. If convicted, they MUST seek reconcilliation, and if that reconcilliation is not possible, the guilty party is NOT free to just marry again. This is a lasting consequence for the sin. This is a real test of the genuinness of an adulterer's repentance. If he/she will agree that he/she violated God's law, and that there is no room to "fix" the sin, therefore one must stay single unless the previous spouse dies. The "righteous one" may be married again fully within the Law. But that's fine. He/she was not bound in such circumstances.

Its a simple matter really, of equity in jurisprudence. The righteous one is not punished for the sins of the wicked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top