"Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
Used by permission." (www.Lockman.org)
Copyright © 1997, 2007 Rev. Douglas J. Kuiphoff. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, or distributed in any form or retrieval system without prior written permission or the Author.
Preface
In the spring of 1988, I was finishing my senior year at Grand Rapids Baptist College (now Cornerstone University) in Grand Rapids, MI. One required course was known simply as Senior Seminar. The purpose of this class was to make those of us studying for the ministry aware of current trends and issues that were relevant to our future ministries; guest speakers were invited to address these topics.
During one of those class sessions, Dr. Ed Dobson, then pastor of the well- known Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, MI, was invited to address the issue of remarriage after divorce. With the average national divorce rate among professing Christians continuing to hover around the 35% mark1, this is an issue with which a pastor or other Christian worker is certain to be faced multiple times during the course of their ministry. He based his presentation on select verses from 1 Corinthians 7, perhaps the most illuminating chapter in the Bible as it relates to marriage. As he went through the verses he had chosen, Dr. Dobson indicated that Paul was dealing with four distinct groups of people: the married, the virgins, the widows, and a fourth group to which he referred as the “loosed ones.” It was his contention that the term “loosed ones” referred to those who had been divorced in accordance with guidelines laid out in the Scriptures, and were therefore permitted to remarry. He ended his presentation with a challenge to us to refute his position.
Up until this time, I had been quite confident of my position regarding remarriage after divorce, but I now found myself unable to either reconcile this new approach with what I believed, or to refute it. So I completely discarded what I thought I believed, and spent the next three years poring over any scriptures I could find that seemed to have anything to do with marriage, divorce, and remarriage. My goal was to develop an understanding of the issue of remarriage that takes into account the entirety of the Biblical context – not just a few verses that appear to support a particular view. During the course of my search, I also studied the views of leaders and commentators down through the centuries (both Christian and Jewish); this proved to be more confusing than helpful. The range of opinions I encountered covered the spectrum, from those on one hand who believed that marriage is eternal, thus denying remarriage to anyone (including widows), to those on the other hand who believed that remarriage under almost any circumstance is simply covered by God’s grace. Most of the writers I studied
1The Barna Group, “Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians,” September 2004: “Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to
the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%....Multiple divorces are also unexpectedly common among born again Christians. Barna’s figures show that nearly one-quarter of the married born agains (23%) get divorced two or more times.”
1
based their views on selected verses (many without regard for the context), but there were others who made no attempts at all to provide Scriptural grounds for their beliefs. With such extremes in beliefs among Christian and Jewish leaders and commentators in mind, I chose instead to concentrate on the Biblical context; the few commentators whose works I reference are those whose beliefs appear to line up the closest with that context.
This manuscript is the result of my research. More to the point, this work is an answer to the challenge that you, Dr. Dobson, issued in my class nearly twenty years ago. This has been a work in process since the day you issued your challenge. Sir, if you ever read this manuscript, know that there is one student who sat under your teaching that day who took it upon himself to respond to your challenge, and to defend the historical, Biblical, CONTEXTUAL teaching regarding remarriage after divorce.
2
INTRODUCTION
Every pastor, missionary, and counselor will eventually deal with it. It is, perhaps, the leading problem in fundamentalism today. While many denominations are dealing with women in the pulpit, gay rights, and even “re- imagining Christianity,” the divorce and remarriage issue has become the dividing point for Evangelical Churches.
It stands to reason. With the national average for divorce holding at nearly thirty- five percent, every family in America has witnessed it, been touched by it. Children become pawns, mere weapons in the arsenal of warring factions intent on destroying one another. Formerly loving, caring spouses squabble over community property as if it, not their vow to God, is the sole purpose of marriage to begin with.
And what of the extended family? What of the parents, the brothers and sisters, who opened their hearts and homes to the new spouse -- not to mention the children who would eventually be born? When one marries a husband or wife, he or she also “marries” the extended family. It is a “package deal.” Unfortunately, the converse is also true. One not only divorces a spouse, but an entire family.
With this in mind, it is inevitable that the church will be affected. Think about it. The church is made up of both individuals and family units. It is only natural that fellow believers and church members are concerned when these family units begin to crumble. The problem that has arisen, however, is that the response to this concern has not been based on a Biblical foundation. When divorce and remarriage affects someone close to us, it seems that subjective human opinion suddenly takes precedence over objective divine decree; the Bible is either thrown out entirely, or revised and re-interpreted to provide a comfortable loophole through which the injured party can escape. The pressure brought to bear on the pastor, elders, and deacons in such situations is incredible. If a church leader refuses to allow the remarriage of a divorced member, he risks becoming known as judgmental, wholly without compassion, insensitive to the “needs” of the divorced one. In many cases, he may risk losing his position. Unfortunately, the vast majority of pastors have succumbed to the pressure and discarded the Biblical mandate under which they were ordained in favor of popular opinion and a secure position. Thus they have fulfilled the prophecy of 2 Timothy 4:3-4:
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
3
This is not an easy subject with which to deal. It is loaded with emotional and intellectual pitfalls. Because of this, consideration is given primarily to the textual evidence, with very few references to outside sources. The foundation of this work is, as its name implies, Context. Not merely the immediate context in which a particular verse may be found, but the entire context of a given issue as found throughout the whole of Scripture. Many of the problems and arguments we face today in connection with the divorce and remarriage issue stem from one of two foundational errors: 1) Incomplete (or non-existent!) exegesis and 2) unfounded presuppositions (approaching the text with a pre-determined conclusion in mind). In other words, using individual verses as justification without regard for their defining contexts.
It is hoped that the approach taken in this study will preclude many of the emotional arguments that are usually advanced during a discussion of this nature, and facilitate an objective reconsideration of the textual evidence. It is further hoped that this work will be used by God to achieve two goals: 1) Encourage and strengthen the convictions of those who have remained faithful to the Biblical teaching regarding divorce and remarriage; 2) Where necessary, cause others to reconsider their personal and ecclesiastical positions, and bring them back in line with the historical Biblical position.
4
1
THE “LOOSED ONES”
I Corinthians 7:10-40 has, in recent years, become the rallying point for those who would approve of divorce and remarriage; it appears to be an airtight “escape clause,” the one passage of scripture that seems to give God’s approval to divorce and remarriage for believers. The classic argument usually revolves around verses 27-28a:
27Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28But if you marry, you have not sinned....
The argument here centers on the definition of the “loosed one.” One popular line of thought that has surfaced in recent years is that 1 Corinthians 7 deals with four distinct groups of people: Married (1 Corinthians 7:3-6, 10-24, 33-35, 39-40), Virgins (1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 25-26, 28, 32, 34, 36-38), Widowers (1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 39) and the “Loosed Ones” [divorced] (1 Corinthians 7:27-28). If, as some contend, it can be shown from the context that there are indeed four distinct groups of people in this chapter, then there is a basis for the divorce and eventual remarriage of a believer. If, however, it can be demonstrated from the context that the term “loosed ones” is but another reference to the widowed, then the so-called “escape clause” ceases to exist.
The context in which we find this particular term is Paul’s explanation of the responsibilities and attitudes that should characterize the Christian marriage. We also find him dealing with some of the problems faced by the early Corinthian church. The groundwork for the permanency of marriage is laid in verses 10-11:
10But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (emphasis added)
This statement is further reinforced by the conclusions drawn in verse 39:
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. (emphasis added)
Two clearer statements of the Bible’s prohibition of divorce and remarriage within the context of the Christian marriage would be difficult, if not impossible, to find. Paul’s statements here are all-inclusive, non-negotiable, and very clear. If a spouse leaves, he/she has one of two choices: remain single or be reconciled. These three verses establish the parameters for the entire chapter - the context in which the “loosed ones” verses appear and by which they must be judged.
5
Having established in verses 10, 11, and 39 that divorce and remarriage is not an option for the believer, we can move on to verses 27 and 28 to consider the meaning and ramifications of the term “loosed ones.”
There are two key words to be considered in these two verses: bound and loosed.
The word translated “bound” is the Greek word deo. Strong’s states that this a primary verb meaning “bind...knit, tie, wind.” 2 While considering the implications of the Greek word as used in this passage, it is advantageous to consider its Hebrew counterpart found in Genesis 2:24, the first passage to deal with the marriage relationship. The verse reads, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” The word “cleave” is the Hebrew word dabaq, which means “to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere.” 3 It is the root word for the Hebrew metallurgical term debeq, meaning “solder.”4 The connotation is that of unbreakable permanency. The analogy is incredibly appropriate. Welding is achieved by heating two separate pieces of metal to the point that they melt and flow together to become one single piece. That is why Genesis 2:24 is foundational to our understanding of the divorce and remarriage issue. God sets before us the “one flesh” principle, the principle that takes the marriage relationship beyond the basics of co- laborers (Genesis 1:28) and companionship (Genesis 2:18). The “one flesh” principle involves the melding of two separate lives, with their accompanying purposes and views, into a cohesive unit. It is within the parameters of this principle that God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28a) can be fulfilled, that the couple’s relationship as co-image bearers, co-inheritors, and created equals finds its deepest expression. In short, Genesis 2:24 is God’s thesis statement regarding the sanctity and permanency of marriage.
That God would choose the term “one flesh” is itself noteworthy. What is the significance of such an expression? What are the ramifications in the marital relationship? For our purposes, we will forego the traditional discussion of the word “leave” and begin with the word “cleave.” The word “cleave,” as it is used in this passage, has all but disappeared from the English language. We now think of “cleave” in terms of splitting or separating. While this has become a valid definition, it is far from its Hebrew beginning. We have already noted that the Hebrew word for soldering or welding, debeq, is derived from this root. In both forms the overriding consideration is that the bond being formed is permanent, humanly unbreakable. Consider the usage of the word dabaq in the following verses:
15His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. 16One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. 17They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. (Job 41:15-17, emphasis added)
6
23The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. (Job 41:23, emphasis added)
The usage of this word in connection with skin cells (or scales, as verses 15-17 indicate) gives us a good idea of permanency. As you look at your own skin, it is almost impossible to distinguish one skin cell from another. They are joined in such a way as to give the appearance of a smooth, unbroken surface. To disconnect them, an outside force, usually in the form of a sharp object, must part them. This, however, is terminal for the individual skin cells involved.
Let’s consider another example from nature. Barnacles are the scourge of the maritime industry. They gradually build up on the underside of ships, causing speed loss and increased fuel consumption. The barnacle secretes a substance that allows it to literally cement itself to a surface. In other words, it cleaves to that surface, forming a permanent bond. Until recently, the only way to remove these troublesome creatures was to scrape them off. This is, of course, fatal for the barnacle. Even technological advances in chemical removal result in the barnacle’s death. This illustrates two basic principles of marriage. First, the husband and wife are to cleave to each other; they are to be cemented together, so to speak. Second, there is only one force strong enough to destroy this bond, an outside force employed by God - the death of the spouse.
The second key word in Genesis 2:24 is “one.” Most theology students are familiar with this word. They learn it in connection with the study of Theology proper, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity. The Hebrew word translated “one” is the word ‘echad.5 Depending upon the context, this word can mean “one”, as in the number one (“absolute” one), or “one in unity,” like a cluster of grapes. In this context, it connotes two people coming together physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. They become one in purpose, desire, and effort. The two become unified in their diversity, a unique blend of personality, judgment, and gifts.
So how does God view this subject? Malachi 2:16a gives us a clear understanding of the mind of God concerning divorce: “ ‘For I hate divorce,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel....”. This verse defines God’s view. It is from this understanding of the Old Testament teaching that Paul forms his statements and chooses his terminology. Therefore, it is not surprising that he chooses the term deo. The term connotes being woven together like a piece of fabric; the individual threads become an integral part of the whole. The husband is bound to his wife, and the wife is bound to her husband.
Jesus addressed the issue of divorce and remarriage in His teachings during His earthly ministry.
31“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery;
7
and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32) (emphasis added)
3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6So they are no longer 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 OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He 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. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9)
(NOTE: As noted in the chain reference of the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, many of the earliest writings contain wording in Matthew 19:9 that is similar to the rest of the Gospel passages dealing with divorce. It is noted that the proper rendering of this verse should be: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery; and he who marries another woman commits adultery.” It is further noted that many of the early manuscripts go on to add, “and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”6 This rendering is identical to that found in Matthew 5 and Luke 16, and similar to that found in Mark 10.)
2Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 10In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11And He said b to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” (Mark 10:2-12)
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)
8
Taking the teachings of Jesus in their appropriate contexts, it is impossible to miss the fact that He declared remarriage to be adultery, despite the fact that divorce was permitted on the grounds of immorality. In fact, His approach as given in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 is worth noting. The Pharisees came to him with a question: “May we divorce our wives for any reason?” Jesus’ first answer should have been sufficient for them. To paraphrase his response, he said, “You want to divorce your wives? God’s answer is NO!” He quoted God’s thesis statement as the sufficient answer to their question. It was only after being questioned further that he gave them the answer that they wanted to hear. Jesus acknowledged the fact that Moses permitted divorce for immorality, but He then added a qualification that has been overlooked in the vast majority of evangelical circles. It could be said that the husband who divorced his wife because of her unrepentant immorality was not causing her to become an adulteress; she already was one by virtue of her own immoral behavior. However, the point that Jesus sought to emphasize in these passages had nothing to do with this woman; rather, His goal was to protect the innocent. He declared that to divorce a woman who was not guilty of immorality was to become the cause of her eventual adultery by remarriage. This is most clearly evidenced in Matthew 5:32 when Jesus states, “...but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery...” How do we know Jesus refers to remarriage as adultery? By the final part of the verse in Matthew 5:32: “...and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The emphasis is on the guilt of the husband in causing his wife to commit adultery by divorcing her. While this may seem to be something of a leap in logic, it is a biblically-warranted leap. Consider the teaching of Paul in 1 Tim. 5:11-12:
11But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, 12thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.
From the context we know that Paul refers specifically to young widows. However, it is plain to see that the same desires that would tempt a widow would also tempt a divorced woman. She has also experienced the closeness of companionship; she has felt the fellowship of kindred souls; she has sexual need that will go unfulfilled; she will have to find employment; the house will need work. The list goes on. And just as the young widow eventually tires of facing it all alone, so does the divorcee. Instead of leaning on Christ for her sufficiency she begins to look to another man. Eventually, he wins her heart and she takes the step into remarriage adultery. And to the husband who initiated the divorce, Jesus says, “I hold YOU responsible for her demise! YOU caused her to become an adulteress because of the hardness of your heart.” Likewise, He warns the husband who initiated the divorce that to marry another, even though he may be the innocent party is to become guilty of adultery. The implication of Jesus’ response in the Gospels is clear: While divorce is permitted in the case of immorality, remarriage is not. There is no equivocation on the part of the Lord in this matter. For Him, the irrevocability of the marriage covenant was a forgone conclusion.
9
With this background in mind, it should not come as any surprise that, according to 1 Corinthians 7:27, the Christian spouse is not to seek release from his/her spouse. This fits perfectly with verse 10, which states that the wife is not to depart from her husband. Of course the converse is also true.
The second word used in verse 27 is the word “loosed.” The word translated “loosed” in verse 27 is the Greek word luo. According to Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek New Testament, this word is a primary root which literally means “...destroy, dissolve...melt...”7 It refers to something which has been obliterated; it has ceased to exist. Annihilation is, perhaps, an even better rendering. This is in direct contrast to the Greek verb rhegnumi, which means “to fragment or break apart...a shattering to minute fragments; but not a reduction to the constituent particles...”i If rhegnumi had been used to describe the dissolution of the marriage bond, there might be some basis for the argument that the “loosed ones” were divorced. However, since Paul uses luo it must be argued that the term “loosed ones” does not apply to the divorcée. Although the couple has separated, the marriage covenant is still enforced by God.
Paul’s previous teachings on the subject of divorce and remarriage support this line of reasoning. Romans 7:2-3 teaches us the following:
2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
It is obvious from this text that, even though the marriage partners have separated, Paul still considered the marriage vows to be binding. In this verse we want to consider those two key words, bound and loosed. We are already familiar with the Greek verb, deo. That is the word which is translated “bound.” But in this passage we learn a new Greek word, katargeo. This is the verb that is translated “loosed.” It is virtually identical in meaning to the Greek word luo. It means “destroy...vanish away.”ii It also refers to obliteration. Paul’s choice of terminology in these passages is forceful and conclusive. Death is the only avenue through which the marriage vows may be destroyed. In other words, the Greek words luo and katargeo, with their connotation of total, irrevocable destruction, cannot be used to describe the separation of marriage partners in divorce, which God sees as a mere physical separation of a relationship and not the dissolution of the marriage covenant itself.
If, then, this word cannot properly be descriptive of the separation of divorce, it must have another application and refer to someone other than a divorcee. As is true in all cases, the Bible is the best commentary on itself. The identity of the “loosed one” is revealed in verse 39 of 1 Corinthians 7. It reads as follows:
10
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
The first thing we see in this verse is the usage of the word “bound.” We have already established from the etymology and context of the word that this binding is permanent and irrevocable. It is humanly impossible to break this bond. Therefore, the “loosed one” is not divorced. The “loosed one” is the person who has been freed from the obligations of the marriage covenant by God via the death of the spouse. Notice the words, “she is free...” The Greek word translated “free” is eleutheros, meaning “exempt (from obligation or liability).”iii The verse could be rendered, “...but if her husband be dead, she is exempted from the obligations of her marriage covenant to be married to whom she will...” In other words, she has been declared to be free from her vows; the covenant has been dissolved through the medium of death. This is the same verb which appears in Romans 7:3 (“...she is free from the law...”). The verse clearly states that only the widow/widower is scripturally permitted to remarry. Therefore, we may conclude that there are only three groups in this chapter: the married, the virgins, and the widowed - the term “loosed ones” being yet another reference to the widowed. In short, there is no escape clause.8
1
8
3 4 5
1990).
p. 1292
Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the GREEK TESTAMENT p. 45 Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the GREEK TESTAMENT p. 63 Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the GREEK TESTAMENT p. 41 Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the GREEK TESTAMENT p. 27 Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in THE HEBREW TESTAMENT p. 41 Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in THE HEBREW TESTAMENT p. 91 Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the GREEK TESTAMENT p. 47
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
James Strong. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in THE GREEK TESTAMENT (Nashville: Abingdon. 1890). p. 21
James Strong. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in THE HEBREW TESTAMENT (Nashville: Abingdon. 1890). p. 29
Strong. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in THE HEBREW BIBLE p. 29
Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the HEBREW BIBLE p. 10
Spiros Zodhiates, editor. The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.
11
2
THE UNEQUALLY YOKED BELIEVER
The 1 Corinthians 7 passage is also famous for its counsel regarding the situation of the believer who is married to an unbeliever. The counsel given by Paul is good, but has been misconstrued as giving the believer liberties that do not exist. The verses being considered are verses 12-13 and 15, and they read as follows:
12But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away....15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
Most Bible scholars agree that the situation dealt with here is the plight of the couple that was married while unsaved, after which one of the partners became a believer. It seems that many of these new believers concluded that living with their unsaved spouse was sin and were divorcing them. Paul saw the need to single these individuals out for special counsel.
Paul presents us with a dichotomy in these verses. It concerns the believing partner’s approach to marriage versus that of the unbeliever. His instructions are very clear: If you are saved and your unsaved spouse has not divorced you, remain in the marriage. The advice he gives to the unequally yoked believers in this situation is consistent with that given to believing couples. If you are the believer in the relationship, carry out your obligations to your unsaved partner as though he were also a believer - “...the wife should not leave her husband” (verse 10) and “...the husband should not send his wife away” (verse 11). This portion of Paul’s instruction seems to be rather self-explanatory. It is the observation that follows in verse 15b which causes the misunderstanding:
...the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases...
Many believers see this phrase as permission for the believer to remarry, a conclusion which is not warranted by the context. Paul’s pronouncement is actually quite simple: If you are saved and your unsaved spouse divorces you, don’t fight it. Let him/her go. The believer is not bound to seek out extreme measures to keep the marriage together. While you, as the believer, are under the obligation not to seek a divorce, your unsaved spouse does not consider himself/herself to be governed by the same standard. That individual believes he is free to do as he pleases. Paul’s overriding concern in these verses is the salvation of the unbelieving spouse, and his reason for counseling the believer to accept a gross injustice becomes clear in verses 15c and 16:
12
13
15cbut God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
(1 Corinthians 7:15c-16)
The implication is hard to miss. If the believer forces the unbeliever to remain in the relationship, they risk turning the marriage into a war ground; the unbelieving spouse will become bitter toward the believer and God, thus destroying any future opportunities to witness. The teaching of this passage is in line with that of Hebrews 12:14-15:
14Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled...
Do you see the parallels between the two passages? There is a definite cause/effect in evidence. In the context of an unsaved spouse divorcing a believer, it is the peaceful acceptance of a grave injustice that demonstrates the power of God’s grace in both lives. Grace enables the believer to pursue a peaceful resolution with the unbeliever; in turn, the grace of God is loosed to work in the life of the unbelieving spouse via the minstry of the Holy Spirit to bring about salvation. Now turn it around. Falling short of the grace of God causes bitterness in the believer, which leads to bitterness in the unbeliever. The result is that the unbeliever is defiled.
Defilement is the opposite of sanctification. The writer of Hebrews tells us that unless we are sanctified, we can never hope to see God (Hebrews 12:14). Sanctification is the goal to be pursued by a believing spouse. What does this mean? Sanctification, as it appears in this passage, has as its focus the process of purification. It is the process whereby something that is defiled is made pure. This brings us to the crux of the matter. 1 Corinthians 7:14 teaches that the unbeliever, because of marriage with a believer, has been sanctified; that is, God has begun a process of purification in the unbeliever for the sake of the believing spouse. To allow bitterness to have its way, to pursue war instead of peace, is to frustrate the work of God in bringing the unbeliever to salvation -- that “sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.”
So where does all of this leave the believing spouse? Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 7:39 has not changed:
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
The only conclusion possible, although hard to accept, is clear. Nowhere in this passage does God give permission for the saved spouse to remarry as long as the unsaved spouse is still alive.
For many believers today this raises a serious question. Would a loving God, who wants only that which is best for our welfare and happiness, actually require a believer to suffer this kind of humiliation and deprivation? Yes. In the Old Testament, God required those who had taken foreign wives to divorce them in order to restore a proper relationship with Himself (Ezra 9 - 10; Nehemiah 13:23-31). This is the same God who, at times, requires His children to endure unspeakable tortures and lay down their lives for the sake of the Gospel (Hebrews 11:35b-38). Those who find themselves in this most difficult of situations must learn, even as Paul learned, that God’s grace is sufficient to help them deal with the injustice and to continue to grow without bitterness toward the unbelieving partner (2 Corinthians 12:9 - 10).
14
3
THE “INNOCENT PARTY” THEORY
Much emphasis today is placed on the “innocent party” when the church gives consideration to the legitimacy/illegitimacy of remarriage for the Christian. For those who do not necessarily see 1 Corinthians 7 as an escape clause, Deuteronomy 24:1-2 provides the basis for giving church approval to a remarriage.
The passage reads as follows:
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. (Deuteronomy 24:1-2, KJV)
For those who insist on the right of the Christian to remarry, these two verses appear to provide an airtight case. Several theologians have gone to great lengths to prove that this passage protects the right of the innocent party to remarry. But the questions must be asked: Is this passage really referring to divorce? If so, what are the grounds?
The key words in these two verses are “no favor” and “indecency.” The Hebrew word for “favor” is chên, which refers to beauty (objective).iv The word which is translated “indecency” is the Hebrew word `ervah. While in many places it is translated “uncleanness,” it can also be used to describe a physical blemish.v The reason for choosing this usage of the word for this passage will be explained later in this chapter. When verse 1 is read in the light of these words, it comes out:
1When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no beauty (graciousness) in his eyes because he has found some physical blemish in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife... (Deuteronomy 24:1-2, NASB, paraphrased)
These two verses give us the true definition of the “innocent party”, as well as defining the proper use of the certificate of divorce. The grounds for divorce in this case are quite simple. What must be kept in mind when interpreting these two verses is that the problem being dealt with is unique to cultures that utilize arranged marriages. Throughout the Middle East, particularly during Old Testament times, it was not uncommon for the bride (heavily veiled) and groom to meet for the first time on the day of their wedding. In many cases, the groom never saw the face of the bride until the wedding night because she remained veiled throughout the festivities. Laban utilized this custom to deceive Jacob and cause him to marry his daughter Leah (Genesis
15
29:16-28). The picture that emerges is as follows: The husband and wife are united in marriage. On the night of their honeymoon he discovers that, either because of her physical appearance or her personality, she is definitely not what he bargained for (Literally!), so he has the marriage annulled. Since the marriage was never consummated, she is perfectly free to remarry. It is in this situation that the husband could give his bride a certificate of divorce to take away the stigma of adultery. This document protected her from being stoned as an adulteress. She is, in every sense of the words, the “innocent party.” In other words, Deuteronomy 24:1-2 is not describing a divorce, but an annulment. The marriage in these two verses was never consummated.
How do we know this? Let’s consider verses three and four:
3and 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, 4then 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. (Deuteronomy 24:3-4)
For the sake of discussion, the passage presents two scenarios in which the wife has again either been sent away, or her new husband has died. For reasons known only to the first husband, he decides that he was wrong to send her away, and desires to remarry her. Verse 4 makes it clear that this is no longer an option for him because the second husband did what he did not do - consummate the marriage. Consider the words “after that she is defiled.” No mention is made of the first husband ever consummating the marriage. This is an extremely important omission. There are those today who will not accept the reality of this omission. They claim that the text assumes sexual relations on the part of the first spouse. This is a dangerous view! The Bible never assumes! On the contrary, it is not bashful about noting the physical aspect of marriage. Consider the following examples:
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve.... (Genesis 4:1a)
Cain had relations with his wife.... (Genesis 4:17a)
Adam had relations with his wife again.... (Genesis 4:25a)
.... And Elkanah had relations with Hannah his wife.... (1 Samuel 1:19b)
On the other hand, if she is ever divorced, she cannot remarry the first husband without being guilty of adultery. What is similar in both situations is that the certificate of divorce protects the “innocent party” (the pure bride) from being stoned as an adulteress. Please note a glaring omission in the second half of this passage. The first half ends with permission for the bride to remarry (“....she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife...”). The second half does not contain this permission. On
16
the contrary, it reinforces the teaching that divorce does not dissolve the one flesh relationship between a husband and wife. The first husband is not allowed to remarry her, even though he never consummated the relationship in the first place, and permission is not given for her to remarry.
These verses raise an interesting point. The passage makes absolutely no reference to immoral behavior on the part of the bride. All we know is that she has been sent away for a second time. It would be incorrect to simply make the textually unwarranted assumption that she has committed adultery. What appears more likely is that God is anticipating that the ability to divorce one’s spouse would be abused in the future. We seem to have a similar situation to that found in Deuteronomy 17:14. In this passage, God gave the children of Israel instructions regarding the anointing of a king. God’s plan for the nation of Israel was that they were to be ruled by Him (a Theocracy), not a human king. That was to be one of the distinguishing features of the new nation. However, God knew that the day was coming when they would want a king like themselves - human. His instructions of Deuteronomy 17 were not a display of His approval for this forthcoming decision; rather, they were an acknowledgment of what was to come and a display of God’s mercy in defining the type of individual who was to wear the crown. In the same way, the acknowledgment that non-adultery related divorces would take place was not a sign of God’s approval; rather, it was a sign of His mercy that He provided for the protection of the innocent party.
A situation similar to that found in Deuteronomy 24 is dealt with in Deuteronomy 22:13- 21. The passage opens with the same type of scenario, only this time two themes are introduced. In the first theme, the couple is married and the relationship is consummated. This passage uses a phrase which is not found in Deuteronomy 24, “....and goes in to her.” This is the point of distinction between the two passages that indicates that this relationship was consummated, whereas the relationship in the first example was not. However, we find in this situation that the husband grows to hate his
new wife and attempts to end the marriage relationship on the basis of accusations. Here is what the passage teaches:
13“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16“The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18“So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:13-19, emphasis added)
false
17
In this case, the husband is shown to be a liar. One would think that the bride should be allowed to leave her husband under these circumstances; after all, there is no doubt that she is the “innocent party.” This, however, is not the case. On the contrary, the husband is punished, assessed a fine (to be paid to his father-in-law), and he is never allowed to divorce her. The Scriptures are consistent in their insistence that immorality is the only ground upon which a marriage relationship may be broken.
On the other hand, verses twenty and twenty-one assume that the accusations of the husband are indeed true.
20But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
The judgment is final. She was to be put to death.
It is important that the distinction between Deuteronomy 22 and 24 be maintained. If, as some contend, we must assume that coition has taken place in Deuteronomy 24, we cause a contradiction that did not exist previously. How so? Chapter 22 makes it clear that the punishment for adultery is death, not divorce. Yet the spouse in chapter 24 is allowed to remarry. How can this be if she is guilty of adultery? The answer is clear. Since God cannot contradict Himself, only Deuteronomy 22 refers to immorality on the part of the spouse.
What do these two passages tell us about the theory of the “innocent party?”
First, if the marriage is never consummated, there is no actual divorce; it is an annulment, which releases both parties to marry someone else. Second, if the marriage has been consummated but one of the partners attempts to end the relationship on the basis of false accusations, the Scriptures deny the availability of divorce. On the contrary, they are emphatic that “....he cannot divorce her all his days.” Third, if there was actually immorality, the partner faced death, not divorce. Since society has elected to do away with the death penalty as a viable punishment for adultery, we are left with the New Testament teaching that permits divorce in the case of adultery, but not remarriage.
Some will object to this interpretation on the ground that Jesus used the word “divorce” in His teaching. Was he remiss in using this terminology? No. We must remember that Jewish law treated the betrothed couple as married. This is part of the historical context that has largely been ignored. They were considered to be married, but had not yet consummated the relationship with the physical act. In such societies (which still exist in the middle east and orient), any sexual activity that occurs during the betrothal period outside the bounds of marriage is looked upon as adultery. Likewise, breaking off the
18
relationship prior to consummation is considered to be divorce. Deueronomy 22 gives us an example of this mindset. Verses 23 and 24 refer to the virgin who is betrothed as “his neighbor’s wife.” The same passage makes it clear that the man who sleeps with such a woman has committed adultery -- even though the woman was not (at least by our standards) actually married. The situation with which Joseph was faced in Matthew 1:18-25 is a good example of this. He was of a mind to follow the lead of the Rabbis and quietly divorce Mary (note that they were considered to be married even though he had not yet taken her into his home and consummated the relationship). This was in accordance with the loophole they had created by their misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24. According to Deuteronomy 22, Mary should have been stoned as an adulteress. Obviously God used the loophole to preserve the life of Mary, but such was not actually permitted by a strict adherence to the law. The point is that annulment was not a concept with which the Jews were familiar; therefore, Jesus was not remiss in using the word “divorce” while addressing the questions of the Pharisees. However, given today’s differentiation between engagement and marriage, annulment most accurately describes the situation found in Deuteronomy 24 – that of the relationship which had not been consummated.
In considering the theory of the “innocent party,” we must take into account how God dealt with the nation of Israel.
God made it clear that He hates divorce. However, it is in His divorce of the nation of Israel that we get the clearest picture of His intentions. The following verses relate the conditions under which God divorced Israel:
Thus says the LORD,
“Where is the certificate of divorce
By which I have sent your mother away?
Or to whom of My creditors did I sell you?
Behold, you were sold for your iniquities,
And for your transgressions your mother was sent away.” (Isaiah 50:1)
1God says, “If a husband divorces his wife And she goes from him
And belongs to another man,
Will he still return to her?
Will not that land be completely polluted?
But you are a harlot with many lovers;
Yet you turn to Me,” declares the LORD....
6Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. 7“I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8“And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her
19
treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.. (Jeremiah 3:1, 6-8)
“If you will return, O Israel,” declares the LORD, “Then you should return to Me..... (Jeremiah 4:1a)
God likened His relationship with Israel to marriage. Israel was His bride, His wife. But in spite of all His clear commands to them, they strayed - spiritual adultery. In fact, God goes so far as to call Israel a whore. It was upon the basis of Israel’s spiritual adultery that God finally said, “I have divorced you.”
God was definitely the “innocent party” in this situation. According to today’s prevailing thinking, He would certainly be within His rights to remarry. However, the preceding verses make it clear that God still waits for the day that Israel will be reconciled to Him. Should this not be our attitude as well?
20
4
Two Schools of Thought, One Rule to Live by
Let’s take a moment to consider the historical context into which Jesus’ teachings (recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were sent.
As we have already seen in the previous chapters, Jesus’ teaching stood in stark contrast to the teachings of His day. The importance of this contrast, however, has been overlooked. Much of the religious world was divided into one of two camps. On the one hand was the rabbinical school of Hillel. The followers of this rabbi believed that divorce was permissible for any reason. On the other hand was the school of Shammai. His followers held to a much narrower basis for divorce. Both schools held one belief in common: remarriage was permissible, even desirable.
Enter Jesus. Jesus’ power in speaking, His overwhelming hold on the attention of His hearers, can be explained by the fact that He did not rely on the teachings of the rabbinical fathers for His authority. The people were astounded when He spoke, because, “...He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:29). The difference between the teaching of Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees was that the only authority that could be claimed by the religious leaders was that which they found in the opinions of other teachers; they were considered to be knowledgeable and authoritative only as they quoted from the accepted sources. Jesus, on the other hand, spoke ex cathedra, relying solely on the authority of God and His words.
That is the crucial point that has been missed by the vast majority of commentators. The Pharisees came to Jesus with a demand -- bring your teachings into line with the rabbinical fathers. They demanded that He choose between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Jesus’ response to their demand is crucial to our understanding of this issue. It seemed for a moment that He was giving approval to Shammai (a very narrow basis for divorce), but then He went beyond the stated question to answer the real question that lay on their minds -- and declared the conclusions of both schools to be wrong. They only questioned Him about divorce -- they made the mistaken assumption that He was in agreement with them about remarriage. It is these types of unfounded assumptions that have caused so much trouble for the Church down through the years. Did you notice those words in Matthew 5:32, “but I say to you...”? Jesus set Himself apart from the religious world and made His own proclamation. In other words, He created His own distinct historical context -- the context that must mold our understanding.
This leads us into the rule that must govern our interpretation of the Deuteronomy passages. Much of today’s teaching is based on rabbinical thought, a philosophy that was declared null and void by Jesus Himself! In doing so, today’s religious leaders
21
have done what Paul warned the Galatians against: “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor” (Galatians 2:18), and in so doing have committed a grave exegetical error; the resulting conclusions which they have derived must of necessity be flawed. We must not interpret Christ’s words in the light of what unregenerate men (Jewish Rabbis) declared; rather, Jesus’ proclamations are the standard by which we judge their sayings.
3What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.” (Romans 3:3-4).
22
5
Divorce Before Salvation
It is a situation that has repeated itself a thousand times this year. The couple has been dating for several months, and they now have the desire to unite their lives in marriage. Both of them have a desire to follow the Lord in their lives, are active in witnessing, and have spotless testimonies. The pastor, who knows the backgrounds of both individuals, says, “Go ahead! I’ll be happy to marry you!” There is only one small problem -- he is divorced, and his wife is still living. So the couple go back to talk with the pastor, just to be sure. “Nothing to worry about,” he says reassuringly. “It happened before he was saved.” Secure in this knowledge, they marry.
Sound familiar? It’s safe to assume that all of us can name at least one couple that has had this experience. It raises a fascinating question: What do we do with those who were divorced before salvation? If any group “has it made,” this one would seem to be it. That is, if you hold with popular opinion.
The argument is based on this premise: All sin was paid for when Jesus died. Therefore, when we accept His salvation, all of our past sins are under the blood. This includes divorce, and releases the newly-saved to remarry (or to remain in a remarriage) when they find the right Christian mate.
It sounds good. It appears to be rather difficult to argue. And it is even true -- up to a point. Jesus’ death at Calvary does indeed cover our sins, even divorces that violate God’s guideline. It begs one very important question, however: the question of God’s sovereignty.
Do we truly believe that God is sovereign in the affairs of life, even those of the unsaved? Do we really understand that God works out His will even in the lives of the unregenerate? Have we come to realize that, despite the politically correct notion that morality cannot be legislated, God’s law is still binding upon the unsaved?
The principle upon which this is based is found in Proverbs 21:1 - “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.” This is an unqualified statement; it makes no reference to, or assumptions regarding, the regenerate state of the king -- or the lack thereof. It simply states the principle that God is at work in the lives of all people, even kings, to work out His will. This precept is mirrored in the following passages:
He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless. (Isaiah 40:23)
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (Romans 13:1)
23
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16)
We read in Exodus of God working out His will through the unregenerate Pharaoh. The Persian king Cyrus is called “My Shepherd” (Isaiah 44:28), and Nebuchadnazzer, “My servant” (Jeremiah 25:9). God is indeed sovereign, even in the lives of the unsaved. John the Baptizer lost his head because of his insistence that God’s law regarding adultery was binding upon unsaved King Herod (Matthew 14:1-11).
How, then, does this apply to those who were divorced before salvation?
We read the command given in both Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9. To whom was this addressed? Unsaved religious leaders. The teaching is tremendously clear: God brings all together in marriage, even the unsaved. Is it possible to marry outside the will of God? Yes. Nonetheless, God is capable of preventing a marriage. He has permitted many to marry in rebellion to His will. What then? “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” He has permitted it to take place; His will now consists of remaining faithful in that union -- as long as it does not violate His law regarding marriage to a divorced person.
But this particular issue goes even farther than that.
First, there is the matter of the marriage vows. Even in the vast majority of weddings between unsaved individuals it is still common to acknowledge the presence of God during the proceedings. The words, “We are gathered together here in the presence of God...” creates a troublesome situation for the couple. Why? They have, by allowing such wording to remain, tacitly acknowledged their responsibility to God in their marriage! In essence, they have asked God to be the witness of their vows, to hold them accountable for everything that is said during the course of the ceremony.
God takes this matter of vows very seriously, indeed. We are reminded of His admonitions in the Old Testament:
2“If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. 3“Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, 4and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5“But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her. 6“However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash
24
25
statement of her lips by which she has bound herself, 7and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8“But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.
9“But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, everything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. 10“However, if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by an obligation with an oath, 11and her husband heard it, but said nothing to her and did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand. 12“But if her husband indeed annuls them on the day he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the obligation of herself shall not stand; her husband has annulled them, and the LORD will forgive her. 13“Every vow and every binding oath to humble herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it. 14“But if her husband indeed says nothing to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her obligations which are on her; he has confirmed them, because he said nothing to her on the day he heard them. 15“But if he indeed annuls them after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.” (Numbers 30:2-15)
When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. (Deuteronomy 23:21)
4When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! 5It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. 6Do not let your speech cause you to sin and do not say in the presence of the messenger of God that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry on account of your voice and destroy the work of your hands? (Ecclesiastes 5:4-6)
Can there be any doubt of the seriousness of the situation into which the unsaved couple is placed? A grave disservice has been done to many couples by pastors who have failed to warn them that the God they invite into their marriage is the God of covenant.
Second, we must not forget that when one becomes a Christian, he places himself under a new set of principles. Where before he was free as a child of Satan to marry, divorce, and remarry almost at will, he is now governed by the principle that was discussed in the previous chapters. As Romans 7:1-3 states,
1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
One may ask, “But aren’t we as Christians free from the law?” Yes. God’s ceremonial law -- the law that governed the sacrifices and everything related to them. But we are still responsible for God’s moral law. We are not allowed to steal, lie, murder, or commit adultery (just to name a few) because God’s moral law is still in effect. It is clear from Paul’s teaching, both in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7, that the moral law is still binding on those who profess Christ as Savior. Therefore, the newly-saved who remarries while the spouse is alive is named an adulterer.
26
6 ABUSE
Our hearts go out to those who find themselves in abusive marriages. The numbers seem to increase daily -- yet another sign of the times in which we live. Whether it be verbal, mental, physical, or sexual, abuse destroys self image, degrades dignity, even reduces mental capabilities in some. Indeed, it is an attack on the very image of God that resides in each of us.
This chapter will probably be the most difficult to accept. We have seen that the scriptures are consistent in their insistence that adultery is the only basis for divorce. We have also seen that remarriage is not an option for the Christian.
Where does this leave the victim of abuse?
If we take another look at Deuteronomy 22:13-19, we begin to see the answer to this question. As you will recall, this passage deals with the man who attempts to end his marriage by publicly bringing false charges of immorality against the bride -- verbal and mental abuse. The passage ends with the admonition that the husband may never divorce her. However, it also outlines an avenue of recourse for the wife.
It is obvious from a study of this passage that both the church and the legal system have their place in dealing with abuse within the context of the Christian marriage. In the days when Deuteronomy was written, there was only one court and one law -- both were religious in nature. Today, because of the teaching of separation of Church and state, religious matters are now handled by the church, whereas criminal matters are relegated to the state.
The Church
The Bible, in Matthew 18:15-17, clearly outlines the method for dealing with offenses between Christians. We have to start here, because the Bible also forbids bringing a Christian brother to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-6). Since the vast majority of churches are afraid to touch church discipline, we will do well to reacquaint ourselves with the teaching of Matthew 18.
15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)
It takes courage and character to confront an individual in the spirit of Matthew 18. First of all, please notice that the goal of this passage is reconciliation. These verses are not
27
to be used as a club with which to beat the offending party. We must be sure that we approach such situations with a genuine concern and love for the erring member. However, offenses must be dealt with. The church has unwittingly played a part in the prolongation of many abuse situations because of its unwillingness to confront and expose such sins. Too many are afraid of what people will think if we acknowledge the reality of abuse within our church families. Jesus was not afraid to command discipline; we cannot be afraid to implement it. It must be added that in some abuse situations it may become necessary for the abused spouse to carry out Matthew 18 while living separately from the abuser. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the abused must remain under the same roof as the abuser! There are situations in which it is appropriate for a pastor to recommend a separation for the sake of safety. This does not take the place of Matthew 18, it is in addition to it.
So what does this passage teach? It is quite simple. First, the offending party is confronted alone (v. 15). Please note that alone does not necessarily equate to “in the home”. If there is danger that such a confrontation could lead to violence, then choose a public setting that will discourage such an outburst. If this first confrontation does not lead to true repentance and reconciliation, then proceed to step two -- take one or two others along as witnesses to what is said (v. 16). Let it be understood that this is their only function. They are present so that at a later date they may testify to the truth of what the offended party has stated and accurately relate the response of the offender. If this confrontation does not lead to repentance, then you proceed to the third step -- bringing it before the church (v. 17). It is at this point that the offending party is excommunicated if true repentance is not in evidence. But along with excommunication the offending party also acquires a new status -- he is to be treated as though he was never saved. This does not mean that he loses his salvation; rather, it is an acknowledgment that this one was possibly never saved in the first place! Why is this so important? Since the Bible prohibits taking a brother to court, such action on the part of the church opens the way for the State to step in and perform its duties.
The State
Romans 13 states that government is ordained by God (Romans 13:1-2). It has two functions:
[f]or it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. (Romans 13:4)
What are the two functions? To protect (“...it is a minister of God to thee for good...”) and to punish (“...a revenger to execute wrath...”).
God’s Word does not deny us legal recourse. On the contrary, it establishes it. The abused party has the same right to make her appeal to Caesar that Paul exercised. The legal system is in place to protect the abused from further abuse. It may mean
28
mandatory counseling or it may mean jail for the offender. But let us not forget that God is the one who ordained the refuge of law.
Here is where the teaching becomes difficult for the offended party to hear.
The abused spouse, after following the teaching of Matthew 18, should consider herself to be in the same position as outlined in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 -- an unequally yoked marriage. Divorce is not something you should seek (see chapter 2). Separation may be necessary for the sake of safety, but scripturally divorce is not an option. To those of you who have divorced your abusive spouses, remarriage is not an option. Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians remains:
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
(1 Corinthians 7:39)
Wait on the Lord. It may very well be that your actions and attitudes throughout this entire process will be that which God uses to bring about salvation, repentance, and reconciliation (1 Corinthians 7:16). If indeed God has another person in mind for you, He knows what must happen to clear the way; He cannot contradict His own Word.
29
7
The Historic Position of the Church
The assertion was made at the beginning of this book that the position espoused by the author is actually that historically held by the church from its earliest days. We have already made the distinction between the teachings of the rabbis and those of Jesus; it now remains to demonstrate the understanding of church leaders through the years.
Some of the earliest treatments of this subject come from a group of men known collectively as the “Ante-Nicene Fathers.” These are some of the men who led the Church in the days following the Apostles, a time period roughly extending into the second century; their writings concerning divorce and remarriage help illuminate the teachings of the Apostles and give us the clearest picture of the understanding of the early Church concerning this issue. Of these writers, perhaps none state the biblical guidelines governing divorce and remarriage with greater clarity than Tertullian and Hermas.
Tertullian, of the city of Carthage in Africa, was the son of a proconsular centurion who came to Christ while in his thirties. He was well-educated, a prolific author, and one of the first latin presbyters of the early church.1 His “Apologia on Monogamy” is a no- nonsense statement that leaves no doubt about his understanding of this issue:
So far as regards the non-destruction of the will of God, and the restruction of the law of “the beginning.” But another reason, too conspires; nay, not another, but (one) which imposed the law of “the beginning,” and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce: the fact that (he) who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a (woman) dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery.3 A divorced woman cannot even marry legitimately; and if she commit any such act without the name of marriage, does it not fall under the category of adultery, in that adultery is crime in the way of marriage? Such is God's verdict, within straiter limits than men's, that universally, whether through marriage or promiscuously, the admission of a second man (to intercourse) is pronounced adultery by Him. For let us see what marriage is in the eye of God; and thus we shall learn what adultery equally is. Marriage is (this): when God joins “two into one flesh;” or else, finding (them already) joined in the same flesh, has given His seal to the conjunction. Adultery is (this): when, the two having been - in whatsoever way - disjoined, other - nay, rather alien - flesh is mingled (with either): flesh concerning which it cannot be affirmed, “This is flesh out of my flesh, and this bone out of my bones.”4 For this, once for all done and pronounced, as from the beginning, so now too, cannot apply to “other”
30
flesh. Accordingly, it will be without cause that you will say that God wills not a divorced woman to be joined to another man.
Tertullian here deals with the subject of the woman who has been divorced for reasons other than adultery. He affirms, in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, that remarriage for an individual in this situation constitutes adultery. To use his terminology, such a union is illegitimate. Why, you may ask? Tertullian based his conclusions on the “one-flesh” principle, a principle with which we have already dealt. It is a violation of the marriage covenant, which applies exclusively to the couple in their first marriage. According to Tertullian, to remarry is to introduce alien flesh to the one- flesh covenant; it is a vain attempt to apply an exclusive covenant to a party that is, by the very nature of the covenant, ineligible. We are reminded that God’s parameters are much narrower, more confining, than those generally accepted by man. It is upon this basis that he will conclude,
Such is God's verdict, within straiter limits than men's, that universally, whether through marriage or promiscuously, the admission of a second man (to intercourse) is pronounced adultery by Him. (emphasis added)
Hermas is another of the leaders of the early church who took issue with remarriage. Hermas is believed to be the same man mentioned in the book of Romans (Romans 16:14), and many in the early church believed his writings were as inspired as those of Peter, Paul, or the other Apostles. They were read publicly as scripture and quoted in the writings of others. Among those who considered his writings to be divinely inspired are some of the most notable of the early church fathers – Origen, Jerome, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. With such credence given to the writing of Hermas, it behooves us in our day to give serious consideration to that which he can teach us.
COMMANDMENT FOURTH.
ON PUTTING ONE'S WIFE AWAY FOR ADULTERY.
CHAP. I.
“I charge you,” said he, “to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another man’s Wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own Wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart, then you will sin; and if in like manner, you think other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked deed, he works death for himself. Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity ought not enter the heart of a righteous man.” I said to him, “Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions.” “Say on,” said he. And I said to him, “Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?” And he said to me, “As
31
long as he remains ignorant of her sin the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication and yet the husband continues to live with her. he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.” And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?” And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another he also commits adultery.”
While we may question some of the logic in evidence regarding guilt by coition, there can be no mistaking the logic of the final conclusion. It is firmly in line with what we have seen the scriptures teach. The conclusion of Hermas strikes at the heart of one of today’s most beloved theories, the theory that remarriage is justified in the case of the innocent spouse. Again, this is in line with the principles enunciated by Jesus in the Gospels and the Apostle Paul in both Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. It is almost simplistic in its pronouncement, and yet the magnitude of this conclusion is of such a scale as to be mind-boggling. It declares the modern-day church to be among the greatest purveyors of adultery because of its permissive approach to remarriage. Our failure to warn the younger generations of the ramifications of remarriage has left the church in a state of debilitating anemia. The conclusion reached by Hermas must be given its due heed: the innocent husband who separates from his wife, if he is to remain innocent, must remain single.
The chain of conviction that was forged by men such as Tertullian and Hermas has been maintained by others who followed in their footsteps. There are many others to whom we could refer, but we will limit ourselves in this treatment to two other men whose writings bridge a time period of nearly four hundred years.
First, John Calvin. Although he is best known for his teachings regarding election and predestination, and his position as a reformer, he did have some things to say regarding remarriage. After examining Romans 7:1-4, his conclusion was basically a word-for- word repetition of the verse itself: “The woman is bound to her living husband by the law, so that she can not be the wife of another; but after the death of her husband she is loosed from the bond of this law, so that she is free to marry whom she pleases.” He spent a little more time explaining his conclusion based on 1 Corinthians 7:39:
CHAP. VII. 39. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
Vs: 39. The wife is bound. He had previously spoken indiscriminately of husbands and wives, but as wives, on account of the modesty of their sex, might seem to have less liberty, he has thought it necessary to give in addition some special directions in reference to them. He now, therefore, teaches that women are not less at liberty than men to marry a second time, on their becoming widows.2 We have already mentioned above that those who desired a second marriage were branded with the reproach of intemperance, and that, with the view of putting some
32
kind of sight upon them, those who had been contented with being once married, were wont to be presented with the “chaplet of chastity.” Nay more, this first opinion had, in course of time, become prevalent among Christians; for second marriages had no blessing pronounced upon them, and some Councils prohibited the clergy from being present on such occasions.
What must be noted from a study of John Calvin is that his emphasis is on the widow and her right to remarry. Because the sanctity of the marriage vow was held in such high regard, there was really no need to even address the issue during this time in history. However, this certainly would not have precluded a treatment of the topic. In short, it appears that Calvin refused to dignify the issue by responding to it.
Finally we come to a man from our own time, a man who is greatly respected as a Bible scholar of the first rank and a preacher without equal. Warren Wiersbe is one of the gentle giants of our time. When it comes to preaching or writing he is not afraid to address the hard topics, yet he does so without the edge that seems to characterize others. He does not set out as a man with something to prove; he merely puts forth the Word and lets it stand on its own merits. His treatment of the divorce/remarriage issue is no different. His characteristic compassion is evident in his writing, but never overshadows his concern for scriptural purity. Consider the following passages in which he deals with Romans 7:1-6, and 1 Corinthians 7:39-40:
I. TWO HUSBANDS - 7:1-6
He uses the marriage relationship to illustrate our relationship to the law. (Keep in mind that when Paul speaks of “the law” he means, not only the OT law of Moses, but any kind of legislation that the believer uses to curb sin or attain holiness.) The two husbands are the law and the Lord Jesus Christ. When a woman is married to a man, she is bound to that man until he dies. Then she is free to marry again .
Before we met Christ, we were bound by the law and condemned by it. The law, however, did not "die" when we were saved; instead, WE DIED IN CHRIST! We are no longer “married” to a system of regulations; we are “married” to Jesus Christ, and the law has no control over us! Read 7:4 again and again and absorb its wonderful message. Our old “husband” has no control over us: we are in a wonderful new relationship through Christ. When we were lost, the law triggered the “arousings of sin” in our old nature, and this produced death (vs. 5). But now we are delivered from the law and serve in newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter (vs. 6).
Vs. 6 does not suggest that Christians have no obligations to obey God. Actually, our obligations are now greater since we know Christ and belong to God's family. The NT demands are far more severe than the OT Law, for the NT (the Sermon on the Mount, for example) deals with inward
33
attitudes, and not outward actions only. But vs. 6 teaches that our motivation in obeying is different: we are not simply mechanically obeying a set of rules; we are lovingly, from the heart, obeying the Spirit of God Who fulfills the righteousness of the Law in us (8:4). A beginning pianist can play a number “letter perfect” and still not capture the inner spirit of the song the way an accomplished musician can. Our obedience to God is not that of a slave fearing a master, but a bride lovingly trying to please her Bridegroom.
It is evident from his interpretation of this passage that only the widow is eligible to be remarried. The important point of this particular passage, which affects how we deal with the doctrine of salvation, is that we did not merely separate from sin; we did not go before a judge who declared our relationship with sin to be over. On the contrary, we died to sin. It is the emphasis that only death brings about true freedom from the law – whether it be the law of the human husband, or the law of sin and death – our spiritual first husband. Paul borrows here from a law that governs human relationships to illustrate our position in Christ. He could do so because this basic law does not change: “When a woman is married to a man, she is bound to that man until he dies. Then she is free to marry again.” Wiersbe’s conclusion based on 1 Corinthians 7:39-40 serves to emphasize the true nature of the marriage relationship and, conversely, the illegitimacy of remarriage after divorce:
Do not be in a hurry, for marriage is for life (39-40). The marriage cannot be broken because of some whim or fancy; for only death severs the bonds. (Of course Christ taught that sexual sins gave the right for divorce.) Too many people (including some Christians) have the idea, “If our marriage doesn’t work out, we can always get a divorce.” Not so, says Paul! When you marry, be sure it is “in the Lord” - that is, be sure you marry a Christian and that your mate is the one God has chosen for you. How tragic to see young lives ruined by hasty marriages. (italics added)
What does all of this mean for us today? Very simply, it means that we have turned our backs on that which was historically held by the church to be true. We can demonstrate an unbroken chain of teaching from the earliest days of the church right up to the present that validates the scriptural principle governing divorce and remarriage. And for those who would be true to God’s Word, who truly believe it to be the only standard for practice and truth, there is only one conclusion to be drawn. As we have already seen clearly demonstrated, “When a woman is married to a man, she is bound to that man until he dies. Then she is free to marry again.”
34
8
THE SOLUTION TO REMARRIAGE ADULTERY
John MacArthur made the following statement in a non-copyrighted booklet he wrote entitled “The Biblical Position on Divorce and Remarriage”:
“In cases where a believer obtained a divorce on nonbiblical grounds and remarried, the second marriage union is recognized as living in “adultery” (Mk. 10:11-12). If repentance takes place, it is recognized that to obtain a second divorce would disobey Scripture (Deut. 24:1-4). Hence, they are to remain in the second marriage.” (Empasis added)
While we agree that there are definite Biblical grounds under which divorce is permitted, we have clearly seen in the preceding chapters that remarriage is only permitted upon the death of a spouse (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39). We have further seen (chapter 3) that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 has nothing to do with seeking a second divorce. To review, this passage addresses the situation in which a woman who has been divorced from Husband Number One (H1, the unconsummated marriage) and marries Husband Number Two (H2, who consummates the marriage and then divorces her), is forbidden by God from ever returning to H1 because H2 did what H1 refused to do - consummate the marriage. In other words, God has not dissolved the one-flesh relationship that exists between H2 and the wife. This understanding of the passage is consistent with the teaching we have from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. As long as the second husband lives, she may not marry another – not even her first husband.
It is MacArthur’s conclusion that raises the most important question. If remarriage following divorce is adultery, and the scriptures certainly teach that this is so, how do we deal with the problem of the adulterous remarriage situation? Is, according to the logical conclusion of MacArthur’s teaching, remarriage adultery the only sin from which we may not fully repent? We are instructed as Christians to repent from our sins, to turn our backs on them. We are commanded to cease from practicing them. Remarried individuals seem to find themselves in a predicament. They might recognize that their remarriage was a sin and confess it as such, but then, unlike an extra-marital affair that can be resolved by breaking off the relationship with “the other woman/man,” MacArthur states that they must continue living in that same sinful situation. Does this mean that adultery is the unpardonable sin? It certainly is not. However, Christians have allowed themselves to be persuaded that remarriage adultery is a sin that fits into its own distinct category, complete with its own set of rules governing forgiveness which do not apply to other sins. It is usually argued that once a person has claimed God’s forgiveness (especially if the remarriage took place before salvation), he/she can continue to live in the remarriage as though they had never before been married. This assumption is completely illogical and, as has already been shown, entirely without scriptural basis.
35
Consider the following examples of “normal” sin/forgiveness situations. If one is a habitual liar before salvation, he is forgiven at salvation. But if that person lies after salvation, he has become a liar once again and must confess his sin anew (1 John 1:9). If we commit murder and confess it to God, then turn around and murder again, must we again confess it as sin? The answer is obvious. And yet, even though we accept these facts concerning all other types of sin, we have exempted remarriage adultery. Whether it happened before salvation, or if it was entered into after salvation, one fact remains true: each time that couple has sexual relations they have re-entered into adultery.
What actions, then, are required on the part of the Church and the individual who finds himself in this situation? Is it possible to rectify this problem? The Bible clearly teaches that there is a solution. We have been taught that there is only one scriptural basis for divorce. That is, divorce is permitted when blatant immorality is present. Permitted, not commanded. However, there is a set of conditions under which God, in the scriptures, commanded divorce. We find the answer to this situation in His command.
As we look back into the Old Testament, we find that God was very clear in His prohibition against marrying outside of the Jewish faith and race:
1“When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, 2and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3“Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. 4“For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. 5“But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire. 6“For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)
Why was this so important to God? Very simply, the Jews were the people of God’s covenant; anyone outside the Jewish race and faith was a stranger to that covenant. God was concerned about keeping their witness pure before the nations. Yet, in spite of these clear commands, the Bible tells us that many of the Jews took wives from other nations. In order to restore the Jewish people to His favor, God commanded them to divorce their wives, the strangers to the Covenant. Ezra 10 gives us this account:
36
37
2Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, said to Ezra, “We have been unfaithful to our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. 3“So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. 4“Arise! For this matter is your responsibility, but we will be with you; be courageous and act.”.... 10Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have been unfaithful and have married foreign wives adding to the guilt of Israel. 11“Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” 12Then all the assembly replied with a loud voice, “That’s right! As you have said, so it is our duty to do..... 17They finished investigating all the men who had married foreign wives by the first day of the first month. 18Among the sons of the priests who had married foreign wives were found of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brothers: Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib and Gedaliah. 19They pledged to put away their wives, and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their offense..... 44All these had married foreign wives, and some of them had wives by whom they had children. (Ezra 10:2-4, 10-12, 17-19, 44, emphasis added)
How does this apply to the Christian who finds him/herself in an adulterous remarriage situation?
The answer, while extremely painful for everyone involved, is all too clear. If repenting of sin means turning our backs on it and ceasing to practice it, then only one conclusion is possible: The remarried couple must divorce.
Three arguments can be made for the divorce of a remarried couple.
First, divorce is permitted (not commanded) on the basis of adultery. Since the scriptures are clear that remarriage constitutes adultery (e.g. immorality), divorce is permitted as the solution.
Second, according to Malachi 2:14, when a couple marries they enter into a covenant with each other before God. He is the witness of everything that is promised. Consider what Malachi 2:14 teaches:
Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
The covenant relationship is between the wife and the husband only, and is to be kept pure; it is an exclusive covenant that is dissolved only at the death of one of the marriage partners (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). To remarry, then, is to take a “foreign wife,” one to whom the covenant does not apply. Just as this was considered to be sin on the part of the Jews, so it is to be considered sinful on the part of the Christian.
Third, the price of a right relationship with God is both confession and repentance. Consider the following verses:
Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:4)
9I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. 10For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. (2 Corinthians 7:9-10)
The Greek word translated “repentance” is the word metanoia.vi It indicates that a reversal has taken place in one’s actions and attitudes, includes reformation, and where necessary, restitution. To pay mere lip service to the fact that one has sinned means nothing to God. It must lead to repentance - a change in lifestyle and attitude. One of the best examples we have in the Bible of this teaching is Zaccheus (Luke 19:2-8). His repentance lead not only to recognition of the fact of his sin, it also led to repayment of those he had defrauded. As applied to the divorce and remarriage issue (as with any other sin issue), mere confession is not sufficient; something must be done to change the relationship. Just as there was only one solution for the Jews who had sinned in this manner, so also there is only one solution for the Christian who has sinned in this manner: He/she must divorce the “foreign spouse,” even though there may be children involved (Ezra 10:44), and remain unmarried until the death of the first spouse (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39). It is only in taking this course of action that the chains of adultery can be broken and the Christian can be restored to a right relationship with God.
This is admittedly a harsh conclusion; but while there are many who would be disposed to accept the fact of the sin, those same individuals would be horrified at the thought that divorce is the only solution. One question that has been posed as a possible substitute solution is this: Would it not be possible for the couple to remain under the same roof in the state of marriage as long as they pledge to abstain from sexual relations? While this option may have a limited amount of appeal, it misses certain scriptural truths.
First, regular sexual relations in marriage are commanded by God. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 gives us the following instructions:
3Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Stop depriving one another, except
38
by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self- control.
God, through Paul, clearly states that abstinence is to be practiced by married couples only for the purpose of fasting and prayer, and then only for a defined period of time. Afterward, they are to re-engage in sexual relations. Why? Because God recognizes that our flesh is weak. The temptation will be to fulfill sexual appetites in ways that do not meet God’s approval.
This brings us to our second point. It is because of the weakness of the flesh that we cannot advise a remarried couple to attempt to remain celibate while living under the same roof. This would be a violation of a very basic principle. Romans 13:14b instructs us to “...make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.” Simply stated, living in such close proximity with a former spouse would constitute a much greater temptation than we could reasonably expect anyone to live with. The best course of action dictates that other living arrangements be devised.
A word of encouragement is appropriate at this point. No one will deny that following this teaching will lead to hardship for the couple. Because of the vows spoken before God to one another, there remains the responsibility of providing for the spouse and children. It is possible for the couple to remain faithful to their vows even though sexual intimacy is not permitted. We have a wonderful example of this in the person of our Heavenly Father. As we saw in chapter three, God divorced Israel because of spiritual adultery. Nevertheless, He continued to be faithful to His covenant with her, providing for her needs and keeping the lines of communication open. Hosea 2:5-8 gives us an interesting commentary on the situation. Israel, in its backslidden condition, began to think that her needs were being met by her adulterous lovers (v. 5). However, it was God who continued to provide for her needs. Listen to His words in verse eight:
“For she does not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, And lavished on her silver and gold, Which they used for Baal.” (Hosea 2:8, emphasis added)
What a testimony! God, the wronged party in this case, still made sure that Israel lacked for nothing! He was faithful to His promise to meet her needs, even though they were apart. Can you see the application for today? What we are discussing in this chapter is not a separation because your spouse ran out on you. We are discussing faithfulness to a vow between marriage partners who separate because they desire to be in right relationship with God in all areas of their lives. If God could remain faithful to His faithless spouse, how much more should we be able to remain faithful to a loyal spouse and family? This is the testimony that the world needs to see, and you who find yourselves in this position are uniquely qualified to demonstrate it.
39
9
THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED PASTOR
Eventually they get to this question. It may take a while, but sooner or later the question of the divorced and remarried pastor is raised. And well it should. This is a major consideration that will determine, to a great extent, how the rest of the church will respond when divorce hits their family or friends. After all, the pastor is to lead by example. This is clearly taught in 1 Peter 5:1-3:
1Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. (emphasis added)
The stand that we take with regard to the “exampler” will be the guideline we use when it hits closer to home. So the question remains: Does the Bible permit such an individual to continue in his position? Does divorce and remarriage affect his qualification for the pastorate? Is he permitted to remain in the pulpit as long as he is only the husband of “one wife at a time?”
As with the questions discussed in the previous chapters, the Bible has a clear response for those who would answer these questions affirmatively.
In order to understand the New Testament requirements for the pastor found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, it is necessary to consider the Old Testament foundation found in the Levitical priesthood.
The rationale given for these requirements was that of maintaining holiness and purity of example before the people (including those outside the Jewish faith), as well as maintaining the sanctity of the sacrifices and service before God.
1Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them,.... 6‘They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God, for they present the offerings by fire to the LORD, the food of their God; so they shall be holy. 7‘They shall not take a woman who is profaned by harlotry, nor shall they take a woman divorced from her husband; for he is holy to his God..... 13‘He shall take a wife in her virginity. 14‘A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is profaned by harlotry, these he may not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people, 15so that he will not profane his offspring among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctifies him.’” (Leviticus 21:1, 6-7, 13-15)
40
Under the Old Testament Levitical code, the man who served as priest was not allowed to take as his wife any woman who had ever had sexual relations, whether divorced or widowed. He was to marry a virgin. God presented very high standards for the priest, and this did not change under the New Testament economy, with one exception that will be discussed shortly.
We have already considered God’s view of divorce and remarriage. We have seen that the only way in which the covenant relationship is dissolved is through the death of the spouse; as long as the spouse is living, the covenant is in force.
How does this apply to the pastor? With the background of the Old Testament in mind, let’s consider the New Testament qualifications found in 1 Timothy and Titus:
1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
(1 Timothy 3:1-7)
5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife.... (Titus 1:5-6a)
According to the passages we considered at the beginning of this study, 1) the marriage partners are bound to one another as long as they are both living and 2) if they marry another while their spouse is living they commit adultery. The pastor who is divorced and remarried cannot truly be said to be the husband of only one wife; he is, in God’s eyes, a polygamist and an adulterer, and has therefore disqualified himself for ministry.
Where does this leave the divorced pastor who has remained single? Assuming that he is the victim of immorality, as the Scriptures teach, and has done everything possible to save his marriage, there is nothing to bar him from the ministry. This would also apply to those in the position of deacon. He has remained faithful to his wife, and is, as both 1 Timothy and Titus teach, literally the “husband of one wife.” In addition, when one considers the teaching of 1 Peter 5:1-4, he is giving the proper example to the church over which God has made him the pastor.
In essence, he becomes the Church dispensation’s counterpart of the prophet Hosea. As you may recall, God instructed Hosea to marry a prostitute and have children by her
41
(Hosea 1:2-3). This was done with full knowledge that she was eventually going to tire of him and return to prostitution (Hosea 2:5)! The picture in this relationship was that of a longsuffering God remaining faithful to his wandering bride, with the desire that she return to Him. He kept the lines of communication open and did what He could to repair the relationship (Hosea 2:6-7, 14-15). Unless the adulterous spouse remarries, the possibility of reconciliation remains a viable hope. Pastors who find themselves in this most unenviable position nonetheless have the opportunity to model a correct response for their churches.
It was observed earlier that there is one exception made in the New Testament that was not present in the Old Testament with regard to eligible marriage partners for the pastor. This exception relates to the stricture against marrying a widow. The basis for this exception is found in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul makes the statement in verse 39 that the Christian widow (or widower) is free to marry whomever they choose, as long as that person is a fellow believer. They are not bound by the previous marriage covenant any longer:
A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
(1 Corinthians 7:39)
Under the Old Testament economy, the widow was free to marry anyone she chose, as long as that person was 1) Jewish, 2) not a priest, and 3) not a former husband (as defined by Deuteronomy 24:3-4). Under the New Testament we are all priests (1 Peter 2:5); therefore this prohibition is no longer in effect. The widow/widower is free to marry any Christian, the only limitation being that God forbids marriage to a divorced individual.
42
10
Forgiveness ≠ Right Relationship
It almost never fails that, when the topic of remarriage is brought up for discussion, the individual with the strongest position is invariably accused of being unfeeling, uncaring, wholly without compassion, and, as the final insult, unforgiving. Somehow, we have come to equate unconditional acceptance of a person’s sinful lifestyle with scriptural forgiveness. Such was the case of the Corinthian believers in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul, however, took a completely different view of things. He made it clear that our ability to forgive an individual does not relieve him or her of their responsibility to seek restoration of a proper relationship with both men and God. In other words, forgiveness and right relationship are not synonymous -- hence, the equation in the chapter title (in longhand, forgiveness does not equal right relationship). Let’s consider what the Bible has to teach us about forgiveness and restoration.
We know from Jesus’ own example that forgiveness must be unconditional:
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
He didn’t wait for us to become “forgivable.” Perhaps the greatest demonstration of this principle occurred while He hung on the cross. It was during those hours, as Jesus was suspended between heaven and earth, that one of the two thieves dying with Him believed. His response, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43), includes no prerequisites or conditions. True forgiveness found its greatest expression under the cruelest of conditions.
But while Jesus gave us this unparalleled example of unconditional forgiveness, He was likewise emphatic about the need for restoration. It was not assumed that forgiveness on the part of the injured party equals restoration to right relationship. As was noted earlier, the kindness of God leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4), the proper response. Matthew 18:15-17, 21-22 gives us the following formula for restoring fellow believers to fellowship and right relationship:
15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.....21Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive
43
him? Up to seven times?” 22Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.”
Three points are in evidence in this passage: 1) God expects the injured party to forgive (v. 22); 2) The offending party must recognize his offense and demonstrate his repentance to enjoy restored fellowship (v. 15); 3) It is possible to be forgiven by the injured party, but still not be in fellowship (vs. 16-17). We should never forget that forgiveness is not synonymous with unconditional acceptance of sin.
This was the situation Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 5. It would appear that the believers in this city eventually came to the place where they considered forgiveness to be more important than discernment of sin and repentance. A young man was having an affair with his father’s wife. But rather than confront him with his sin, making repentance the pre-condition to right relationship, the church rejoiced in its ability to accept him in the midst of his sinful condition - testifying to the world that sin in the life of a believer is no obstacle to pure fellowship. Paul, however, strongly disagreed with this approach:
1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. 3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?.... 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Corinthians 5:1-6, 11-13)
Was Paul unforgiving? Certainly not! 2 Corinthians 2:10 makes it clear that Paul had indeed forgiven the young man. However, he recognized that if unhindered fellowship was to be achieved in this body of believers, repentance was necessary. So strongly did he hold this belief that he felt it necessary to “...deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh...” (1 Corinthians 5:5). Today’s Church has demonstrated a terrible reluctance to follow the example of Paul in dealing with unrepentant sinners. And in doing so, it has short-circuited the plan of God for proper relationship within the context of the Body of Christ.
What happened to the young man of 1 Corinthians 5? 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 gives us the rest of the story:
44
5But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree—in order not to say too much—to all of you. 6Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, 7so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. 9For to this end also I wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.
This is the desired result of God’s plan for restoration. The young man was brought back into proper relation with both God and man. This is also the approach we as Christians must take if we wish to enjoy fellowship with our fellow believers. Requiring sinning believers to repent as the normal course of restoration is not demonstrative of an unforgiving spirit. On the contrary, the Scriptures require it. It is, as Paul observed in 2 Corinthians 2:4, an expression of our love for our brothers and sisters:
For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not so that you would be made sorrowful, but that you might know the love which I have especially for you.
This is the New Testament application of the Old Testament principle: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6). If we truly believe what the Bible teaches us, we must come to the realization that we have been doing no one a favor by taking a non-confrontational approach to the remarriage issue. In reality we are confirming that we have little, if any, love for other believers. In fact, Proverbs says that we are deceitful. Doesn’t that stand to reason? If we truly believe that someone is sinning by remarrying, yet fail to warn them, are we not leading them to believe a lie? We are, in fact, practicing deception. Proverbs 26:28 has this to say about the lying tongue: “A lying tongue hates those it crushes, And a flattering mouth works ruin.” Much has been said in recent years about “tough love,” usually in the context of abusive relationships. It is time that we applied the same type of love to our brothers and sisters who are considering remarriage as an option after divorce. We need to care deeply enough about them that we will risk being misunderstood, that we will chance hurting their feelings. Sometimes the greatest demonstration of our love can also be the greatest source of pain. It does not, however, make us any less forgiving.
45
11
Grace Under Fire
Normally, this phrase refers to one who has undergone a particularly trying set of circumstances while maintaining a high level of composure and dignity. It is this demonstrated ability to remain true to one’s principles without recrimination that shows the rest of us how to face tribulation.
But it is not to this trait that we refer in this context.
Within the context of divorce and remarriage, this phrase must be taken literally. Grace is under fire.
Perhaps no other Biblical precept has been more abused than grace. It is the trump card of all theological debates, the big gun one brings out when all other arguments have failed. And the debate regarding remarriage is no different. We may remarry because of God’s grace – in this day and age, regardless of the reasons behind the divorce. Why? Because God, in His grace, would never want me to be unhappy. God, in His grace, knows that I have needs that must be met (you know the needs to which we refer here). Because God, in His grace, knew that the spouse to whom I was married really wasn’t the right person for me in the first place. And as we all know, God is the God of second chances. Or finally, because God, in His grace, permits just about anything – regardless of its relationship to His expressed Word and will.
The basic issue here is one that has plagued the Church for millennia. On the one hand, we know that God’s grace did indeed provide for our complete forgiveness through the salvation made possible by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ (Titus 2:11). On the other hand, the same grace that brought us salvation also requires that we demonstrate the truth of that salvation in the context of our lives (Titus 2:12). The issue with which we need to deal is the difference between our position in Christ versus our experience with Christ.
It is not the author’s desire to engage in a full-blown discussion of this duality; others far more learned have written complete books on the subject. Nevertheless, it we are to be truly equipped to deal with this most contentious of matters, we must touch on it.
Chuck Swindoll makes the following observations in his booklet, Divorce: When It All Comes Tumbling Down, in relationship to a series of verses in Ephesians 2 dealing with the nature of our salvation:
“Quite frankly, it is beyond my comprehension that passages such as these (there are dozens more) exclude divorce. If they do, then divorce is the only sin not covered by the blood of Christ. It is the one, permanent spot in our past that cannot be washed away....No, I believe “new” means “new.” And when God
46
promises the passing away of “old things,” it surely includes divorce prior to salvation. After all, being alienated from God and at enmity with Him, how could any unbeliever possibly know His will regarding the choice of a lifetime mate? Having thought this through very carefully, I believe it falls within the context of God’s superabundant grace to wipe our slate clean when we turn, by faith, to Christ the Lord. When the marriage and divorce occurred prior to salvation, I believe God grants His “new creation” the freedom to remarry” (Charles R. Swindoll, Divorce: When It All Comes Tumbling Down, Multnomah Press, Portland, Oregon, 97266, pp 12-13).
In a strict theological sense, he is correct. God’s grace is certainly sufficient to cover divorces that occur before salvation. But that is only one part of the picture. What Chuck Swindoll has done in his booklet is to state the position of the believer in relation to the decree of God by which we are declared to be righteous. He has failed to account for the second part of the equation.
This is the side of the issue that has caused the most consternation for the Church over the years. While it is true that we are saved by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8), it is also true that faith without works does not justify us (James 2:14-26). In fact, so strongly does James believe this that he asks, “What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” (verse 14), and again in verse 20, “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?” This is the experiential side of our salvation, the side of our salvation experience that validates the reality of our salvation experience. In chapter eight we made reference to the tax collector, Zaccheus. The reality of his position as “saved” was validated by his desire to make restitution to those whom he had wronged prior to salvation. It was his desire not only to be in right relation with God, but with his fellow man as well. In the terms delineated by Titus 2:11-12, the grace that brought him salvation not only freed him of his sinful past, it also taught him – even compelled him – to demonstrate his desire to live a godly life by making things right. Now, if we are to take the idea espoused by Chuck Swindoll at its face value, what Zaccheus did in making restitution was entirely unnecessary. After all, he was a new creation; God had wiped his slate completely clean. There certainly is no record in the Biblical account of Zaccheus that he was ever instructed to make restitution to those whom he had wronged. So why was it necessary for him to take this upon himself? Because the grace of God that brought him salvation also taught him that faith without works is dead – completely and utterly useless. So it is with the problem of remarriage adultery that occurred before salvation. Yes, God’s grace covers it. But that same grace also demands that relationships be made right - repentance. Yes, our salvation position is secure before God, but God still teaches us to “...work out your salvation with fear and trembling...” (Philippians 2:12-16).
Two more thoughts in relation to Chuck Swindoll’s teaching on this subject.
First, like so many others of our day, he has made the mistake of classifying divorce as sin. This is only partially true. God permits divorce. One cannot classify as sin that
47
which God Himself permits. Divorce is only sin when it violates scriptural mandates. As we have seen in previous chapters, Jesus taught that divorce was permissible when unrepentant immorality was characteristic in the life of one’s spouse. Permissible – not mandated. One is not guilty of sin when unrepentant immorality is the basis of the divorce. If all divorce is sin, then God is guilty of sin (Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3:8), because He describes Himself as the victimized husband of an immoral wife whom He finally divorced. We need to be very clear on this matter.
Second, Chuck believes that God’s grace makes allowances for those who were divorced while unsaved because, in their unregenerate state, they are completely incapable of discerning God’s will for their lives. His question, “After all, being alienated from God and at enmity with Him, how could any unbeliever possibly know His will regarding the choice of a lifetime mate?”, makes this abundantly clear. For those who find themselves swayed by the seeming logic of this question, it will be helpful to review the teaching of chapter five. But the short answer is this: as was shown in chapter five, God is sovereign – even in the lives of the unsaved. He is working out His will in their lives, just as He does in the lives of the regenerate (Philippians 2:13). God is just as capable of bringing two unsaved people together in marriage as He is in bringing believers together. If God can turn the heart of the king as He does the course of the river in order to accomplish His will (Proverbs 21:1), then He is certainly capable of turning the hearts of two unbelievers toward one another to form couples in accordance with His will as well.
In closing this chapter, it is good to remember the following: God’s grace not only covers sin, it also instructs us (Titus 2:11-12) – even motivates and compels us. God’s grace does not provide us with license to do that which is convenient, comfortable, and in our best interests. On the contrary, God’s grace instructs and empowers us to take actions that are completely contrary to every natural human instinct. To take any other view of grace denigrates its true power.
48
12
Now comes the Hard Part...
OK, so remarriage after divorce is adultery.
Now what?
How do we implement this teaching in today’s church? What are the implications for our ministries and membership? After all, remarriage after divorce has become so ingrained in our churches that trying to deal with it now seems as insurmountable as cleanup after Hurricane Katrina.
Ezra chapters 9 & 10 give us a framework from which to begin. Ezra 9 begins with these words:
Now when these things had been completed, the princes approached me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands.... For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness." Ezra 9:1-2
The work of purifying Israel began as the leaders came to recognize the true scope of the sin with which they were faced. They realized that the sin of marrying outside of the covenant had become so commonplace, especially amongst themselves, that the testimony of Israel as the Chosen of God was at risk. As a result, the leaders of the nation took it upon themselves to address the sin. Now, while it must be acknowledged that the leaders to whom Ezra 9-10 refer were largely civil in nature (as opposed to religious), Ezra 10 drives home the point of who really bears the responsibility for leading such a purification. Ezra 10:1-4 records that, while Ezra was praying and making confession on behalf of the people (who were in the throes of remorse because of their sin), a large group came to him to express their desire to repent. They expressed their willingness to put away their foreign wives and the children born of those relationships as the only possible solution for their sin. Shecaniah, who appears to have been a leader in the movement, ends their public statement of intent with the following charge to Ezra: “Arise! For this matter is your responsibility, but we will be with you; be courageous and act” (verse 4). Shecaniah’s statement explicitly reminds us that true change will not come from the political arena; it must be spiritually driven. In our own day, we have witnessed a movement in some states to emphasize the covenantal nature of marriage. These states have gone so far as to enact legislation that is intended to make a divorce harder to obtain. But the truth of the matter is clearly expressed in the verse we just read. Unless the spiritual leaders of our country rise up to address this issue from the pulpits of America, such movements are doomed to be
49
short-lived. Pastors, “Arise! For this matter is your responsibility...be courageous and act.”
Ezra followed up his acceptance of Shecaniah’s charge by calling for a public promise on behalf of the leaders and the people take actually do what God required of them. There was to be no mere lip-service. It was a public acknowledgement that spiritual purity, obedience to God’s expressed will, and restoration sometimes require extreme measures on the part of His people. A date was set for the people to congregate three days later to begin the process that would result in the breakup of families; failure to participate was grounds for forfeiture of all possessions and exile. During this time Ezra went into seclusion, fasting and praying, continuing to mourn over the sins of the people as they prepared to take unprecedented action. When the day arrived, a system was devised whereby, over a period of time, anyone who had taken a foreign wife would appear before a council (comprised of the elders and judges) in their city at an appointed time to formally put away their spouse and the children born of that relationship. As applied to our day and to the issue of remarriage adultery, the acceptance this charge by our spiritual leaders calls for public teaching, followed up by a public commitment to truly repent. It means giving people time to prepare for what must take place, during which time the leadership of the church should be devoting themselves to fasting, prayer, and intercession on behalf of their people. It means coming together as a body at a set time to begin the process of purification. It means that the leadership of the church will have to take an active role in dealing with affected couples, teaching preparing and supporting them as they go through this painful process, realizing that this is an action that will require time to implement. And finally, it means realizing that a decision to continue in this sin is grounds for church discipline.
So what are the implications for the Church and the affected members?
As is demonstrated in Ezra 9-10, this is a process that will take time. It is a process that will require the direct involvement of the elders of the church as they counsel individual couples who commit to take the actions necessary to fully repent of this sin. It will also require the direct involvement of the deacons, those who are tasked with meeting the physical needs of the membership of the Church (Acts 6:1-6).
So let’s get practical.
First, it needs to be understood that these folks need our support. They are, as Peter speaks of, suffering as Christians, not as evildoers (1 Peter 4:15). The vast majority of these brothers and sisters find themselves in this situation because of the misinformed counsel they received from pastors, not because they set out to disobey God’s Word. In carrying out this teaching in their lives, they demonstrate a willingness to follow Christ at a most painful cost; they are deserving of our love and support. Where children are involved, they should be accorded the same love and respect as any other person who attends our churches. Again, the reason for divorce in this case is entirely different from that experienced by most children. This divorce is not the result of an affair. Their parents did not separate because of abuse. On the contrary, this divorce occurs
50
because God’s Word teaches that this is the only way that the sin of remarriage adultery can be remedied. If anything, children who find themselves in this situation require even more support. After all, they have heard all of their lives that God is love, that God wants that which is best for us, and now this same God requires that their parents split up. That is a monumental test for the faith of a young person. More than any one else, they need the local church family to uphold them.
For those who choose to remain in this sin, it is time for the Church of God to begin exercising Matthew 18. There is no “grandfather clause” or statute of limitations on the sin of remarriage adultery. The church must first confess her role in allowing the sin of remarriage after divorce to permeate her membership – and her leadership. Many are the churches whose deacon boards, Sunday School teaching staffs, and even elders/pastors include those who either remarried after divorcing, or who married a divorcee. The Church must be the first to confess her sin and repent. Just as repentance in the individual’s life means a change in direction, so it is with the Church as well. In evangelical churches, membership is not permitted if one is living in adultery. However, those who have been remarried after divorce have been treated differently than the garden-variety adulterer, and so many have been granted church membership. This must be addressed. The church will have to provide teaching and individual counseling for members in this position with an eye toward restoration. Those who continue to live in their sin will have to be dealt with in accordance with scriptural teaching. As for teaching positions within the church (non-pastoral), while we do not demand sinless perfection from those who hold such positions, neither do we permit those who are living in unrepentant sin to teach. Until repentance is in evidence, the purity of the church demands that a person in this position step down from their teaching position. For the divorced and remarried pastor, please re-read chapter 9.
51
13
A BIBLICAL RESPONSE
James 1:22-25 has the following admonition for the Church today:
22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
There can be little doubt that the Church in the United States has lost the blessing of God. This is due, in part, to the secularization of the Christian mind. We as believers have learned to think and respond as the world. We have learned that subjective feelings constitute the basis for decision-making and belief systems, not the objective standard of the Word of God. In short, we have looked into the mirror and, not liking what God showed us, promptly chose to forget that which was revealed. It was easier to buy another mirror.
That, however, is not unlike the ostrich - burying its head in the sand in the vain belief that wishing away troubles actually causes them to disappear.
So back to the question at hand.
The Bible is clear and consistent. Divorce and remarriage in any age, under any dispensation, has always constituted adultery. So how should the Church of God respond? What steps will be necessary if we hope to gain victory in this area and re- establish God’s blessings for His Church?
First, it is time for the pastors of this nation to put on holy boldness, to take to heart the mandates under which they were ordained. The words of Paul to the church at Colossi come to mind:
Say to Archippus, “Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it.” (Colossians 4:17)
Many of us as pastors heard Paul’s admonition to Timothy repeated during our ordination services. The instructions found in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 are as applicable to us today as they were to that young pastor in his time. Let’s take a moment to re-acquaint ourselves with this foundational passage:
1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
52
2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4)
As pastors, we have both the privilege and obligation to proclaim the Word of Truth in its entirety, whether or not it is popular or expedient to do so. Many are the conversations in which it has been said, “I know what the Bible teaches, but if I preach that, I’ll find myself without a pulpit.” The pastor who takes this position assumes a most dangerous liability, having placed the desires of the congregants over those of the God who ordained him to the ministry. As in the life of the prophet Ezekiel, God has appointed pastors to be the watchmen over His flock. Consider the warning of God to Ezekiel:
17“Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. 18“When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die’, and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19“Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. 20“Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21“However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself.” (Ezekiel 3:17-21)
It is God who places us in the ministry (Acts 20:24; 1 Timothy 1:12); it is He who has called us to shepherd the flock (Acts 20:28-29). So it is God who protects and provides for us as we are faithful to declare the whole counsel of God. The following statements should provide ample impetus to spur us into action:
1Then He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet that I may speak with you!” 2As He spoke to me the Spirit entered me and set me on my feet; and I heard Him speaking to me. 3Then He said to me, “Son of man, I am sending you to the sons of Israel, to a rebellious people who have rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have transgressed against Me to this very day. 4“I am sending you to them who are stubborn and obstinate children, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ 5“As for them, whether they listen or not—for they are a rebellious house—they will know that a prophet has been among them. 6“And you, son of man, neither fear them nor fear their words, though thistles and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions; neither fear their words nor be dismayed at their presence, for they are a rebellious house. 7“But you shall
53
speak My words to them whether they listen or not, for they are rebellious. 8“Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you.” 9Then I looked, and behold, a hand was extended to me; and lo, a scroll was in it. 10When He spread it out before me, it was written on the front and back, and written on it were lamentations, mourning and woe. (Ezekiel 2:1-10, emphasis added)
26“Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27“For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31“Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. (Acts 20:26-31, emphasis added)
The process begins, then, with pastors who are faithful to teach that which is needful for their congregations, no matter what the ramifications may be. This means that one cannot teach about the sanctity of marriage without also including the “...’til death...” permanency of marriage and the solemnity of this sacred covenant relation - both to God and spouse.
But consistent teaching is only the foundation. Upon this foundation must be built the framework of discipline. Discipline is the filter that removes the impurities from the church. This principle is laid down for us in 2 Timothy 2:20-21:
20Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. 21Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. (emphasis added)
Although the context of this passage is addressed to individual believers, Timothy in particular, the principle of cleansing as the basis for effective service is foundational to the church as well. As long as sin is allowed to make its home in our congregations, purity will never be achieved and our effectiveness will be impaired. In the words of one pastor, “God won’t put newborn babies in a dirty nursery!” Discipline, then, is the cleansing agent. This is clearly in line with both the teaching of Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1. The goal of discipline in the church is three-fold: 1) Repentance; 2) Reconciliation of the sinning member(s) with the local body; 3) Purification of the body. Church discipline is carried out by the body (v.4-5, 13). When corporate efforts to restore the sinning party have failed, it becomes the task of the body to disassociate
54
itself from that sin. It is a testimony, both to the membership and to the community at- large, that purity of worship and service is the goal of the church.
As the Church takes to heart the Biblical teaching about remarriage, it will be necessary to become actively involved in helping these individuals rebuild their lives. Even as it was necessary for the early church to help meet the needs of their widows (Acts 6) by providing them with food, it may become necessary for the church to become financially involved in the lives of those families who take these teachings to heart. It will mean that the church of the new millennium will have to learn about true, first century sacrificial giving, perhaps to the point of implementing Acts 2:45 again:
...and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
This is not to say that the husband is relieved from the responsibility of providing for his family. 1 Timothy 5:8 still reminds us that the man who does not provide for his family “...has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” The husband and wife are still responsible for their vows before God to provide for the financial, physical, and emotional needs of their family. It is in this way that they are able to testify to the world that God’s Word and grace do indeed make a difference in our families -- even under the most difficult of circumstances. But it must be acknowledged that the necessity of providing for two households will place an added burden on these families. Since much of the blame for today’s remarriage epidemic must be attributed to the church’s failure to provide strong, Biblical teaching regarding this issue, it stands to reason that the church must also share in the responsibility of rebuilding these lives.
55
A FINAL NOTE
It is understood that the convictions presented in this work will not be popular. It has been said by many who currently occupy the pulpit that it is impossible to implement these teachings in today’s church. That, however, is not the overriding concern. We have seen the divorce rate rise in the church to the point that we have achieved parity with the unsaved world. We, who are to be God’s ambassadors to the world, have allowed sin in our lives to destroy the only message that is worth listening to. This is not unlike the situation in which Pilate found himself when called upon to judge Jesus prior to the crucifixion. He was living among God’s chosen people, the ones who were to share God’s law with the world and point them to the Messiah. But as John records in John 18:38, after years of exposure to the squabbling and in-fighting of the Jews he could only say to Jesus, “What is truth?” Remember, “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great...” (1 Tim. 3:16a, NIV). It is hard enough for the world to understand the message we bring under the best of conditions. Why complicate matters more with sin, and in so doing give opportunity for the enemies of God to blaspheme His holy name (2 Samuel 12:14)?
It is not too late, however. God has not withdrawn His call from our lives, nor has His message changed. Listen again to the call given in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20:
18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
We still have the ministry of reconciliation. But we will never convince the world if our own houses are in disarray, our own families falling apart.
In closing, consider the prayer of Jesus as recorded in John 17. Try to catch the vision He presents to us as He communes with His father, His vision to reach a lost world through us:
15“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19“For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 20“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them,
56
© Copyright 1991, 2007. Rev. Douglas J. Kuiphoff. All rights reserved.
that they may be one, just as We are one; 23I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. (John 17:15-23, emphasis added)
© Copyright 1991, 2007. Rev. Douglas J. Kuiphoff. All rights reserved.
57
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Calvin, John. Commentaries On The Epistles Of Paul The Apostle To The Corinthians. Public Domain
MacArthur, Jr., John. The Biblical Position on Divorce and Remarriage. Panorama City, CA: Word of Grace Communication. 1981
Roberts, Alexander, D.D. & Donaldson, James, LL.D, editors. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. 1995
Strong, James. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in THE GREEK TESTAMENT. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. 1890
Strong, James. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in THE HEBREW BIBLE. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. 1890
Swindoll, Charles R. Divorce: When It All Comes Crashing Down. Portland, TN:
Multnomah Press . 1981
Wiersbe, Warren. Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines On The New Testament.
Colorado Springs, CO: Victor Books. 1992
Zodhiates, Spiros, ed. The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers. 1990
58
© Copyright 1991, 2007. Rev. Douglas J. Kuiphoff. All rights reserved.
About the Author
Doug Kuiphoff is a graduate of Grand Rapids Baptist College (now Cornerstone University), where he obtained his degree in Religion, with dual minors of Cross- Cultural Studies and Bible. He was the 1987-1988 recipient of the school’s Robert T. Ketcham Award for Christian Service. Doug served as a short-term missionary in Brazil and Perú, the latter during the tumultuous times brought about by the Shining Path terrorist organization. While in Perú (1986 – 1987) he helped establish a new church in the Andean town of Urubamba (which has, in the intervening years, gone on to become the home of a seminary as well) and participated in the training of leaders for other churches in the mountain region. He was ordained in September of 1991.
Doug has served in a number of ministry capacities over the years – Sunday School teacher, Youth Minister, Assistant Pastor, Missionary Pastor, pulpit supply for churches in trouble, and pastoral counsel for churches undergoing constitutional revisions. His involvement in these areas has given him a unique vantage point from which to observe both the confusion and division caused by the topic of remarriage after divorce, and the reticence of pastors who, fearing for their positions, refuse to address this issue in a Biblical manner.
Doug is married (10 years at the time of publication) to his beautiful wife, Yonée, and is the father of two special needs sons, Robert (“RJ” - Autism) and Jerome (“Jase” – Sensory Integration Dysfunction). He and his family attend Calvary Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, MI, where they are actively involved in various ministries of the church.
59
© Copyright 1991, 2007. Rev. Douglas J. Kuiphoff. All rights reserved.
