Modern Views on Divorce and Remarriage

Podcast: Download (48.1MB)

Modern Views on Divorce & Remarriage

Introduction: As mentioned in our last lesson, this discussion has three purposes (1) “for the unity of the faith” (2) “not tossed by every wind of doctrine” (3) equipping and preparation for teaching others.

In our last lesson we talked about the most commonly held view on divorce: divorce & remarriage prior to baptism is forgiven to the extent that a person in such this situation can remain married to their present spouse. Before we move on, are there any questions about this view?

1. “A Spouse Put Away for Sexual Immorality, Is Free to Marry”
   1. The line of argument goes like this: “If you put away your spouse for the cause of sexual immorality, are you bound to him/her anymore? Is he/she bound to you? If, having been put away, he/she is no longer bound to you or is no longer your spouse, then he/she can marry without committing adultery since adultery is defined as “sexual relations with the spouse of another.” 
   2. Problems with the view:
      1. God is the one who gives authority for marriage
         1. He authorized one man and one woman to marry.
         2. He authorized a person to remarry if his/her spouse dies (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).
         3. He authorized a person to remarry who put his/her spouse away for the cause of sexual immorality (Matt. 19:9).
         4. Therefore, where is the authority for a person to remarry who has been put away for sexual immorality?
      2. Matthew 5:31-32 “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” 
      3. Hosea 2:2 “Plead with your mother, plead – for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband – that she put away her whoring from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts.” In spite of the fact that God had divorced Israel, she is still called on to put away her adultery. The covenant relationship God has made with a husband and wife is like contracts in most sports. Once the contract is signed, the player may decide he no longer wants to play for that team, but that does not mean he is free to be signed by another team. On the other hand, the team he has signed with no longer is obligated to pay him. One side of the contract is released, the other is not. 
2. “The Words of Matthew 19:9 Should Be Understood More Literally: the combination of a divorce & entering into a new marriage is the adultery”
   1. The argument is often started like this: “If a couple of 90 – year olds divorced their spouses and married each other knowing they were unable to be intimate, is that adultery? Jesus said it was. Therefore, the adultery spoken of by Jesus is figurative (like Israel with idols), referring to the violating of a covenant and making another covenant. The “adultery” happens when two people actually make a verbal commitment to each other in the ceremony. After that, there is no adultery.
   2. Problems with the view:
      1. The entire argument is based on believing that Jesus’ use of adultery is not literal sexual relations but figurative like in the case of Israel worshiping other gods.
         1. Nothing in the context of Matthew 19 allows any possibility of adultery being a figurative usage. In fact, in verse 12 Jesus speaks of not marrying as becoming a “eunuch.” The use of adultery is obviously sexual.
         2. To use divorce and “marry” another as simply the wedding ceremony, is to limit and define marriage to only a ceremony and not the relationship itself. The entire context has defined marriage as “joined” by God in a “one flesh” relationship. The scripture is not talking about saying, “I do.” 
         3. Ditto an old couple getting married without intimacy. It is certainly wrong, but you cannot create a “marriage exception to the rule” and then make it the rule for all marriages. In the common way marriage is defined, it includes one flesh.
         4. “Adultery,” even when used figuratively, is used as play on the sexual relationship. Hosea 1-2 & Ezekiel 16 make that very clear. Never is adultery used as simply “breaking a covenant and making a new one.”
         5. Under this view, it would be “adultery” to make vows to a new wife – thus, sinful to take her – but lawful to keep her. Imagine waking up every morning and saying, “Honey, I repent of marrying you, but I’m sure glad we are married!” 

3. If a man who is committing fornication, files for divorce against his wife and puts her away, does she have a right to then “put him away” for fornication (without a counter suit) and remarry?
   1. Under laws in most states today, a woman in the above situation could not counter sue. Because of this, some brethren believe that since she is “put away,” then she has no right to remarry.

3. 2. First consider the consequences of such a view. If this is so, then an innocent mate must not show any mercy or compassion or patience with a mate who has cheated on them. They must immediately race to the court and file, else they could be left without a right of remarriage if their fornicator mate beat them to file. That negates the greatest values Jesus gave us. What mate could be so hasty?

3. 3. By what authority does the “guilty” have the right to “put away?”

3. 4. We must consider the “spirit” of the command.

3. 5. Our laws allow what was not allowed when Jesus spoke. All of us understand the point of the text: an innocent spouse has the right to put away a fornicator mate and remarry. We cannot so dissect “put away” that we negate the reason the Lord gave an innocent mate for divorce and remarriage even if the present laws do not allow a counter suit. When they are signing the papers that is exactly what the innocent is doing – putting the guilty away for fornication.

3. 6. Further, if we are going to take such a view and understand the civil filing alone as the putting away, then we must also make sure “fornication” is on the papers in order to allow remarriage. But most states will not allow it. Man’s law often does not allow us to bring into their court what we are bringing before God’s court. Such situations do not nullify God’s laws on divorce and remarriage.

Berry Kercheville