Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

Someone asked recently about the issue of “marriage, divorce and remarriage.” This issue generates a “world” of questions, which is – perhaps – why there are several places in the holy text that God has seen fit to reveal a thing-or-two about it to the human race (cf. Mat. 19:3-12; Rom. 7:1-4; 1 Cor. 7:1-39). While there are innumerable scenarios and questions that perplex us, this article seeks to 1) set forth God's intent with marriage, 2) examine a few primary issues that arise in “divorce” situations and 3) draw conclusions about “remarriage.”

First, God's initial intent with the institution of marriage was so that man would not be alone (cf. Gen. 2:19-ff.). Adam had been created as the first man, named the animals and then realized that he was alone. God decided to provide man with a counterpart – one said that a male is only part human and that a female is only part human – but together, with man's counterpart, the female, God saw to it that the human race would be complete. It was no accident that God said that these two (male and female) could become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:23,24).

There are passages that say that God hates “divorce” (Mal. 2:16). That's true; He does. (This is not nearly exhaustive though; more is required to consider that remark's context and scope.) But, the point that is made is that God never intended for the “one flesh” kind of relationship between an husband and wife to be severed. Sometimes, that happens, but it is never God's ideal plan. (Murder, lying, theft, etc., etc. all happen, but God never wishes for those things to happen; they are not ideal.) Naturally, human beings are going to make this same kind of mistake in relation to marriage – they “divorce,” and so, God provides a word on what to do in some of these situations. The point, again, however, is that God's ideal marriage law was for one man and one woman to live in harmony with each other for their entire lives.

Second, the major issue that arises with “marriage” is the problem of “divorce.” Jim and Sally get married; Jim gets tired of Sally's nagging; they divorce after a year. Bill and Sue get married; Bill would like to get Kate in his bed instead – and does; Bill and Sue get a divorce shortly after. John and Jennifer get married; John can't seem to lose the bottle; Jennifer simply can't stand it and leaves him; later, she ends up marrying Kyle, her favorite co-worker. These are the kinds of real scenarios that people stumble into and later ask about their “rightness” and/or “wrongness.” Does the Bible say anything about these predicaments?

In a debate with select of the Pharisees, Jesus found Himself explaining what God had to say about “marriage” (Mat. 19:3-8). He appealed to Genesis 2, God's “ideal” marriage law. He told them what God had always intended for marriage to be. (You'll need to grab your Bible and follow along here.) But, in a swift and final statement, Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another commits adultery” (Mat. 19:9a). (It's true that the masculine “his” and feminine “wife” are used; it would appear that the opposite is true for the woman, meaning, “Whosoever shall put away her husband and marry another commits adultery.” In fact, see this very thing in the parallel Mark 10:12.) It would appear that Bill, John and Kyle are all wrong (in the above scenarios), right? It would appear that Sally, Sue and Jennifer are all wrong (in the above scenarios), right? (You'll need to refer to the previous paragraph to check what's being said in light of the passages here.) The only people in the scenario that haven't been dealt with are Kate and Kyle; how do they fare in the scenarios? This question, too, hovers over the development of these texts.

Now, you ought to be thinking, at this point, “How is Sue ineligible to remarry (in the above scenario)? Why, her husband cheated on her!” Yes, Jesus gave only one exception for remarriage after divorce; He said – same passage (Mat. 19:9) – “except it be for fornication.” And, now, it is clear that Sue, above, could remarry because she was an “innocent” party in the union and could “put away” her husband and marry another because there had been fornication, and she was innocent of it. But, Jesus had no tolerance for the “marrying” of people who had been married and then got “divorces” that were not for that reason. (Read Mat. 19:9 again.) He said that the “divorced and remarried” folk were wrong . . . unless it was because of fornication. Here is the point: fornication is required to “disjoin” or “sever” a marriage. If there has been no fornication, then the “divorced” – even if he/she has the “paper” from the court – is not “disjoined” from the spouse as God sees it. He (Jesus) said that “fornication” was required to “disjoin” the marriage. (Yes, “death” would “disjoin” a marriage also, cf. Rom. 7:1-4; 1 Cor. 7:39; even “death” was not part of the “ideal” marriage law, which was a “one flesh” union for life; the “fall of man” in the Garden of Eden really disrupted things, didn't it?!)

But, the question that lingers is about Kyle and Kate (above). Jesus dealt with them, too. (Read Mat. 19:9 again with these two in mind.) Both Kyle and Kate were “third parties” – that is, they married people who had already been married and divorced. Jesus said, “Whosoever marries him/her that is put away commits adultery” (Mat. 19:9). See, neither Kyle nor Kate had the right to “steal” a spouse from another (in Kyle's case, John has been wronged; in Kate's case, Sue has been wronged).

These scenarios – perhaps – offer even more questions than they do answers. Surely, this should make Bible readers extremely cautious when approaching the issue of “marriage, divorce and remarriage.” Much prayer and study should be involved before making these weighty decisions.

Third, and finally, a major conclusion needs to be drawn clearly. It needs to be noted that “scriptural” marriages (not adulterous, homosexual, etc., etc.) can only be “disjoined” by God for one of two reasons, either fornication (Mat. 19:9) or death (Rom. 7:1-4; 1 Cor. 7:39). Any “scriptural” marriage that was “severed” for a reason other than those two has not really been “severed” in God's eyes. (Above, it is true that Jim and Sally “divorced” [via civil court]. Say that they had the “papers” and ten years had passed – you've read Mat. 19:9 now; you know that for either of them to enter into an intimate relationship with another [third] party would be “adultery.” God hadn't “disjoined” the marriage, since there was neither fornication nor death.)

It also needs to be noted that the party that “remarries” needs to be “innocent.” Jesus' words weren't to give the married folks (above) an “incentive” – right to remarriage – to commit fornication against their spouses. No, Jesus intended for the phrase “except it be for fornication” to protect innocent people, like Sue (above), who had been “wronged” by their spouses sexually.

While it is true that more questions are generated by this article, it seeks to lay out a framework for what a “scriptural” divorce and remarriage might look like. God's ideal marriage scenario was for a man and his wife to live as “one flesh” for a lifetime without cessation. (Death entered the world because of the mistake in the garden; human marriages always experience “disjoining” by death, now, and even that was not God's “ideal” scenario.) Divorce, a nasty and sinister arrangement, seeks to damage that which God set up; “divorces” are permitted by God, but it is the remarriage of some of those “divorcees” that violates God's law and wrongs former spouses. God says something about all of this (as seen). Lives should conform to the text on the matter.

(If interest is generated, then more later. 1 Cor. 7 still needs a word or two.)