One of the most difficult New Testament teachings confronting students of the New Testament concerns what Jesus said about marriage and divorce. What he said is confined to just four brief passages: Matthew 5:31-32 / Matthew 19:3-9 / Mark 10:2-12 / Luke 16:18.
Generally speaking, our brethren have taken a position that these verses set forth five conclusions.
1. Jesus gave only one reason (fornication) for divorce.
2. If divorce is for any other reason, then one or maybe both spouses cannot remarry because “In the eyes of God”, they are still married to one another.
3. In remarriage, each sex act constitutes adultery; they are living in adultery.
4. If one spouse commits fornication, the innocent party has a “scriptural right” to divorce and remarry. However, the guilty party can never remarry.
5. If a person or couple who have unlawful divorces in their background want to become Christians, they must break up their marriage as a part of repentance, and remain celibate. They could, however, return to their first spouse since, in the “eyes of God”, they were never separated.
Almost one-half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce, and this is not just with people outside the church. If the above five conclusions are true, then thousands in the Lord’s church today are “living in adultery.”
Rarely does a divorce decree state adultery as the cause for the divorce. The results of this situation vary. Often, people with a divorce are not made to feel welcome in a congregation, or else they are completely ignored.
In many instances, those who are suspected are not permitted to be involved in any leadership roles such as teaching, leading prayer or leading singing, etc. On the other hand, some are welcome. Their monetary contributions are gladly accepted. They may even be looked upon as “faithful members.”
At the same time, they are treated as second-class members. Those with a divorce in their background seemingly never escape the stigma that is attached to divorce, even if they are considered the innocent victims.
Often divorced couples seek counselling from a preacher. It is difficult for him to tell them he believes they must separate, with one of them (usually the man) having to leave his mate and children and to live a celibate life.
Some preachers say they read what the Bible says and then leave it up to the couple to decide what they will do. Such counselling offers very little guidance, direction or solution to their marriage status.
Others have advised, “Throw yourselves on the mercy of God.” This implies guilt without any certainty of forgiveness. “Just maybe God will make an exception in their case.” Some advise, “Since you are not going to separate, go ahead and bring your children with you to worship and Bible classes so they will learn God’s word.”
What kind of message does this send to the couple and their children? Preachers often refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a member if there is a divorce in the background. There are some preachers who will not baptise a divorced person or couple unless they agree to separate.
Christian teachers and leaders should be very sure of their scriptural grounds before declaring any person unfit for marriage. “Forbidding to marry,” for the wrong reasons, is one of the marks of the apostate church, 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Breaking up a marriage and the home where children are involved results in a highly traumatic and emotional situation.
There are no closer bonds than those of a family. It is an easy matter to tell someone else they must separate, but it goes against everything that seems fair, logical, and natural.
Most couples are unwilling to break the bonds of love that prevail in a family. Such advice has been tragically counterproductive, driving thousands away from the church in despair and without any hope.
Silence of the New Testament Homer Hailey observed that in light of what is advocated about divorce and remarriage, it is interesting that beginning with Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, Acts 2, to the last discourse delivered by Paul, Acts 28, no question was ever raised about the divorce and remarriage of an individual who wished to become a Christian.
Neither is the subject addressed in any New Testament Epistle. If conversion to Christ entails a rigorous examination of the validity of the candidates’ marriage, why was this critical issue not addressed on Pentecost?
Eldred Echols writes the following.
“Jewish authorities calculate that about thirty per cent of Jewish marriages on average have ended in divorce over the last two thousand years. If so, there must have been thousands of divorced persons in Peter’s audience in Acts chapter two. It is interesting that he did not exclude them from the invitation to be baptised. He commanded them to repent, but a divorced Jew would not have had any consciousness of sin in regard to his marriage. Under the Law of Moses, the right to remarry was inherent in the law of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:2.”
When I first began full-time work as a preacher, an older respected preacher pointed out to me that on the day of Pentecost, there is not a single inference that non-Christians were interrogated, screened, or otherwise hindered in their desire to be baptised.
Peter’s invitation was to “everyone of you,” Acts 2:38. Not one was excluded. Seemingly, they were embraced into fellowship without any obstacles being raised over their marriages. Since they were a part of the total number to which the Lord added the saved daily, Acts 2:42. The validity of their union with Christ can hardly be challenged.
Nowhere in the post-Pentecost period of the first century is any definitive teaching given on divorce and remarriage. Some refer to Paul’s statement in Romans 7:1-4 to show that divorce and remarriage constitute “living in adultery.” Read carefully what Paul says.
In this passage, Paul uses marriage to illustrate the relationship the Jews had with the Law of Moses. He says that just as a woman cannot be united to two husbands at the same time (bigamy), Christians cannot be under the Law of Moses and the law of Christ at the same time.
By the death of Jesus, they were separated from the old law. Now, being married to Christ, they were under his law. Many were trying to live under both Moses and Christ. Paul is not addressing the issues raised in Matthew 19:3-9 on divorce.
Separation of a husband and wife before baptism was never a part of Paul’s teaching, or, for that matter, any other writer of the New Testament. Did the Holy Spirit miss a point here that must be filled in by preachers today?
In 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, Paul writes, “Are you married to a wife? Seek not to be divorce Are you divorced from a wife, seek not a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned.” This is very plain. Paul does not give any requirements or suggest screening a couple as some would impose on couples today.
He does not say they sin because they will be living in adultery when they remarry. In view of the widespread practice of divorce in his day, Paul could have elaborated the conditions that some men now teach concerning divorce and remarriage. There is no evidence that anyone was denied baptism due to their marriage situation.
When we read Matthew 19:3-9, we see that Jewish men came to Jesus asking him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Matthew 19:3. The reason they asked this question was that there was controversy over what Moses wrote about divorce. They had reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-2, which reads as follows.
There were two schools of thought about this passage. The Jews were divided over the meaning of the Hebrew word “ervah” translated above as “uncleanness” in the KJV. The school of rabbi Shammai said the word meant “unchastity” (sexual sins).
The school of rabbi Hillel said it was “unseemliness” (anything that displeased a husband). Hillel’s view was the most popular view among the Pharisees. Jesus surprised them. He did not answer them directly either way. Instead, he goes back to the beginning. He says, “From the beginning it has not been so,” Matthew 19:8.
Jesus goes back to God’s original plan for marriage, which had never changed. The Pharisees reacted by asking, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” Matthew 19:7. Jesus’ answer was that it was because of the hardness of their hearts, Matthew 19:8.
Although Moses permitted divorce, it was actually the result of man’s unwillingness to abide by God’s plan for marriage. It was because of the sin of desertion that the occasion ever arose.
Moses’ law protected a woman’s rights. Before this law, a woman would remain in a state of humiliation and servitude because a husband would neither keep her as his wife nor would he let her go.
He would put her away but would not give her a certificate of divorce. It took the divorce certificate to end the relationship. Divorce finalised the marriage. By only putting her away did not release her as his wife. Jewish men were being very cruel by treating their wives like property.
If she did not please him, he would send her out of the house. She was relegated to the position of being his servant. She became merely his property. He would seek a new wife. Thus, his remarriage to the new wife would cause him to commit adultery against the one put out of his house because she was still his wife.
Jesus said putting her away did not separate their marriage, thus he was committing adultery against her, Matthew 10:11. Moses’ law said, either keep her as a wife or relinquish your right to her, keep her so that “When she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife,” Deuteronomy 24:2.
Thus, she had the right to remarry. Moses wrote this with God’s permission. He further stated she was never allowed to return to her first husband again. The Pharisees were not coming to Jesus asking, “What will be the new law in your kingdom?”
They did not regard Jesus as having any authority equal to that of Moses. Their concern was not over remarriage because that was common practice. Their concern was over why she was put away. Which rabbi was correct about the cause for putting away a wife?
Much confusion over remarriage today is due to the assumption that Jesus, in this confrontation with the Jews, had established a new marriage law. It was the Pharisees who initiated the discourse about Moses’ law. They come on strong, saying Moses commanded them to divorce their wives if they found something unseemly in them.
Jesus puts them on the defensive by saying, “From the beginning it has not been so,” Matthew 19:8. When he said, “But I say unto you,” he was not announcing a new law concerning marriage and divorce. He is asserting his authority to expose their error.
As is said at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes,” Matthew 7:29. With authority, he taught them that although Moses permitted divorce, it was always the result of man’s unwillingness to obey God’s plan for marriage.
It was not allowed for trivial reasons, as Rabbi Hillel taught. Jesus said it was not so in the beginning, and it was not so then. God intends for marriage to be for life.
Eldred Echols says the following.
“In Hebrew life, Pharisaism regarded marriage as absolutely essential for those who respect God’s will. The rabbis held that abstaining from marriage and fathering children diminished the image of God. In the case of women, virginity (unmarried state) was a cause for lamentation, Judges 11:38, and a father who did not find a husband for his daughter while she was still young was guilty of violating, Leviticus 19:29, forcing her into immorality. Deuteronomy 24:2 addressed the woman’s right to remarry rather than to remain enslaved to a husband she still was not released from because he would not give her a certificate of divorce. Thus, Moses made it so that now, “she may go and be another man’s wife.”
It was always assumed in rabbinical writings that the only safe way of controlling one’s natural sex drive was through marriage. A boy should be married long before he reached twenty (sixteen was considered an ideal age), and girls after she reached twelve or as soon as a marriage could be arranged. An outlet for the sexual drive was considered inevitable, and so the right of remarriage in the case of divorce was considered absolutely essential.
In fact, Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, to avoid sexual immorality by getting married, would appear, practically speaking, to relate particularly to those whose weakness to sexual temptation had destroyed their marriage in the first place.
To say Jesus was giving a new law, which would go into effect with the establishment of the church, is to violate the context by making him answer a question that was never asked.
Jesus is simply responding to a question of what constitutes a legal divorce. Also, there is certainly no inference in these passages that Jesus’ purpose was to establish an innocent and guilty party. His primary purpose was obviously to preserve marriage.
The emphasis of his teaching is that divorce is not a part of the divine plan, and cannot occur without the intrusion of sin (adultery) into the marriage relationship. Jesus does not pursue the course of action open to either party in the divorce action.
He does go ahead to warn of the stigma of adultery to: 1. the one instituting the divorce. 2. The one divorced. 3. And the third party who may marry the divorced person.
Christians will honour their marriage vows and be faithful to each other until death. While this is God’s plan, it remains a fact that people do get divorced, even Christians. However, when Jesus said, “What God has joined together let no man put asunder,” Matthew 19:6.
He is not saying what God has joined together is impossible to put asunder. God hates the (sending away), Malachi 2:16, but this does not mean he refuses to recognise divorce when it happens as though it has never occurred, and that a divorced couple are actually still married.
When Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife,” Matthew 5:32 / Matthew 19:9, he recognised divorce as a fact of life. Nowhere does he teach that divorce is not a divorce. Nowhere does the Bible speak of an “unscriptural divorce”, yet we frequently use this terminology.
Many Christians who never intended or expected to be a partner in a failed marriage have, nevertheless, found themselves divorced. The church has all too often perceived its role to be that of inquisitor and judge, determining and assigning guilt, rather than that of the physician, restoring and healing the sick. The easy course is to isolate, to relegate the “lepers” to the outer wasteland.
Unfortunately, the result is that many wander away from the church and are never reclaimed. Should not the role of the church be that of a physician rather than a judge?
In 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul says if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse, the believer is not bound to the covenant of marriage. This is interesting in view of the fact that some teach that Jesus gave only one reason for divorce. Here, Paul gives desertion as another reason. It should be obvious there is something wrong with the concept one cannot divorce except for fornication.
What about continuous physical abuse where a wife’s life is in danger, incest, sins of lust such as pornography, homosexual activity, a man serving life imprisonment because of murder, etc.? “In the eyes of the Lord”
The traditional view says that Matthew 19:9 teaches that a divorced person who has no divorce on the basis of adultery does not actually marry a second spouse, but is still married to the first spouse. They say that “in the eyes of the Lord,” they are not really divorced but are still married to the person they have divorced.
Remarriage, they say, is not really a marriage. It is only recognised by the state and not by God. Just as it is impossible to divorce, so it is impossible to marry again. Yet, nowhere do the scriptures say a divorced person can never marry a second spouse.
When Jesus said, “Whoever marries a woman who is divorced” Matthew 5:32 / Matthew 19:9, he recognised both divorce and remarriage as a fact of life. When Jesus talked with the Samaritan woman, he told her she had had five husbands, John 4:17-18.
Unless they all died, she must have been divorced at times. Each time she remarried, it was considered marriage by the Lord, for he told her she had had five husbands. They would not have been her husbands if she had not been married to them. Jesus did not tell her she had only been married one time, to her first husband.
Thus, in the “eyes of the Lord”, this woman was married five times, and by contrast, the one she was living with presently was not her husband, as she had never married him. Jesus recognised divorce and remarriage as a reality of life.
Some have concluded that this passage says that unless the divorce was because of sexual immorality, the husband “causes” her to commit adultery. This reasoning does not make sense. She is already an adulterous woman if he divorces her for the right purpose.
But how can her former husband make or force her to commit adultery? He cannot force her because she is the only one who can make this decision. Even in Deuteronomy 24:2, when she “becomes another man’s wife”, it was her decision alone, and not something she was forced to do by her former spouse.
Foy E. Wallace, commenting on these verses wrote the following.
“Where the King James text reads, ’causeth her to commit adultery,” the American Standard text puts it, “maketh her an adulteress.”
She is made an adulteress, when she was not, in the sense of where it is said of Christ that “him who knew no sin was made to be sin,” 2 Corinthians 5:21. The text does not say that she becomes an adulteress, but that she is made an adulteress.
In the eyes of the law, she is placed in a position that she is in fact. In the view of man, she differs from what she really is in the sight of God. According to the Lord, she is a freed woman, but according to critics, she is still a wife.
The sin of adultery in this case consists in treating the original contract as null and void when it was not null and void. No man has the right to so stigmatise an innocent person. She could not help being deserted by her first husband. She had every right to be remarried.
Paul’s words are very plain. “Are you married to a wife? Seek not to be divorced. Are you divorced from a wife, seek not a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned.” Nothing could be plainer. Paul says if you marry, you have not sinned even if divorced by your former husband.
When Jesus said that “putting away” is adultery, we immediately think of sex. While the word adultery is often used to refer to unlawful sexual activity, it has a much broader meaning than this.
In Jeremiah 3:6-9, it is used for Israel’s unfaithfulness to their covenant with God. They were not faithful in their vows to God but sought after idols. This was spiritual adultery. Backsliding is called adultery in Jeremiah 3:8. Jesus said that lust is adultery in Matthew 5:27. In James 4:4, worldliness is called adultery.
In Ezekiel 16:32, idolatry is called adultery (harlotry). The reason “adultery” can be used in all these different ways is that one of the inherent meanings of adultery is that of unfaithfulness.
If adultery is used in the sense of “unfaithfulness”, then we understand that a husband, by leaving a faithful wife, puts her in a position where she can no longer keep her marriage vows to him. She can no longer be faithful to him, even if she wanted to, because of his desertion.
Sexual activity in a second marriage is not under consideration here; it is the failure of a husband of not giving his first wife a certificate of divorce. When a woman was put away by her husband, she was usually looked down upon.
The status of women was below that of men among Jewish. If she remarried, both she and her new husband would be put in the awkward position of having a stigma placed on them because of the action of the woman’s first husband.
The stigma was that she was considered to be divorced (the guilty party), thus her second husband would be stigmatised for being married to a divorced (guilty) person. Even with an innocent party, divorce carried a bad connotation.
Lenski, in his commentary on this passage, translated these words with the passive voice in mind. “But I say to you that every man releasing his wife without cause of fornication brings about that she is stigmatised as adulterous.”
The position that one who remarries without a scriptural divorce (adultery) makes the sin of extra-marital sex unique, since all other sins can be expiated through the atonement of the blood of Christ with the exception of this one sin.
A person may be forgiven of every other sin and is not put under a life-long penalty of some kind, but is free to lead a normal life. Only a divorced person suffers an irrevocable penalty.
This tradition makes adultery the “cardinal sin” that results in a severe penalty of celibacy for the rest of one’s life. This does serious injury to the doctrine of atonement by confusing repentance with penance.
No sin can be expiated except through the atoning blood of Jesus. Penance (bearing a penalty for one’s sins) denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. The result is that repentance is not considered sufficient. A penalty must be tacked on to repentance. You must break up your home, which may involve children and live a celibate life until death.
If this is true, then this is the only New Testament command that carries with it an earthly penalty. The penalty is living single the rest of your life. Even if one could not “contain” themselves, as Paul suggests, they are not to marry, for they are under penance.
It is interesting that Paul advises that “since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband,” 1 Corinthians 7:2. Then in 1 Corinthians 7:9 he says, “But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion”
There are other issues to be considered. When a married couple with children are told they must break up their marriage and live celibate lives. What about the rights of their children?
The traditional view says rectifying the sin of adultery should take priority over the effects it will have on children. Thus, it does not take into account the deep social, emotional, and traumatic problems the children will suffer.
Do you terminate a marriage and sacrifice the rights of children to a normal home with a mother and father, or do we respond as Jesus did to the adulterous woman? “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more,” John 8:11. Remember: “God hates the sending away”, even a second sending away!
Where did the concept of penance originate? Perhaps in 1563, when the Council of Trent (Catholic Church) decreed that matrimony was perpetual and indissoluble.
Marriage became one of the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. This doctrine, coupled with many other Catholic doctrines, greatly influenced Bible scholars in Europe and England.
In 1611, a committee was appointed by King James of England to produce what would become known as the KJV. It is my personal opinion that Catholic doctrine was so widespread on marriage and divorce that it possibly influenced the translators of the King James in their rendering of Mathew 5:31-32 and other passages.
However, it is interesting to note that some older translations made before the Council of Trent state that putting one away, Matthew 5:31-32, causes the other to “breaketh wedlock” (Tyndale Bible).
Another earlier translation, the (Great Bible), says that putting away causes one to “break matrimony”, which indicates the one put away is no longer able to keep their marriage vows because they are forced to break their vows when their husbands cruelly put them away without a certificate of divorce.
Herod rebuked by John in Matthew 14:1-12. John the Baptist rebuked Herod for having his brother’s wife, saying it was not lawful for him to have her. This passage is often used to prove that one cannot marry a divorced person who does not have a scriptural divorce.
But what is under consideration here is what the law of Moses taught concerning incest. Herod induced his brother’s wife, Herodias, to live with him. She was not divorced from Philip, thus Herod, who lived under Moses’ law, was guilty of incest. This passage is not an example of remarriage after a divorce.
The first direct teaching to Christians on marriage and divorce is found in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul answers several questions that the church in Corinth had asked about marriage. There are six questions that Paul deals with.
Question one, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. Should Christian couples engage in normal sexual relations? His answer is yes. Furthermore, it is their duty to do this and not withhold sex from their spouse.
Question two, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Should single Christians get married? Paul’s answer is that at that time, celibacy would be better, but if they cannot contain their desire for sex, it would be better to marry.
Question three, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Should Christians divorce? No, they should try to work out their differences. This has always been God’s universal law of marriage.
However, Paul did not say divorce cannot happen because it does. Christians often break God’s moral law, including God’s marriage law. However, just as any moral sin can be forgiven, so can divorce.
Question four, 1 Corinthians 7:12-16. In the case of a mixed marriage, when one is a Christian and the other is a pagan, is the marriage binding? The answer is yes, but if the unbelieving spouse leaves (desertion), then the Christian is no longer in bondage to the deserting spouse, and thus is free to marry again.
This is what Deuteronomy 24:2 teaches. Deuteronomy 24 and 1 Corinthians 7 are but an extension of God’s universal law of marriage. In 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, there is a brief digression before Paul comes back to the subject of marriage.
Question five, 1 Corinthians 7:25-38. Should Christian fathers allow their daughters to marry? Each father must work out what is best for the daughter. No sin is committed if she marries.
However, due to the present persecution, she or a man would be better off single. However, if they do marry, they have not sinned. As in the case of Deuteronomy 24:2, if a divorced person marries, he or she does not sin.
Question six, 1 Corinthians 7:39-40. Can a Christian widow marry? The answer is yes, but she should marry a Christian. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 7, it is implied two times, 1 Corinthians 7:15 / 1 Corinthians 7:28, that a divorced person is free to marry.
Eldred Echols writes an interesting observation on how we should deal with the dilemma of divorce and remarriage. The traditional answer is: ‘It is better to be safe than sorry.’
But how safe is it to take a stringent and judgmental position and use it to bind our opinion or interpretation of someone else? Or worse, how safe is it to use our position as grounds to disfellowship or withdraw from someone?
These actions far more often result in permanent estrangement from the church rather than in restoration to fellowship, which is God’s desire. It is unproductive to impose one possible interpretation, whether it represents the view of a minority or a majority, upon people who do not agree with it and to use it as a test of fellowship.
Certainly, honesty and fairness should keep us from deciding on a pat answer to a question when the issue’s linguistic and historical parameters are not (and perhaps can never be) precisely fixed.
Integrity requires us to base our response to every moral and doctrinal question on the Scriptures. However, we can’t impose a conviction rooted in interpretation upon Christians who can’t honestly share that conviction.
Since love is not self-seeking, love does not force its opinions on others. The only person you can bind such a strict interpretation on is yourself.
Wallace comments as follows.
“Christ omitted legislating a disciplinary procedure, indicating that such a legalised relation becomes a principle of moral conduct between the parties involved and God, and is left to his own judicial decision, not ours. With no course of action legislated, revealed or prescribed, we cannot make one without human legislation. The course of some preachers in demanding separations and the breaking up of family relations, and the refusal to even baptise certain ones whose marriage status does not measure up to his standard of approval, is a presumptuous procedure. He has no course of action revealed, and to establish one would result in human legislation.”
The great possibility is that this issue will remain an area of dispute and thus should fall under the guidelines of Romans 14:4 “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”
We are not judges of one’s conscience. An individual Christian’s relationship to God cannot be mediated by the congregation, preacher or elders. Ultimately, the divorced person must assume his or her responsibility for their own life. We should not put a “stumbling block or an occasion to fall” in our brother’s way.
Those who take the traditional view argue that the views expressed in this study open the door wide open for a person to get a divorce anytime they want one. All they have to do is repent, and they can marry again and again. But repentance falls under the principle expressed by Paul, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Romans 6:1.
Repentance is the key to any sin against marriage. The emphasis of Scripture is that we are to keep our marriage vows; otherwise, we become unfaithful in conduct. If someone has broken their vows by divorcing, then they have the avenue of repentance open to them.
They must determine to take any present or future vows seriously and do their best to never break them again. Sometimes this is not possible because a spouse will not cooperate to bring this about, but at least you have tried. God knows this and understands. Certainly, one should show genuine repentance followed by the fruits of repentance.
Some have argued, just file for separation; therefore, you avoid an unscriptural divorce. While the legal requirements may be different, it seems this is giving divorce another name, separation. In either case, the marriage and family are being broken up with traumatic results. This is never guaranteed to be a reunion.
Where do we find expressions in the Bible such as, “In the eyes of God?” “Living in adultery?” “Unscriptural divorce”? Yet such terms are freely used over and over in the traditional view.
In abbreviated form, the following things are repeated by both the bride and groom at their wedding.
In view of these pledges, look at the following true scenarios and decide if any of them fit the category of unfaithfulness, breaking wedlock, breaking one’s vows, or breaking one’s commitment. One is guilty of adultery. Trust has been broken.
According to what Jesus said in Matthew 19, divorce is allowable. However, if the guilty party shows sincere repentance, cannot the marriage be preserved? Sometimes, where there is a one-time fling, forgiveness is easier than if it has been an ongoing affair.
Every effort should be made to preserve the marriage if possible. What about pornography and incest? A woman discovered her husband was deep into pornography.
Later, she discovered some magazines tucked away in a cabinet in the basement on incest. Fear for her children’s well-being caused her to file for divorce. Had trust been broken here? Was he unfaithful in his vows? Was she justified in her actions?
On “Sixty Minutes” recently (TV), it was stated that more men watch pornography than watch sports. A woman discovers her husband is an active homosexual. Would not this come under the classification of sexual sins?
Certainly, trust has been broken. She could put him away. There is the case of a man demanding bizarre things from his wife when they had sex, such as tying her arms and legs to the bed.
He explained that it gave him a sense of conquering and power. Is she to continue to live under such conditions? She chose not to. Was she wrong in her decision to get a divorce?
What about physical abuse? An alcoholic comes home and beats his wife and children. The family lives in constant fear. Should the man be divorced? Has he broken that basic trust of the marriage contract? Many divorces are a result of physical abuse.
What about living a miserable life with constant verbal abuse? Many divorces are a result of verbal abuse. A husband commits a severe crime and receives life imprisonment.
Is his wife to remain loyal to him till one of them dies? Has any trust been broken? Has any commitment been destroyed? In most cases of imprisonment, divorce takes place.
A dishonest husband plunges his family into debt. He is a con man conning many out of their money. He forges his wife’s name on a loan so he can get money. He never allows her to see his chequebook or bank statements.
She discovers all his dishonest dealings, leaving her where she can be liable for his debts. A lawyer advises her that it would be best for her to divorce rather than to be liable for his debts.
Has basic trust in marriage been broken? Has the husband been faithful to his vows? Should she stay with him and let him continue his dishonest ways when he shows no repentance?
Often, men will desert their wives and children. We see this in America and especially in some foreign countries where laws are not as strict as they are in the U.S. Is the wife obligated to keep her vows till death, even though she may never see him again?
What about a case of a woman denying her husband any sex life, saying she sees sex as dirty and ugly, and she will have no part in it, in spite of Paul’s command, “Do not deprive one another.” She is unwilling to listen to counselling. What is the husband to do?
1. A man commits fornication. 1. A man commits fornication.
2. Breaks up a marriage as a result 2. Breaks up his marriage, resulting in divorce.
3. Repents, is forgiven. 3. Repents, is forgiven.
4. Being single, he marries. 4. Being single, he remarries.
5. Accepted as he is and is baptised. 5. Told he must break up the marriage and remain single before he can be baptised.
According to the traditional view, the unmarried fornicator is free to marry, but the married adulterer must pay a penalty of remaining single the rest of his life. If the married man cannot remarry, why should the unmarried man be permitted to marry? It would seem that the sin in each case is the same and is just as serious. Why shouldn’t the penalty of celibacy apply to one instead?
The above situations point out how complex divorces are and whether it would be right to remarry. We certainly know of people who have left unhappy marriages, who have found happier lives with other partners or even to live by themselves.
In the 1930s and 40s divorce was practically unheard of. By the 50s the divorce rate rose to thirty per cent. Today that rate is fifty per cent. Today in the U.S., there are one million divorces per year. This translates into over one million children under age eighteen becoming children of divorce.
There seems to be no sense of national crisis. It seems the real issue facing us in the church today is divorce, not remarriage. If there were no divorces, there would be no remarriages.
Divorce is the real enemy. We need to do a better job of teaching the fact that marriage is a lifetime commitment. Again, there are situations that seemingly have no clear-cut answers. This is why we have entitled this study “The Divorce and Remarriage Dilemma.”