The concept of marriage began with Adam and Eve when God created Eve as a helper to Adam. The role of Eve was predefined during creation in subordination to Adam hierarchically and this paradigm has persisted to this day (Gen 1:27; 2:21-22). God’s plans for marriage were that it would be between one man and one woman for the duration of their lives (Gen. 2:24). Jesus affirms that the marriage relationship was to be for life during His ministry (Mat. 19:4-6) and Paul further confirms it in 1Cor. 7 and as found in other epistles (Heb. 13:4).
Marriage is a purposeful union. The purpose of marriage is to prevent sexual immorality, propagate the human race, and to provide lifelong companionship. Selfishness must not characterize the marital relationship (Love does not seek its own – 1Cor. 13:5) and love must characterize every marriage (Eph. 5:25-33; Tit. 2:4). Marriage is an indissoluble union with only one exception being that of fornication (Mat. 19:9; 5:32). Finally, circumstances and conditions need to be considered before marriage. Marriage is a 3-way relationship between a man, a woman, and God so choices and planning are critically important. It is in this lack of planning and spiritual education that the world cannot seem to grasp the permanency of the marriage institution.
The idea of divorce (Gk. Apoluo – “to let loose from, let go free” (Mat. 19:3, 7-9), and apostasion – “a writing or bill of divorcement” (Mat. 5:31; 19:7; Mar. 10:4) came because of man’s hardness of heart and frivolous dissatisfaction with monogamous relationships. Jesus mentions this in Mat. 19 as the reason why Moses allowed it under Old Testament Law. To this day there are people who view marriage as nothing more than a union of convenience (and false ideas about love) until one of the parties becomes dissatisfied with the other. All that is required anymore is a mutual release of responsibility and division of assets. These so-called ‘no-fault’ divorces are as common as the marriages themselves and amount to nothing more than ritualistic demagoguery for the spiritually inept and weak-minded. Islam allows divorce with the utterance of the words “I divorce you” three times and it’s done. In the OT, the male Jew could divorce his wife, but she could not divorce him. The divorce could be for any reason which undermined the value and godly standards of the sacred union. The standards for divorce have been continually reduced to the point that it is no longer difficult to achieve and on any basis. Combine this with the ungodly idea of having multiple wives and it is easy to see the mess of confusion that developed. This was the societal condition of Jesus’ time and little to nothing has changed since as we still have a high divorce rate and polygamy still exists, even in America.
The earliest scriptural text concerning marriage and divorce is In Deu. 24, where Moses doesn’t institute nor enjoin divorce but outlines the Law concerning it. Moses could not end the practice and so had to put some rules around it in an attempt to control it and minimize confusion. Man was in a spiritually infantile state relative to understanding sin and God tolerated certain things in humanity as it was, proverbially speaking, growing up. With the full impact of Jesus and the gospel dispensation, that period of toleration ceased, and all are called to repentance. The Pharisees during Jesus’ time were aware of what Moses was saying in Deu. 24:1-2 and Jesus reminded them of why Moses allowed it (hardness of heart) and that it was not in the original law of God. This tells us two very important things; 1) Marriage is a universal law of God covering all human existence regardless of spiritual, religious, or non-religious setting, and 2) Divorce was never a part of God’s universal law. As Paul mentions in Acts 14:15, 16 where he said that in generations gone by, God “suffered” the nations to walk in their own ways, it was tolerated as God’s revealed plan was in-progress. Now that His plan is fully revealed we are expected to know better.
In 1Cor. 7, the apostle Paul outlines some important instructions regarding marriage and how the man and woman should treat one another. These were given in response to the Corinthians’ question they had written to Paul (verse 1). In our day of ‘disposable marriages’, the timelessness of Paul’s admonitions still stand and ring true.
First, we learn that sexual relations in marriage is not a dirty and sordid affair. Rather it is something beautiful, affectionate, purposeful, and sacred. Second, we learn that sexual relations are to be confined exclusively to marriage. Third, selflessness is to be practiced by both parties and neither is to withhold themselves from the other. By the same token, neither is to force themselves on the other. These traits of marriage character are largely undisputed even among denominational leaders. There is however dispute or perhaps, confusion regarding the authorizations for divorce, but we’ll get to that later.
In terms of instructions to the unmarried and widows, Paul affirms that celibacy is preferable to marriage if one can maintain control over their bodies and desires. However, he instructs that marriage is preferable to “burning” with passion. There are some who view this passage with the idea that getting married for sex alone is OK notwithstanding the consequences if there is the potential for premature ending once the sex became boring. Marriage should never be viewed from the perspective of the flesh but rather from the perspective of a spiritual union.
There are further instructions to those that are married to unbelievers which is still holy in the eyes of God. The marriage is sanctified because of the believing spouse. The believer is not so bound to the unbeliever that they are to surrender their Christian principles to keep the marriage together. For many there is a real opportunity that the Christian will pull the unbeliever into believing or a danger that the unbeliever will pull the Christian out of Christ. Nevertheless, the apostle later points out that if the unbelieving spouse leaves then the believer is no longer bound to the unbeliever in terms of the marriage covenant and so long as the guilt of separation falls onto the unbeliever. This is in contrast to when both parties are believers and obtain an unscriptural divorce, the two remain bound so long as both are alive. Paul goes on to say that if such a circumstance persists, the innocent believer is then only able to remarry in the Lord.
In 1Cor. 7:17-26, Paul is teaching that situations in life that are lawful need not be dissolved. Let each person in life seek to follow his calling in the Lord. Slavery is used as an example as that was a common social construct during this time. A slave was not committing sin by remaining a slave though he should probably seek to be legally free. As a slave during those times, it was possible that a person could be hindered from serving or worshipping the Lord or even being married, especially if the slave owner was an unbeliever. The point being made was to draw parallels between being a slave of men and sin and being a slave for Christ because we were purchased at a price, in blood. Paul might have said this also to prevent possible insurrection among indentured servants that obeyed the gospel message and had some problems with the idea of being a slave to men. The nature of the “distress” in verse 26 is not clearly known but it was during a time of Christian persecution, possibly under Nero. So, it was appropriate that Paul dealt with this issue at this time. Additional information is given (verses 27 – 35) relative to the season of persecution that the church at Corinth might have been enduring. Summarily, Paul urges them to live for the Lord and to not account this life as anything. He reminds them that this world is passing away and he wants them to be free from anxieties. No doubt societal stresses make for some difficulties in showing love for a spouse when distracted and even more in serving the Lord. It can account for sin creeping into the relationship, by way of anxiety, and causing marriages to become strained even to the point of divorce. Wayne Jackson in his study of this topic sums it up nicely: “Any attack upon the home, or any doctrine which compromises the teaching of God about the home, or any concept which weakens the stability of the home, or its permanency, is, in the final analysis, an attack upon the scheme of redemption, an attack upon God’s plan to save man.” (Jackson)
Now taking this further, we need to look at various arguments over divorce and remarriage as this is a potential problem for some even in the church of God. There are many well-meaning people who struggle with the idea that once divorced whether they are biblically free to remarry. Then what happens when a person comes into the kingdom with an unscriptural divorce on their record. Finally, there’s some who suggest that an unscriptural marriage amounts to continual fornication or adultery and must be dissolved to be right with God.
To tackle some of these questions we must first define what God is capable of within the confines of His word and secondly, what is the reasonable expectations of man within the marriage covenant. Let’s begin with the alien sinner. God is responsible for the state of our souls, and he changes that state when we are obedient to His word. Take baptism for example, we are required to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Our responsibility is to repent and when we’re obedient to baptism, God changes our state from sinner to saint. We come as we are as Paul says in 1Cor. 7:16-24 when he says unequivocally regarding an alien sinner’s acceptance of the gospel message that we come in “the condition in which God called him” (v20). For example, if a man was circumcised when God called him he should not attempt to remove the signs of his circumcision. If on the other hand he was uncircumcised he should not become circumcised. ”Everyone should continue in the state in which he heard the call of God”. Where you a slave? Don’t let that worry you. If married to a woman who is your second wife, remain married to her. There is no command, precedent or suggestion that one should divorce a current wife due to having an unscriptural divorce prior to obedience to the gospel message. It would be suggesting that an alien sinner could be forgiven of everything “except”…and there’s nothing in scripture to suggest there are exceptions to His forgiveness when a person is called to serve Him. “My brothers, let every one of us continue to live his life with God in the state in which he was when he was called.” (v24) If this passage is not showing that God starts with an alien sinner in the marital state in which he comes to Christ, what is it teaching? So the question now is, can God forgive the alien sinner of the sin of adultery in marriage i.e. the mindset of putting away and marrying another without fornication involved, and let the marriage remain intact on the basis of His covenant, grace and mercy? (Rom. 9:15). The biblically correct and consistent answer is ‘yes’. While the law of marriage is global in scope and is perpetual across all walks of life, whether Christian or non-Christian, it does not require a change of a person’s status when they’re called other than repentance to obey Him going forward.
Now if the new Christian gets a divorce on a basis other than fornication, they will have entered a state of sin and be subject to God’s judgement on that basis. That said, let’s look at the definition of terms concerning Mat. 19:9 and whether Jesus was talking about physical sex, emotional sex, or spiritual sex. A few phrases that have come into vogue in the Christian world that has troubling consequences is “spiritual adultery” or “emotional adultery” and these terms have been used in place of or as an explanation of the Greek word used by Jesus of Pornea which carries multiple meanings depending on context. I have heard people say that once a married man looks at pornography, he has committed spiritual adultery against his spouse and can be divorced. Another is when the husband doesn’t treat the wife well that he’s committed “emotional adultery” by being so selfish. Each of these has been used to justify divorce on those grounds. This is fallacious and has no basis in scripture. It appears to be an attempt at getting around the physical act of fornication/adultery in order to allow an unhappy or abused party in a marriage to divorce their spouse. I’ve even heard of preachers using those terms to justify their own divorce as though they are any authority. This idea I believe comes from James 4:4 where it is used metaphorically to describe people who are friends with the world making them enemies of God. Ezekiel and Jeremiah used similar language to describe Israel’s idolatry. There is no such thing as spiritual or emotional adultery in the context of the marriage covenant and this insidious trend is falsely relied upon for what amounts to many unscriptural divorces. The Salvation Call defines spiritual adultery as follows: “Generally, as far as the Bible is concerned, spiritual adultery is the situation where the people of God embrace foreign religions.” (Call)
Jesus’ use of the word ‘pornea’ clearly suggests in the present tense an act of physical manifestation, that is, physical sex with another outside of the marriage covenant. It also signifies an act that is repeated or becomes a pattern of behavior. The act of physical sex creates a spiritual bond between two people. The argument that this is spiritual adultery against the innocent spouse appears on the surface to fit the narrative of the expression but it’s not supportable exegetically or in the context in which adultery is defined or used in scripture. An abused spouse has the option of reaching out to elders or brethren who might help in their situation. There’s also the option of temporary separation and counselling until things could improve. This is why planning and making careful choices of a mate are crucial.
So, can a person who is divorced remarry? If it was a scriptural divorce, the innocent party may remarry says Paul (only in the Lord) but the guilty party may not remarry. Some have come to rationalize allowing the guilty person to remarry by suggesting that God does not expect a man who has been put away for adultery to be celibate and abstain from sex for the remainder of his life. But Jesus said, within the context of marriage, divorce, and remarriage that some men have “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Mat. 19:12) Therefore it IS expected that a person who is put away for adultery and for the sake of the kingdom, be celibate after such an error in judgement. This makes sense because if the guilty party is allowed to remarry then what would be the point of the condition that Jesus set forth in Mat. 19? The rationalist must also understand that there are other situations within marriage that necessitate that either or both married partners abstain from sexual relations such as sickness, mental or physical problems, paralysis, and impotence for example. Can one party divorce their partner and marry another because the spouse cannot perform sexually? Let it not be so. If God doesn’t allow two innocent people to do this based on leading a celibate life, why would He permit a guilty person to do it based on that rationalism?! What if both parties are guilty? May both remarry? Scripture please! To advocate that silence of Jesus about the rights of the guilty party to remarry is authority for him to do it is to teach that silence is sanction. Silence of the scriptures is never sanction and this is used often for including musical instruments in worship services. There is no recourse for someone who is divorced for the cause of adultery other than to live their lives for the sake of the kingdom in celibacy.
There are generally four positions on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. They are:
- Christians must never divorce and never remarry.
- This is the ideal circumstances but is not realistic because of human sinful nature.
- Divorce is permissible for adultery and desertion, but remarriage is not permissible.
- Desertion is an implied imperative that is not contained in scripture. It applies in the sense that a person who deserts another will eventually find companionship in the bed of another thus fulfilling the fornication requirement. Nothing in scripture indicates that both parties are culpable and thus can not remarry. Rather the innocent party would be able to remarry.
- Divorce is permissible for adultery and desertion, and remarriage is permissible for the innocent party.
- This is more consistent with scripture though again, desertion is not mentioned.
- Divorce is permissible for adultery, desertion, and in other special circumstances, and remarriage is permissible for the innocent and those who are repentant.
- This is the view that many have or want to believe but has no support in scripture. There is nothing in scripture that gives the guilty person recourse even after repentance to remarry. Other special circumstances are not mentioned and have no support in scripture. This is the prevailing view of denominational institutions.
There are many who view the question of marriage, divorce, and remarriage from a humanistic and perhaps practical perspective but disregard the words in scripture. Marriage is a serious issue that God instituted from the beginning and Jesus reaffirmed as a relationship between one man and one woman for life. It is because of man’s hardened heart that marriage is treated with a casual attitude. It’s not difficult to understand but is very difficult to deal with when sincere hearts are involved.
References
Call, Salvation. https://salvationcall.com/spiritual-adultery/. 2022.
Jackson, Wayne. “Divorce & Remarriage – A Study Discussion.” Scott, Wayne Jackson and Truman. Divorce & Remarriage – A Study Discussion. Stockton, CA: Courier Publications, 1982. 105.
Website, Facts and Details. https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub363/entry-6065.html#:~:text=Hammurabi%27s%20Code%20of%20Laws%3A%20137-143%3A%20Divorce,-If%20a%20man&text=If%20a%20man%20wishes%20to,house%2C%20and%20let%20her%20go. n.d.
Jackson, Wayne. “Divorce & Remarriage – A Study Discussion.” Scott, Wayne Jackson and Truman. Divorce & Remarriage – A Study Discussion. Stockton, CA: Courier Publications, 1982. 105.
Website, Facts and Details. https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub363/entry-6065.html#:~:text=Hammurabi%27s%20Code%20of%20Laws%3A%20137-143%3A%20Divorce,-If%20a%20man&text=If%20a%20man%20wishes%20to,house%2C%20and%20let%20her%20go. n.d.
