This is another small study on an important Biblical topic. I intend to cover only the most important highlights. For a more in-depth study I recommend OlanHicks.com where you can research this and other pressing issues. For now, this current study is my thumbnail take on it.
Pollster Louis Harris has written, "The idea that half of American marriages are doomed is one of the most specious pieces of statistical nonsense ever perpetuated in modern times." It all began when the Census Bureau noted that during one year, there were 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces. Someone did the math without calculating the 54 million marriages already in existence, and presto, a ridiculous but quotable statistic was born.
Harris concludes, "Only one out of eight new marriages will end in divorce. In any single year, only about 2 percent of existing marriages will break up." Still, 1.2 million divorces per year is a serious problem we are all affected by, in one way or another.
What is marriage? When looking at the situations described in Genesis 2:24, John 2:1-11, and John 4:17, I think it is safe to say generally that whatever the local, cultural customs are regarding marriage ceremonies joining men and women is acceptable. They will certainly vary, perhaps a great deal, from one culture to another, and it would be a mistake to impose our cultural standards or mores onto another culture. Interestingly enough, though, looking at the last passage, John 4:17, there certainly seems to have been a difference in Judaism between being married and just living together, since the woman at the well had had five previous husbands but the one she was currently living with was not her husband. Those distinctions also need to be respected.
The traditional view among many Christian denominations is that those unscripturally divorced are forbidden to remarry. Those that have remarried are required to divorce their second mate and return to their first mate or, if that's impossible, remain single for the rest of their lives.
Interestingly enough, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever instructed anyone to do this, even though both the Jewish and the pagan cultures in which they lived were rampant with this type of behavior. And they both encountered people with those issues in their past.
In fact, the New Testament gives us two specific encounters Jesus had with people involved in sins against marriage. In John 4, a woman who had had five previous husbands was living with someone to whom she was not married, and in John 8 a woman caught in the very act of adultery was brought before Him. In neither case did Jesus tell them they could never be married again.
And when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, in chapter 5 he details a sexual sin among them that even the pagans didn't engage in, yet his exhortation to the church was so the guilty party could be restored, recovered. And in the very next chapter at 6:9-11 he points out that many of them had sexual sins in their background, but when they became Christians they were "washed, sanctified, and justified" by Christ. And, as we will see in the next chapter, chapter 7, Paul's comments about their rights to marry are quite different from the traditional position in spite of the transgressions in their past.
So both Jesus and Paul did run into the kinds of problems still rampant today. We ought to handle those problems the same way they did.
The 1545 Roman Catholic Council of Trent made marriage a sacrament with God a participant. Most denominations accept this to one degree or another. The fact is that God instituted marriage for the benefit of mankind. When people get it wrong they subvert those benefits and people suffer. When people get it right everyone involved benefits.
Our concern in this study is what does the bible say the remedy is for people who have gotten it wrong in the past?
In Matthew 19:3 the question put to Jesus was, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" The Pharisees hoped to pit Jesus against Moses.
Many view this verse as addressing the rightness or wrongness of remarriage. But the real issue is the wrongness of divorce, not the rightness of marriage, which is never even mentioned in this verse. In the next two verses Jesus quotes from Moses that it is not good for man to be alone, Genesis 2:18, showing how it was from the beginning.
The next verse, Matthew 19:6, gets misunderstood by most traditionalists. Concerning what God has joined together, Jesus says, "Let not man separate." He said let not, not cannot. Divorce is wrong but not impossible to do. We are told not to murder or steal, but men still do that. It makes no sense for Jesus to tell us not to do that which is impossible for us to do anyway. Marriage is right and honorable for all, according to Hebrews 13:4. No exceptions are mentioned.
Next, in Matthew 19:7, the Pharisees think they have grounds to challenge Jesus' judgment with what Moses commanded regarding a certificate of divorce. They thought they had Jesus trapped by his own words until they heard His response in the next two verses.
In Matthew 19:8 Jesus points out that the certificate of divorce was really a concession because of the hardness of their hearts. Only with the certificate would the cast away wife become an ex-wife and thus be free to marry again, avoiding being destitute with no means of support. If she was cast out without the certificate she would still be married and thus could not marry anyone else.
The traditional view of Matthew 19:9 actually denies everything that verse says. "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife..." tradition says they're still married in the eyes of God even though 1, the state recognizes the divorce, and 2, Jesus, who is God, just said he divorces her, "...except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman..." tradition says that since the first marriage is ongoing this second marriage is no marriage at all but is simply living together in the eyes of God, regardless of what the state says, even though Jesus says he marries another woman, "...commits adultery." Tradition says the adultery comes later in the sexual activity of the second relationship, not in the divorcing and remarrying as Jesus stated.
There is no verse that says that someone unscripturally divorced is still married in the eyes of God. Jesus here states the opposite. The divorce is wrong but it is still a divorce.
"Divorce" is from the Greek word luo, the standard word for divorce. It is also used of loosing or releasing something, the context determining what that is. It is used of Barabbas' release in Matthew 27:26, and of the removing of Lazarus' graveclothes in John 11:44. Was Barabbas still in prison after he was released? Was Lazarus still in graveclothes after they were removed? In the same way one is no longer married when he is divorced.
To get around adultery some Jews would divorce their wives so that they could marry another they had their eye on, a sort of legal bedhopping. The word "adultery" is of relatively recent origin, coined for this verse. Original English translations had "breaketh wedlock," the true meaning of moichos. The sexual connotation is only about 400 years old but is so ingrained in our culture that it is usually the first definition given.
The idea is the mixing in of something with something else. For instance, you can adulterate tea with sugar. More commonly, though, the term refers to the mixing of things that ought not be mixed.
In marriage the original idea of moichos is faithlessness, and it needn't be sexual at all. Jeremiah 3:9, Matthew 12:39 and James 4:4 all refer to nonsexual things as adultery.
The idea in Matthew 19:9 is, if the man divorces his wife but she is really innocent of being faithless, his act of divorcing her is an act of faithlessness against her on his part! He's guilty of what he accused his wife of being!
There is actually a bit of humor in this verse in the form of irony. If any women, especially any with a history of mistreatment by men were listening to this discourse, I can imagine them trying to stifle a snicker or two while the men reacted rather negatively, verse 10.
Everyone would assume some uncleanness on her part, and thus she would be called an adulteress even when she isn't. The verb tenses in Matthew 5:32b are passive, not active, and at least one modern English version translates it that way, the GOD'S WORD translation.
The first part of Matthew 5:32 is interesting in how it's translated. The KJV translates apoluo as put away. The context is about being cast out or sent off without a bill of divorcement, thus she's cast away but still married. It is unfortunate that so many modern translations like the NIV have divorce there instead of put away. Interestingly, in 1 Corinthians 7:27 the KJV also correctly translates luo, a form of the same Greek word, as loosed, as in loosed from a wife (divorced) while the NIV merely translates it as unmarried, which is not specific enough, since the Greek indicates what type of unmarried this is.
This is treachery done to her, not by her. And if he does not give her a bill of divorcement but merely casts her out she is not free to marry another because she is still married, and thus in danger of becoming destitute if she has no means of self-support. Under Jewish law she couldn't even own property. All this because he wanted to sleep with someone else.
The issue of whether or not they could remarry after a divorce is not addressed in this verse. In fact, the bill of divorcement is a kindness to her so she can remarry, since her husband is determined to sinfully cast her out regardless.
Mark 10:11 adds that the adultery is "against her," the first wife, not with the second wife.
In Luke 16:18 the word "and" connects the two actions in time and purpose, having the force of "so that." The divorce is so that the second marriage can take place. The purpose of one is for the other. This is faithlessness against the first wife. This does not speak to a divorced person who later on meets someone and wants to get married.
Paul is writing to Gentile Christians, some of whom were previously sexually immoral, 6:9. But verse 11 says they were washed, sanctified, justified. Is that true or are they still guilty and have to pay for their past sexual sins by remaining single?
7:2 says each person should have his own wife, apparently without regard to his past, since no exceptions were listed.
7:5 says marriage is protection from sexual sin. How ironic that the God given protection should be withdrawn from those needing it the most, yet that is what the traditional position does.
7:8,9 says marriage is good and necessary.
7:10,11 This is about a married couple who separates but doesn't divorce. V10 starts out, "To the married..." V11 the word translated "separate" is choridzo, meaning literally to send away, depart, or separate, but not divorce. This is a case of a married couple who separates without divorcing, so each has a spouse to whom he or she can return. Paul says don't marry anyone else, save the marriage you have. If they instead go ahead and divorce then this passage no longer applies to them.
7:12-16 is not addressed by Jesus anywhere in the Gospels (I, not the Lord...) The man who leaves frees the woman, she is not under bondage (meaning the marriage bond, there is no other bond here.) This does not violate Matthew 19:9 because the one who left demonstrated faithlessness.
7:17-24 is about staying in the situation you're in when you become a Christian. Don't get a divorce just because your spouse remains an unbeliever. If he goes you are not bound, though.
7:27 asks, are you married? Don't get a divorce. Are you divorced? (NIV "unmarried" is a poor translation, not being specific enough. The Greek word luo, the same word used in connection with Barabbas and Lazarus, denotes a specific kind of unmarried, that is, loosed, released, divorced, as opposed to never married or widowed, and is so translated in many English versions including the KJV, among others.) Paul says don't look for a wife.
7:28 But if you do remarry you have not sinned. No regard is given for the previous divorce. It's in the past and has no bearing on his right to remarry now. (The bible makes no distinction between marrying and remarrying.) Hebrews 13:4 says that marriage should be honored by all, and the bed kept pure.
Romans 7:1-3 This is for the benefit of the Jews who were, after all, the only ones under Jewish law. In verse 4 Paul shows that guilty, divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8) could be married again, to Christ. Israel was guilty of adultery with stocks and stones. Some like to refer to this as spiritual adultery, meaning not really adultery since no sex was involved. But, as we've seen, the root meaning of adultery is faithlessness, and Israel's chasing after false gods certainly fits the bill.
The point, though, is that Israel's guilt did not disqualify her from having another marriage.
Some who have been in second marriages have been told to break them up and return to a first spouse before they can be baptized. This violates Deuteronomy 24:4, and causes another divorce. And if thee are children involved the tragedy is needlessly compounded.
Doesn't repentance mean stop the action? Yes, it does. If you steal you must stop, and if you have stolen property you must return it. What is the action in Matthew 19:9? Divorcing and remarrying, not the sexual relations in the second marriage. This is a sin committed, not lived in. Repentance means being committed to the marriage you're in now, being faithful to it, not looking for the next one.
Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 3:2 that elders must be the husband of but one wife means, clearly, one at a time, according to R.C.H. Lenske. Some pagans that became Christians were polygamists. There is no evidence that they were forced to divorce all but one wife when they became Christians, and so it is entirely possible that many had more than one wife at the same time.
When one is divorced and remarried later, he has an ex-wife and a wife, not two wives. Nor does he have a wife (1st) and a mistress with whom he is living in adultery.
In any divorce one or both have sinned. The only purpose in determining who is at fault is to determine who needs to repent. The right of remarriage is never the issue.
1 Timothy 4:1 Paul warns that in the later times people would abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. In v3 the first item on the list is forbidding to marry. This is not the same as when God told the Israelites not to take foreign wives or when John the Baptist criticized Herod for marrying his brother's wife. They could have a marriage, just not the one they were in. No one was ever told they couldn't have a marriage at all. Some marriages are inherently wrong. But no one is denied marriage altogether.
1. Matthew 19:9 describes only one way of violating marriage. Is it the only way? No.
2. Because Jesus didn't discuss other ways of violating marriage does that mean they don't exist? No.
3. Is it wrong to apply Matthew 19:9 to virtually all divorce situations? Yes.
4. Does Jesus describe an actual divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:9 or only an attempt? Jesus describes an actual divorce and remarriage.
5. What is the "adultery" of Matthew 19:9? Is it a sin committed or lived in? It is a sin committed, and it consits of divorcing unjustly to remarry.
6. Is divorce less sinful if there's no remarriage? No. The treachery against the innocent first party has still occurred.
7. Did Paul misinterpret Jesus in 1 Corinthians 7:27,28? No.
8. We'll probably never meet a Christian who is contemplating violating Matthew 19:9, but we may meet many others who wish to become Christians (or restored) who have already violated Matthew 19:9 in the past. What do we do? What did the apostles do? 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and chapter 7 provide us with answers. What did Jesus do? John 8:1-11 provides the answer.
9. Is grace redemptive or punitive? Redemptive.
10. What is the remedy for sin? Grace.
11. What does repentance demand? That the sin be stopped. What is the sin? Being faithless to your marriage. In this case repentance means vowing to be faithful to the marriage you’re in now, or, if you're not married, being committed to the one you intend to be in.
12. Does this violate our sense of justice? I don’t want justice. I want grace.
13. Do we really believe in grace and forgiveness? Is it really for everything else but not this subject?
If we keep in mind that God's laws are for our benefit we might realize that His remedies for our sins are, as well. God is for us, not against us. When one is cleansed by the blood of Christ, he is cleansed completely. Sins against marriage are not unforgivable. Repentance and getting it right the next time are the remedies of God.
I hope this small study has been beneficial to you. More information can be found at OlanHicks.com if you are interested.
| Index Introduction Flowchart Files Links About me Awards Email me Resources |