Eternal Perspectives

Having explored the historical and cultural contexts of the first century c.e., as well as the teachings of both Jesus and Paul, this fourth post will examine the understandings and applications of the church at the present time. Much of the material will be drawn from Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, edited by H. Wayne House.

Four Views

House develops his book along four different approaches to the matters of divorce and remarriage:

No Divorce, No Remarriage;

Divorce, No Remarriage;

Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion;

Divorce and Remarraige for a Variety of Reasons.

1. The first position - no divorce, no remarriage - is argued by J. Carl Laney. He believes that “marriage was designed by God to be permanent unto death, and that divorce and remarriage constitute the sin of adultery.” He begins his discussion by establishing a theology of marriage and offering a definition:

“While many have thought of it merely as a legal agreement, the Bible reveals that the marriage union involves much more . . . marriage could be defined as God’s act of joining a man and a woman in a permanent, covenanted, one-flesh relationship.”

Laney understands Deu 24.1-4 to be a concession, not grounds for divorce; further, he finds there a basis for disallowing remarriage in the event of a divorce. Of Jesus’ exception clause in Mt 19.9, he interprets the phrase as referring only to unlawful marriages:

“According to this view, the exception clause in Matthew 19.9 simply states that Christ’s prohibition against divorce (Mt 19.6) does not apply in the case of an illegal, incestuous marriage - one that should not have been consumated in the first place.”

Similarly, Laney finds a divorce prohibition in Paul. He points out that believers are twice told not to separate (which constituted divorce in that culture), whether the Christian’s spouse was a believer or not. Divorce, he says, is not an option for the believer.

This position, as well as most others, grows out of a high view of marriage. It argues that nowhere does God command or commend divorce and that the New Testament makes clear that divorce is caused by sin - specifically, hardness of heart. Paul does not promote or allow divorce. Remarriage, while permissible for a widow or widower to another believer, is adulterous for one who has been divorced for any reason; further, marrying a person who has been divorced constitutes adultery. Finally, if divorce does occur, the only options available to the believer is to reconcile or to remain single.

2. According to William Heth, only the death of one’s former spouse frees a divorced person to marry again. He represents the second position in this discussion, that of allowing for divorce but prohibiting remarriage. He writes:

“Even though marital separation or legal divorce may be advisable under some circumstances, Jesus taught that his disciples should not remarry after divorce. This would be contrary to the nature of marriage as God designed it in his creation and a violation of the seventh commandment: ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Deu 5.18 NIV). If separation or legal divorce occurs, it should be done with the sincere hope and aim that reconciliation would be possible eventually.”

Heth takes issue with John Murray and others who teach that divorce (as allowed by Deu 24.1-4) results in the dissolution of the marriage bond. Rejecting such “inferences” (his word), Heth explains,

“Neither the divorce procedure that was practiced by Israel nor the purely lexical meaning of a single word in Deuteronomy 24.1 can establish the claim that the nature of a ‘biblical’ divorce is that it completely dissolves the marriage bond. It is one thing to speak of an extrinsic or legal dissolution of the marital love relationship, but quite another to speak of an intrinsic or constitutional dissolution of the marital kinship relationship.”

Turning to Jesus’ exception clause, Heth finds a simple solution. Porneia, he explains, is actually somewhat of moot point:

“The ‘except for marital unfaithfulness’ clause does not need to mean any more than the fact that divorcing an unchaste wife would not make her an adulteress, for she has made herself an adulteress, adultery being the most common type of sexual offense covered by the term porneia . . . The exception clause in Matthew 5.32 is simply a matter-of-fact recognition that if the wife has already committed adultery, her husband cannot be held guilty of driving her into it by divorcing her . . .

“But immediately following, we find Jesus’ absolute and unqualified conditional statement that ‘whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery . . . [which] strongly suggests that Jesus never intended to sanction remarriage after divorce for marital unfaithfulness.”

Paul’s apparent allowance of remarriage in 1 Cor 7.15 (”the brother or sister is not enslaved”) is just that: apparent. Heth reasons that Paul, sharing Jesus’ view of the nature of marriage, taught that the marriage union was binding for all people since it was a “creation ordinance.” He says that “if Paul did not permit one Christian divorced by another Christian to remarry (1 Cor 7.11), why should he permit a Christian divorced by a non-Christian to remarry?”

3. The third position is often referred to as the “traditional view” and is probably the one with which many of us are most familiar. It allows for divorce and remarriage on two grounds: adultery or desertion. Thomas Edgar speaks for those holding this position. Believing that both Mt 19 and 1 Cor 7 allow for divorce, Edgar reasons that divorce and remarriage are biblical for the innocent party in either situation.

Treating Mt 19.9 first, he writes,

“Notice that this verse does not discuss an individual who merely divorces and does not remarry. It only concerns an individual who both divorces and remarries. The interpetation that this verse allows divorce but not remarriage is not merely improbable, it is grammatically impossible . . . This verse definitely indicates that someone who divorces due to the exception and then marries another does not commit adultery. The exception is a real exception which allows for a genuine divorce so that the person may marry another . . . when Jesus answers the question of whether divorce is ever proper with the statement that if someone divorces except for fornication and remarries, he commits adultery, his answer is meaningless if it does not mean that in other cases it is acceptable . . . Jesus means that for anyone who divorces due to a spouse’s fornication and marries another, the divorce is valid, and remarriage is permitted.”

Edgar understands Paul’s phrase “the brother or sister is not enslaved” in 1 Cor 7.15 to refer to the innocent party in divorce; the sinning partner, he states, is bound not to remarry (in the case of a sinning Christian). Referring to letting the unbelieving spouse leave if that is his or her desire, Edgar reasons,

“Since Paul presents it as acceptable for the believer to allow this to happen and since a biblically valid divorce allows for remarriage, it is most probable that Paul allows not only divorce but subsequent remarriage in the case of desertion by an unbeliever. Although it is not definitely stated that desertion by a believer likewise allows for divorce and remarriage for the deserted spouse, according to ! Cor 7.10-14 there is no substantial difference between the validity of a mixed marriage and the marriage of two believers. The mixed marriage is acceptable to God and completely valid. Therefore, although not specifically stated, desertion even by a believer may be grounds for divorce and remarriage.”

4. Larry Richards represents the fourth and most liberal teaching regarding divorce and remarriage, i.e., divorce and remarriage are acceptable for a variety of different reasons. He explains his approach to the relevant passages at the onset:

“We must approach the question of divorce and remarriage on three levels: (1) we must study relevant texts with careful attention to their context; (2) we must test our interpretation against patterns seen in the whole Word; and (3) we must check the harmony of our conclusions against Scripture’s most basic context, that of the grace of our God.”

Richards argues that Jesus’ appeal to creation in Mt 19 was not for the purpose of establishing a more rigid and restrictive position on marriage, but to demonstrate that the Law - which the Pharisees held in such high regard - “was not the ultimate expression [of God’s will] they thought.” Permitting divorce because of hardness of heart is a reflection of God’s grace:

“. . . God, in grace, has taken the warping of humankind into account. He gave his permission in Moses’ Law for human beings to take a course of action which actually goes against his own ideal. The Law’s provision for divorce is proof that the Law in which the Pharisees put such trust is in fact a lowered standard, a lowered standard that deomonstrates God’s willingness to accommodate himself to fallen humanity’s weaknesses . . .

“If God treated human frailty so graciously in the age of the Law and permitted not only divorce but also subsequent remarriage, how can we, in this age of grace, treat divorce and remarriage so legalistically?”

In addition to allowing for divorce for numerous reasons, Richards offers a novel - and perhap disturbing - perspective on who is to decide whether or not divorce is allowable. He points out that, at the time of Deu 24, courts and judges were available to decide cases on the basis of divine law; in the first century c.e., the Pharisees functioned in a similar capacity. Concerning Moses’ day, he says:

“Yet, when a couple was determining whether or not to divorce, they were not told to bring the issue to one of these courts. In fact, the court systems were ignored, and the issue was decided by the couple involved and by that couple alone . . .

“Jesus’ command ‘let man not separate’ has great significance for modern debates on divorce . . . Jesus’ words warn us that pastors and other Christian leaders have no more right to stand in judgment over the dissolution of a marriage than did the Pharisees . . . Jesus’ words to the Pharisees confront us if we, like those jealous men of long ago, take it upon ourselves to convene our ecclesiastical courts to make pronouncements on an issue which must in the last analysis be a personal decision . . .”

Richards concludes with six principles or guidelines for divorce and/or remarriage:

“God’s goal in marriage is a lifelong union, within which two people love one another and enrich one another’s lives . . .

“Because human beings are marred by sin, it will not always be possible for a marriage to achieve this ideal . . .

“Hard-heartedness may be displayed in a variety of ways, including mental and physical abuse, sexual abuse, repeated adulteries, and emotional and spiritual abandonment of the relationship . . .

“It is the sole responsibility of husband an/or wife to determine whether or not the marriage is really over and it is time to divorce . . .

“Persons who divorce for any reason do have the right to remarry . . .

“Persons who have divorced and are remarried have the right to be fully involved in the life of the local church, without prejudice.” [emphasis mine]

Next: My Position and Conclusion