Divorce – As I See It
by
Ron
Sears, D. Min
Format:
- I will use the concept of the Law of First Mention, which in my mind implies that the first
time instruction for a subject is explained in the Bible, the basis for the understanding
and interpretation of all subsequent mentions should be
filtered through that first mention.
- I will use the KJV for all biblical quotes for
consistency.
- When a portion of scripture is being given, I will
underline it with the reference placed in (parentheses).
- My style will be conversational – as if sitting in a
room together.
- There are good men who hold different opinions on
this subject. I am by no means a scholar and what I share will be from my
years of search and study. There may be areas that will seem inconsistent.
Because I do not have total understanding, and since nothing can be stated
so clearly that it will not be misunderstood, I must come to the
conclusion that in time, I will grow in my understanding – or it is a bone
too large for me to digest at this time. In such cases I will do as my
college professor told me. I will bury the bone in the yard and God will
dig it up when He is ready for me to digest it.
- If I insert a comment with a quote, my comment will
be placed in a [bracket] followed with my initials – rs.
To begin:
And
it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day
of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all
that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them (Deuteronomy 1:3). If
I understand the purpose of this verse, Moses was giving the basis of authority
for what he will be writing in Deuteronomy and saying, God told him to “sp(eak) unto the children of Israel… all that the LORD had given
him in commandment….”
Therefore,
when I read chapter 24 of this same book, I accept that the subject
dealt with is what God commanded Moses to tell the children of Israel. It is
by God’s authority that Moses writes, and what Moses gives to us is only what
the Lord commanded him to write. Therefore let’s read what Moses tells us about
divorce. This is the first time instruction for the specific
subject of divorce is mentioned in scripture. The Law of First Mention makes
this the filter for us in all other areas of mention with this subject. Are you
ready?
Ok,
let’s read: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to
pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some
uncleanness in her: then let … (Deuteronomy 24:1).
Divorce
is God’s allowance, but not His command. The issue here is not what was His
perfect plan; the question is, what does God allow? Does God command a divorce?
No. Does He allow it? It would appear so. Is it His perfect plan? No.
We
know that from the beginning, He desired for one man to marry one woman and
only death to separate them (Mark 10). However, man fell and God must deal with
the consequences of this fact. God desired for man to live in innocence in the
garden. Yet, man chose to give up that innocence when he sinned. God had to
deal with this fact of man’s choice of sin and He made a sacrifice providing a
coat of covering. Was the sin of man God’s perfect plan? Not unless you believe
that God predetermined man to fall; which I do not. Because of man’s choice,
the world fell into God’s permissive plan. As a result, God developed the way to reconcile the results of the
nature of man and fact of his sin; the blood of Christ and His death on a cross.
Because of sinful man [hardness of heart, Mark 10:5 - rs] bringing his sinful
nature into the bond of marriage, God’s plan for dealing with the results of
the human condition in that marriage bond, is to allow [not command] the choice of divorce.
Let’s
continue to read, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it
in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of
his house, she may go and be another man's wife (Deuteronomy 24:1, 2).
Again, this is not a command for her to “be another man’s wife”, but an
allowance. The law of first mention will come into play at this point when we
read the New Testament Gospel accounts of this subject. It is sufficient at
this point of first mention to understand that in God’s instruction on how to
end a marriage that is defiled because of our sinful nature, God instructs how
to divorce the couple and He clearly gives allowance for remarriage. It is also
important to see that God calls this woman the second man’s wife. This would
tend to indicate that God has recognized the validity of this second union by
the fact that marriage has made the woman this second man’s wife – not his
live-in or an adulteress.
And
if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth
it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die,
which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may
not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is
abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which
the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:3-4).
In
these verses, the second man is clearly referred to as the “latter husband” and
the first man is called the “former husband.” In other words, God did not now
recognize husband number one as her husband; He recognized man number two as
her husband. The only thing that caused this change was her divorce from number
one and her marriage to number two.
Notice
also, once a person has married another spouse, under no circumstances can the
first marriage be reinstated – that is an abomination! This presents several
thoughts: First, in my experience in dealing with divorce and marriage to
another, it is almost without exception that at some point the divorced parties
feel that things would have been better in some regard had the first marriage
worked; especially if there are children involved. God wants us to understand
the finality of divorce and marriage to another. Second, it would seem that the
second marriage kills the first union. To put it another way, the first husband
died to the relationship when the spouse married a second person. To reinstate
the first marriage at this point would be an abomination and God does not desire
this even in emblematic form. Third, second marriages tend to end in divorce
also – there is a higher probability for this to happen.
My
question would be why the second marriage has a probability of ending in
divorce. Could it be that the sin issue which resulted in the first divorce has
not been dealt with? Could it be that the divorced person takes the weakness
that killed the original marriage
into the next marriage? Unless the person has repented towards God and been
renewed by His Spirit, a vicious cycle has begun that will follow this sinful
human. We all need to heed the words of Christ when he said go and sin no more.
Accepting God’s forgiveness is not enough. We need to be renewed and cleansed
so that this sinful practice is removed from our lifestyle.
It
has been stated that divorce destroys the picture in the New Testament of
Christ and His bride, the church. A question: does the divorce of your family
unit destroy the picture of marriage for my family who does not divorce? No. Though
each marriage may be a reflection of the family unit, no one family can destroy
that image for any other family union. In similar ways, the only thing that can
destroy the picture of Christ and His bride is for Christ to divorce her. Since
He will not give us a bill of divorcement, then we are still His bride. The
divorce of a sinful couple cannot mar the picture of a Perfect Groom Who is
selecting a chaste bride. In fact, the lack of His writing a bill of divorce to
His bride is a great example of the grace and mercy that each marriage needs to
remain intact.
In
Ezra chapter ten, we find that God instructs the Jews to “do his pleasure” and
divorce their wives and children. Let us read, Now when Ezra had prayed, and
when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of
God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of
men and women and children: for the people wept very sore. 2 And Shechaniah the
son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have
trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the
land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. 3 Now therefore
let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are
born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at
the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. 4 Arise;
for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good
courage, and do it. 5 Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites,
and all Israel,
to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware. 6 Then
Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan
the son of Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink
water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been
carried away. 7 And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto
all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together
unto Jerusalem; 8 And that whosoever would not come within three days,
according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance
should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that
had been carried away. 9 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered
themselves together unto Jerusalem
within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month;
and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of
this matter, and for the great rain. 10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said
unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the
trespass of Israel.
11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his
pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the
strange wives (Ezra 10:1-11).
According
to verse ten, it seems clear that God’s
solution to their sin of marrying a Gentile was to divorce their wife AND their
mixed children. In fact, if the Israelite did not follow this instruction they
were to forfeit their entire inheritance and be removed from the family of Israel. That is
a strong commitment that God was requiring. Let me ask, would God require
something like divorce if that would be sin? What of those who did give up their
spouse and child, would God ever allow them to marry a second time to a fellow
Jew; or would they live and die without a family heir? If you know anything
about the importance of passing on the Jewish family name and God’s inheritance
to that family, you would know that God would certainly allow these divorced
Israelites to marry; for the purpose of perpetuating the family name and their place
of inheritance in the Land of Promise.
The
next mention of divorce is, They say,
If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's,
shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but
thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the
LORD (Jeremiah 3:1). This portion of scripture shows the heart of God -
reconciliation. God is here telling His children that He has a biblical / moral
right to divorce them. The basis for this divorce would be adultery. Yet, His
heart is found in His request for them to return. He is willing to reconcile
with them if they will return.
Did
Israel
return? No, and in the same chapter Jeremiah
says, And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel
committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her
treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also
(Jeremiah 3:8). Because of her adultery, God actually divorced her. Why then
could He marry her again? He showed reconciliation when He did not marry
another. Had He married another nation, He would have forever made it
impossible to be married to the Jewish nation. To do this would be an abomination (Deuteronomy
24:3, 4; Romans 9). He let her go because of her sinful nature AND He took her
back because of His reconciling nature.
This
heart of reconciliation is what we as Christians have been called to live when
Paul wrote to Corinth and said, To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling
the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath
committed unto us the word of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19). Though
we may have a biblical allowance to divorce, it would be my encouragement to
practice the spirit of reconciliation with the marriage partner. When God makes
an allowance for divorce, He also allows remarriage [law of first mention – rs].
However, since we have been called to reconciliation, as much as is in us, we
should practice it (If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live
peaceably with all men Romans 12:18). This ends the treatment of divorce in
the Old Testament.
In
the Gospels, there are a few occasions when Jesus speaks about the subject of
divorce. At times, it was His enemies trying to trick him. Usually, it was a
question dealing with Moses’ – read, God’s - teaching on the subject. But, the
first time the subject is found is Jesus making a clarification. In Matthew we
read, It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her
a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matthew
5:31,32).
A
few thoughts: First, remarriage is taken for granted. It is assumed that if
there was a desire for marriage to begin with, there is a continued need for
the physical / emotional relationship in the future. Second, Jesus does allow
for divorce at least for the cause of sexual sin.
Robertson
says of fornication: “An unusual phrase that perhaps means ‘except for a matter
of unchastity.’ ‘Except on the ground of unchastity’ (Weymouth), ‘except unfaithfulness’” He goes
on to say, “McNeile denies that Jesus made this exception because Mark and Luke
do not give it. He claims that the early Christians made the exception to meet
a pressing need, but one fails to see the force of this charge against
Matthew's report of the words of Jesus. It looks like criticism to meet modern
needs.”
Vine's
defines fornication as, “illicit sexual intercourse, it stands for, or includes,
adultery…”
Third,
if God is opposed to divorce what do we do with the seeming contradiction of
God’s instruction to Moses, and His instruction to Ezra and the Jews? Is God at
variance with Himself? No, of course not. This is a “bone” area where I do not
have enough knowledge or wisdom. However, I do know biblically, that God allows
divorce for other causes than sexual impurity. I know that God cannot be
divided. Therefore to only allow divorce in cases of adultery would be placing
God at odds with Himself.
I
have also been taught that at no time do we take one passage and use it to
disprove the preponderance of other passages dealing with the same subject. For
instance, we all understand that grace alone saves. Salvation is provided by
God’s grace and it becomes our personal possession through our faith (Ephesians
2:8). However, what is done with, He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16)? What does this one scripture say about
salvation? It says that one must believe and be baptized to be saved. Is that
true? Absolutely not. Is Jesus wrong in His statement of Mark sixteen? Not if
He is God; and He is. How then is the subject of Mark sixteen to be interpreted?
By taking the subject as a whole and compare it as a template on this one
passage. So, His words of Mark sixteen must be interpreted in the context of
the subject of salvation as a whole – and this does no disservice to our Lord.
In
the same manner I should discern that Christ’s words in Matthew chapter five
should be placed in the context of the entire subject of divorce – and one must
understand, just as in Mark sixteen, this does no disservice to our Lord. I
will leave the settling of this portion of scripture to the Holy Spirit and
your heart. It is a spiritual bone and when I am old enough, God will dig it up
and let me eat it.
The
next use of divorce is, The Pharisees
also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man
to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they
are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a
writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but
from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
adultery (Matthew 19:3-9).
First,
it is clear that the intentions are to trap Jesus in being at odds with Moses; they
are asking a question about the “some uncleanness” in Deuteronomy. In other
words, is divorce for every cause or
for any cause? Jesus responds by
giving God’s original purpose for marriage; one man, one woman, one lifetime.
As dealt with earlier, even though this is God’s original purpose, sin is in
the way. As a result, God made a provision of divorce for the sinful nature of
man within the boundaries of marriage.
Second,
it is clear that the reason for giving divorce to mankind is the hardness of
our hearts. If our parents had remained innocent in the garden, there would be
no need for divorce. However, since sin entered the human race, and because sin
makes us do sinful things, our sin may cause the bonds of marriage to dissolve.
Rather than living in that state, God told Moses to allow divorce – because of
our hard hearts. Sinful nature is the root issue in every divorce. In addition,
when one marries a second time, they are taking their sinful nature and uniting
it with the sinful nature of another. The chances of this second marriage
remaining intact are as questionable as the first.
Verse
nine of this passage is another spiritual bone for me. I will leave you to
wrestle in your heart with the Holy Spirit on this verse. I will remind you
that the heart of Christ [and therefore the child of God- rs] is
reconciliation. I always know I am on biblical ground when I seek reconciliation.
I
will share with you the thoughts of R.V.G. Tasker relating to this portion of
truth. His words seem to fall close to my evaluation and my spirit is not
grieved with his evaluation. I apologize for its length but I do feel that the
importance of this discussion warrants the time. Allow me to share his thoughts
as he writes, “This passage about divorce is so difficult, and there have been
many diverse interpretations given by individual scholars and different
sections of the Christian Church, that a commentator may well feel reluctant to
express… lest he should be guilty of adding to the exegetical and
ecclesiastical confusion. It is with great diffidence… that the present author
puts forward some of his own reflections…
“
It is clear that the Pharisees were attempting to place Jesus in a dilemma by
forcing Him to say something which would imply that He took either too lax or
too strict a view on the … subject of divorce… the subsequent narrative implies
that in effect the answer of Jesus is, ‘If you mean for any cause, My answer is Yes; if you mean for every
cause, My answer is, No.’ First, He reminds them of the truth known to every
reader of Scripture that the purpose of
creation of two sexes was that
solidarity, the continuance and the happiness of the human race might have at
its foundation the physical union of man and woman. Such union is an essential
part of the Creator’s plan, and attempts to thwart it, either by indulging in
promiscuous sexual intercourse, or by asceticism and enforced celibacy, or by
unnatural vice, or by attempts to break up marriages where the unity that God
has in mind is being realized, are all contrary to divine will (6).
“At
this point, the Pharisees ask a supplementary question (7) suggesting that, if
all this is really so, it would seem that Moses was guilty of an infringement
of God’s purpose by ordering a husband to present his wife with certificate of
divorce if, ‘he hath found some uncleanness in her’ (Dt. XXIV.I). Is not this
self appointed Messiah speaking contrary to the law by questioning Moses’
decision? In verse 8 Jesus retorts that, on the contrary, Moses was in fact,
upholding the divine purpose, for at the time when this legislation was enacted
many so-called ‘marriages’ were in fact not achieving but preventing that unity
of man and woman which was the reason why God created mankind ‘male and
female’. The Mosaic injunction did much to bring this ideal of unity nearer
realization. Hitherto, in fact from the
beginning, the situation had been much less satisfactory. Polygamy had been
prevalent, and men had regarded themselves as free to put away their wives
whenever, and for whatever reason, however trivial, they might wish. This was
the natural outcome of man’s fallen nature, his hardness of heart. And so long as that hardness of heart prevails, there will always be, both within and
outside of marriage, ‘unions’ between men and women, which, because they are
not real unions at all, cannot be said to have been joined together by God. In these cases it may be in the interest of
the divine purpose that they should be dissolved. Jesus therefore accepts the
interpretation put upon the Mosaic legislation by the contemporary school of
Shemmai, which allowed divorce for the case of fornication, as the best way of
seeking to interpret the divine will in this matter in the circumstances
prevailing at that particular time… It would be not only an act of adultery,
but an act of cruelty, for a man to dismiss an innocent wife, in order that he might marry someone else, for the
divorced wife, under the social conditions of those days, would more often than
not be forced into a life of adultery herself… But Jesus is not here laying
down in these words addressed to the Pharisees
any mixed rule which must be followed by his
disciples at all times in the future. It is strange that Christians, who
have been ready enough to see that Jesus, in dealing with other matters of
conduct, is not legislating, have often been reluctant to bring the same
consideration to their interpretation of His teaching on marriage and divorce… [because
of how women were treated in the first century – rs]. No fixed rules therefore
about divorce could possibly have been given which were equally capable of
being applied to Christians in the first and in the twentieth centuries…
“It
is difficult, then, to feel that this section of Matthew’s Gospel gives us any
ground for supposing that Jesus expected His Church to become an ‘anti-divorce
society’, which would make no provision for ‘the hardness of men’s hearts’ or
would debar from communion those, often more sinned against than sinning, whose
marriages have been dissolved… We may conclude a necessarily brief commentary
on this section with some further words of Dr. Rashdall, in which he summarized,
surely rightly, what would seem to be here laid down for our guidance in this
most difficult subject. ‘That the ideal is permanent monogamous marriage is undoubtedly
the principle which Jesus taught; and the ideal still appeals to all the higher
ethical feeling of our time… And no one branch of Christendom, we may add, has
a monopoly of the Christian conscience in this matter.’
(10,
11) “… [Jesus] asserts, that some are prevented from making the attempt to
achieve unity between man and woman which demands the physical union of
marriage. Some cannot do so… while
others have deliberately refused to
do so… But in no other circumstances; He implies, is it right to say ‘it is not
expedient to marry’…
“The
word porneia translated fornication is a comprehensive word,
including adultery, fornication and unnatural vice… Jesus does not insist that
there must be divorce in these cases, for He is not legislating, but that
these, and not trivial considerations, are the kind of things [not the only things – rs] for which divorce may
rightly be granted….” The Gospel
According To St. Matthew, by R.V.G. Tasker, Tyndale pp 179-184 [italics were in the original
quote].
In
dealing with the next two passages on divorce, found in Mark 10:3-9 and Luke 16:18, I would refer you to the
above selection dealing with the Gospel of Matthew. The additions in Mark deal
with the man leaving parents and cleaving to his bride. Mark also adds that
what God joins together no one should separate. Mark also does not deal with a
remarriage / adultery issue. It would seem to me that if a second marriage
would always cause one to live in adultery [except for fornication - rs], and
since adultery is a major spiritual issue, surely Jesus would have included His
warning of second marriages in this passage also. Unless Tasker’s words shared
above are accurate.
In
the Luke passage, verse eighteen seems out of place within the context of the
passage thoughts. Jesus is dealing with the unfaithful servant; He says that
you cannot love God and money; and the covetous Pharisees were listening to His
teaching; so Jesus reminds them that they try to justify themselves with men
but God knows their heart; the keeping of the law [in the manner they required
- rs] was until John, that a camel could do certain things easier than the law could
fail; then He drops the idea of
marriage and the binding of that relationship into the passage. To our
knowledge, the Pharisees had not asked Him about marriage and divorce. Again,
it would seem that His purpose for inserting this thought at this time would
lend credibility to Tasker’s presumption shared above. In both areas (Mark and
Luke), better sense is made when Tasker’s conclusion is received rather than to
assume that Jesus had given a complete assessment of the subject of divorce and
marriage in His words recorded in Mark and Luke.
Next,
Paul writes to the Roman Christians and says, Know ye not, brethren, (for I
speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as
long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to
her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed
from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband
be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to
the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to
him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did
work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered
from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in
newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7:1-6).
Allow
me to use an illustration that I feel would place a parallel thought. My child
comes to me asking if he can mow the lawn. In my opinion, this child is not
able to do this because the community we live in has a contract with a lawn
company to maintain my property. There seems to be a lack of understanding on
my son’s part. So, to help him perceive the truth of my decision I use an
illustration. I remind him that at Christmas his mother always buys a honey
cured ham. Normally, I am the one who is allowed to cut the holiday meat.
However, the only way we can purchase a honey cured ham includes the fact that the
company pre-cuts every portion ordered. The fact is not that Mom does not want
me to cut the ham; it’s just that there is no need, since the honey cured ham
company has already done that for us. In
the same way [similar to my illustration - rs] you cannot cut the lawn.
Crude
as this illustration is, and understanding that no illustration can completely answer all areas of question within
a subject, what I have done with my son is use an unrelated subject to help him
understand the reason why I answered him the way I did. My conversation with
him was not to give instruction on honey cured hams nor was I laying a
requirement for holiday meals. I was using a tangent [having a common line of
thought - rs] to express a truth of a specific subject.
In
the same way, Paul uses marriage as an example [tangent] for the Roman
Christians. What Paul is teaching the Romans is that when Christ died, we died
with Him. Since we are one with Him; since He died to the law; we died to the
law also. It is almost as if Paul says, “Let me give you an illustration of
what I mean” and then he brings the law of marriage into the equation. He is
not giving a decision on marriage and divorce; but an illustration of us dying
to the law because we are one with Christ and He has died to the law. When one
dies, the marriage contract dies for both of them and the one living is now allowed
to marry another. In other words, the husband and wife are one, but, when one
dies, both are dead to the law of their marriage. In like manner, in Christ, you are dead to the law and you are now
alive to be married to another – Jesus Christ. You are not being unfaithful to
Judaism or Moses to now be married to Jesus Christ. You are free from that law.
The
final reference to divorce is found in Paul’s writing to the church at Corinth. Read with me, Now
concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to
touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband (1 Corinthians 6:1, 2). Paul
is telling the Corinthians that a purpose for marriage is to avoid sexual sins.
In other words, it is to be assumed that when one gets married they are not
celibate but have a need for physical relations with the opposite gender. Marriage
is God’s design to fulfill this need. Any other process for meeting this need
is sin.
3
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the
wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the
husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the
wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,
that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again,
that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency(1 Corinthians 6:3- 5). The
husband does not own his body; the wife does, and vice versa. If you have a
need for sexual relations and you abstain, even for godly purposes, you open a
door for Satan and eventual sin. Do not open that door – even for godly
reasons!
6
But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all
men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after
this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows,
It is good for them if they abide even as I (1 Corinthians 6:6-8). Paul
encourages these Christians to remain single, as himself, if possible. However,
it is recognized that this would take a “proper gift” to accomplish.
9
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to
burn (1 Corinthians 6:9). Paul
is pragmatic and realizes that if a person does not have the “proper gift of
God’, they will burn in lustful desires. In such cases, it is better to marry
than burn so that the single person does not commit a sexual sin (7:2). As
righteous as a life of prayer would be, it is just as unrighteous – if in
fulfilling that life of prayer, you allow your life to be opened to a life of
lust – quit praying! And, as much as living a life of singleness may be good,
it is just as bad – if in the fulfilling of that singleness, you open your life
to lust - get married!
10
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife
depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or
be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife (1
Corinthians 6:10 – 11). He then tells them to stay married and if they separate,
remain unmarried – or be reconciled. This is not a prohibition of divorce and
singleness but another encouragement from Paul’s opinion that if they have the
“proper gift of God” use it. If not, rather than burn in lust, reconcile [which
is the heart of God - rs].
12
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that
believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to
dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the
unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage
in such cases: but God hath called us to peace (1 Corinthians 6:12 – 15). In Corinth, many had believed after they were
married. Since their spouse chose to remain unchristian, and since a Christian
is not to be yoked with an unbeliever (2 Corinthians 6:14), the question was asked (6:1), what do
we do; divorce them?! Paul gives his opinion because there are no specific
instructions in the scriptures dealing with this [other than Ezra, and the
issue there dealt with them refusing to become Jewish proselytes – rs] and his opinion is, if your
unbelieving spouse is happy to stay with you, remain married. However, if the
unbeliever leaves, the Christian is not under the bondage of the law – rather
than burn in lust due to an absent partner, get married (2).
16
For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how
knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? (1 Corinthians 6:16).
The whole purpose of reconciliation is for the unbeliever to be saved. It is at
these points that the Christian can best show the heart of God for
reconciliation. So, if it works out, stay with them. It may be their best
opportunity to become a believer (1 Peter 3:1).
25
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my
judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I
suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is
good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou
hast not sinned (1 Corinthians 7:25-28).
Again, Paul gives opinion that if they are currently unmarried they should
remain in that state; if virgin, remain virgin; if married, remain married; if
unmarried, being widowed / divorced, remain single. “But… regardless of virgin,
widowed, or divorced, if you cannot contain, rather than burning in your lust,
get married. In such cases you have not sinned!”
At
least in my mind, verse 28 [the last verse to deal with the subject - rs]
returns to the portion and intent of the first mention of the subject
(Deuteronomy 24), “she may go and be another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). Marriage
after divorce is not a sin; in the Old Testament or the New Testament. God
would rather you marry than burn in your lust.
In
closing I would refer your thoughts to Jesus and the woman at the well. He
gives His view on the subject of marriage when He says, 16 Jesus saith unto
her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. 17 The woman answered and said, I
have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy
husband: in that saidst thou truly (John 4:16 – 18). It would be clear from this that Jesus
recognized all five men as her husband; not concurrently, but five in a row. It
would also be clear that He did not consider just living together as marriage,
“and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband….”
If
marriage is until death, then Jesus could only recognize one of the five men as
her husband. All the other “husbands” plus the live-in would be her lovers and
adulterers. Though this would be consistent with the exclusion clause of the
Gospels being the only exception for divorce and marriage, Jesus did not view her
circumstances in this manner. I assume therefore, that He allows divorce for
other than ONLY adultery. According to the portion in 1 Corinthians, we would at
least have to add desertion of a spouse by an unbelieving partner – which was
not included in the Gospel accounts of only fornication.
In
addition, if Mr. Tasker’s position is correct, the adultery clause of Jesus was
used as an example of the serious nature of events leading to divorce and not
intended as the exclusive reason. It is not for any cause, but it is for some
causes. The gravity of nature of the event leading to divorce would need to be
considered. Allow me to list a few of these events that I would place on an
equal plain with adultery: serious physical abuse, sexual abuse of a child,
permanent desertion [allowing the fact of lust to enter – rs], one who has been
permanently incarcerated with no chance of parole, open perversion exposing a
child to its power, and etc. In such cases, I would allow for not only divorce
but marriage to a second mate. However, I would encourage a heart of
reconciliation where possible.
Conclusion:
- God’s original design for marriage is one man, one
wife, for a lifetime.
- Man lost his innocence and fell into sin. This choice
placed man in God’s permissive plan but not His preferred plan.
- God made a provision for this fall initially
through the shed blood of the animal and covering of man’s nakedness –
portraying the ultimate sacrifice of the blood of Christ and His covering
for our nakedness.
- God began the idea of divorce and instructed Moses to
write it in the book of Deuteronomy as a practice for His children.
- This was done because man has a hard heart.
- This hard heart is at the root of all divorce.
- In scripture, when there is a divorce, remarriage is
always presumed.
- If there was a need to marry once [to avoid
fornication - rs] there is a need to marry again to avoid fulfilling that
lust in a sinful way. “It is better to marry than burn.”
- Reconciliation is the heart of God and we should seek
to reveal this heart to others.
- When reconciliation is not possible, it is better to
remain single.
- If you cannot remain single without burning in your
lust, it is better to marry.
- “And if you marry, you have not sinned.”
