Pastoral Position Paper - Dave Hatcher

When it comes to the issue of divorce and remarriage, several prefatory remarks should be made. First, the issue should not be discussed as though it was a scientific research project, where, after gathering all the facts, the cold conclusions are declared. Marriage is a covenant relationship filled with powerful symbols and mystery, along with blessings and curses. It is the only relationship created for mankind on this earth which binds two individuals together as one, satisfying deep longings for intimacy, servanthood, and family. Marriage is both reality and symbol. People really do get married, but this covenant act is symbolic of something even greater and more profound. When a man and a woman marry, they are proclaiming the gospel of the love of the Lord Jesus Christ for His Bride, the church.

Then, throughout their marriage together, they continue to proclaim this, either truthfully, or fallaciously. Whenever lies are proclaimed and lived without the grace of repentance, they eventually destroy both the reality of the marriage and the symbol becomes hollow and empty. The result is deep emotional and spiritual damage, effecting not only the two involved, but also the people around them, and the culture at large. On every level, marriage is a potent thing.

The Strict View

Because the topic of marriage is a sacred one, many zealous Christians try to argue that to strive for anything less than the most "conservative" views on divorce and remarriage is to compromise the truth, and trifle with it. But the "moral high ground" is not attained by being more tight-shoed than the opposition. We are never commanded to come up with the most conservative position. Rather, we are required to understand and obey the biblical view. We are not to add to or subtract from the Law. Doing either is sinful. Only Scripture can give us the right perspective on divorce and remarriage. Scripture is our standard.

So we begin by looking at the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19. (The parallel passage is in Mark 10, and will be considered shortly.) In Matthew 19, Jesus is answering a question posed to Him by the Pharisees in an attempt to test Him.

In the first century, the Jewish teachers fell into two basic camps with regard to the issue of acceptable divorce. Those who followed Hillel were sort of like our modern day liberals. Divorce for them should be allowed on any grounds at all. They interpreted the phrase "some uncleanness" in the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage to mean something as little as ruining the dinner. The other group, the followers of Shammai, held the ultra-conservative position that this passage taught that one could only divorce on grounds of fornication. In an attempt to pigeon-hole Jesus into one of these two camps, the Pharisees ask Jesus to comment on this controversy.

But Christ transcends these trick questions, and takes the teachers back to the creation account. Christ reemphasizes that marriage is something that was instituted by God. It is a holy institution. lt is not something to be tampered with by men.

`Yeah, but...they reply. Moses, you see, had given regulations for divorce. But Jesus quickly points out that these provisions were provided because of the hardness of their hearts. It had never been God's ideal. Sin always brings about evil consequences, and hardness of heart still exists. So Jesus states, ".. .whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

A few simple observations may clarify all the confusion that many bring to this passage.

Let's deal with the first part-"whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery..." Who is the one committing adultery here? He is one who has 1) divorced his wife and 2) married another. So to whom does the exception refer? To the same person; the one who has divorced and remarried. You cannot argue that the exception clause is limited to the one who divorces but not to the one who remarries. The point of the verse is in regard to the same person. He is one who has been divorced, except for a clause, and been remarried. That one, if he remarries, commits adultery. Consequently, the exception-one who was divorced because of sexual immorality on the part of his spouse and then remarries - does not commit adultery.

In essence, Jesus was dealing with the same problem that we see in our culture today-serial polygamy legislated through bureaucracy. There were those who believed that as long as you had all the paperwork (for divorce and remarriage) in place, you were free to have sex with this woman now, and then someone else later if things didn't work out. The mystery and symbolism was destroyed, and with it, so was the blessing.

But as Jesus rebukes this thinking, He is careful not to make the institution of marrriage a sacred thing unto itself. There were in fact times that divorce would be allowed. Sexual immorality is considered to be such a heinous sin that it breaks the very covenant of the marriage. Jesus seems to say that the fidelity of the marriage relationship is more important than the formal institution itself, as if to say, "Marriage was made for man, and not man for marriage' `-as if to say, "Which is more important, fidelity or the thing which requires fidelity?" Which is more important, the gold or the temple?

Put another way, it is the validity of the divorce that governs the determination of the permissibility of remarriage. Sexual immorality breaks the very heart of the covenant of marriage, and consequently frees the innocent party, if he or she chooses, to put the guilty party away.

This exception clause also provides the innocent person with the opportunity to remarry if he or she so chooses. The second part of this verse clarifies this, but must be understood in relation to the same exception. The second statement "and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" makes no sense otherwise. If the one who was divorced, even if the former spouse was guilty of sexual immorality, caused his or her new spouse to commit adultery, then there is really no freedom at all, and the whole verse is meaningless. Jesus is clearly allowing for a husband or wife to put away a spouse for sexual immorality, and this may be done in such a way that allows the innocent spouse the freedom to remarry without consequence.

From Another Vantage

Mark 10:1-2 is the parallel passage that does not include in Jesus' quotation the exception clause. First, remember the context. The question the Pharisees are asking is whether or not a man may divorce his wife. Mark records that the Pharisees are testing Jesus. How were they testing Him? Well, you must consider the times, and Matthew gives us a glimpse by including the phrase "for any reason. Remember, at this time some argued that a man could divorce his wife for almost any reason at all, according to a liberal view of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. To that, Jesus is saying, when you divorce and then remarry, the legal documents mean nothing-you are committing adultery.

But Mark only records the general rebuke, without the exception. Is this significant? The question brings us to the second observation. Mark has done this on other occasions. Compare Mark 8:12 "Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation." But Matthew 12:39 says, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." This is not contradictory.

In fact, one cannot say that Mark's lack of giving the exception clause must have been Jesus' complete meaning without placing the gospel of Matthew `in the dock' as mistaken. Once we head down that path, the infallibility of Scripture is formally charged, and our whole basis of accepting the Scripture as the very Word of God is ruined.

The Pauline Teaching

There are times when what God has joined together is separated, by the Word of God. Sexual immorality on the part of a spouse is one occasion. The innocent party is duly freed to remarry if he or she so chooses, because he is no longer bound to the covenant. This is the same freedom Paul assumes in his illustration in Romans 7, where a spouse is no longer bound to a marriage covenant when his partner has died. There, he is free to remarry.

This understanding of release from thie previous covenant is important when looking at the other possibility for divorce and remarriage in Paul's teaching.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul answers a number of sex and marriage questions which had apparently been asked of him. One of these questions appears to have been: "What if, having become a believer myself, my unbelieving spouse wishes to leave me?" Paul answers that when an unbelieving spouse deserts a believing partner the believer is to let the spouse go (1 Cur 7:12-16). When Paul says to let the deserter go, he describes the state of tlie believer: "a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" (1 Cor 7:15).

What is his point? It can't be simply that he is not bound to stay with the spouse, because the spouse already left. Paul had already said let him depart." "Not under bondage" must refer to the marriage vows. One is no longer bound to the marriage covenant if one has been truly deserted. And if one were no longer bound by a marriage vow, it would follow that one is free to remarry. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 must be read with the local context in mind (Paul is arguing that for the present, it is better that the Corinthians not be married), and the exception clauses stated in Jesus' declaration (which do not appear in this passage, because that is not what Paul is dealing with): "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned..."

So, desertion by an unbelieving spouse looses the believer from the previous marriage covenant and frees him or her for remarriage. This is because, in these special circumstances, God rather than man, separates what He has joined together.

The Confession

These are some of the reasons why the Westminster Confession teaches: "In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead...nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage..."

It is true that God says that He hates divorce (Mal 2:16). But it is equally true that God hates infidelity and covenant breaking as well. So much so that at times God Himself has commanded divorce. He told Abraham to divorce Hagar. He commanded through Ezra that men divorce their pagan wives on a particular occasion. Even God himself is represented as divorcing Israel in Jeremiah 3:8.

So marriage certainly is a powerful thing. May God grant us a clear mind in the administration of this glorious blessing, and may He deliver us from the evil of blatant disregard as well as overzealous misunderstanding.