0 Shares

Answering Wrong Teachings about Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

It is not my habit to chase around everything I disagree with, but this has come before me 3 or 4 times in the last few months.

A Christian woman whose Christian husband thinks he must divorce her and leave their young children without a father in the home
A pastor who called me for advice on a similar situation
A few friends who, because of this teaching, are at times plunged into great guilt, and who have been told they will go to hell

A few different folks teach this; some are extreme and some not as extreme (such as John Piper). Their beliefs aren’t all the same, but they run along similar lines. This is what they teach, which I think is incorrect and does a lot of damage:

If someone is divorced – no matter what the reason or grounds – they can never remarry. Their only option is to be reconciled to their original spouse. They can only remarry if their original spouse dies.
If a divorced person (let’s say a Christian) does remarry, they are – in every case – guilty of adultery.
If they want to obey and please God, they must divorce their present spouse and their only option is to be reconciled to the one they divorced (unless the one they divorced dies).
If such a one does not divorce their present spouse, they continue in adultery, and will go to hell.

There is a lot wrong in this teaching, but we will try to also explain why this is believed, and what the arguments (wrong arguments, I believe) are made for it.

1. It is wrong to believe that the marriage bond can only be broken by death.

This is God’s ideal, but God does allow for divorce.
It is wrong to teach that God makes no allowance for divorce.
It is wrong to teach that a biblical divorce does not break the marital bond.

This wrong teaching is sometimes based off of a misapplication of 1 Corinthians 7:39: A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. The misapplication says, “Paul here says that the wife is bound to her husband as long as the husband is alive. Therefore, the only thing that can break the marriage bond is death.”

This either ignores or neglects other passages that tell us other ways that the marriage bond can be broken. Namely, the passages that tell us that God does – in specific circumstances – allow and recognize divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1, Matthew 19:8, 1 Corinthians 7:15).

This creates a strange definition of divorce, defining divorce as something that does not break the marriage bond. We can confidently say: If God recognizes a divorce, if the divorce is based on biblical reasons (either sexual immorality according to Matthew 19:7-8 or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-15), then the marriage bond is broken.

We strongly affirm what the Bible teaches: that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), and that divorce does not fulfill God’s original plan for marriage (Matthew 19:4-5). The Bible says that divorce is God’s concession to the hardness of the human heart (Matthew 19:8), yet it is God’s concession. This allowance, by the very definition of the idea of divorce, breaks the marriage bond when it is done upon the Biblical reasons already stated.

**2. It is wrong to teach that every remarriage after a divorce, while the divorced partner still lives, is adultery.**

It is certainly true that remarriage after a divorce not made for Biblical reasons can be adultery – Jesus said so in Matthew 19:9, Luke 16:18, and Mark 10:11-12.

However, the fact that God does recognize divorce on the basis of sexual immorality (Matthew 19:8) and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:12-15) gives the one divorced under those circumstances the right to remarry in the Lord.

God regards a person either obligated to a marriage bond (married) or not obligated to a marriage bond (single). If a divorce is established upon Biblical reasons, then the divorced person is not obligated to a marriage bond – they are single. If the divorce was not established on Biblical reasons, then it was never a divorce at all in the eyes of God, even though the government, the community, and the people in involved may have considered it a divorce. Such a “divorce” is only in the eyes of man, and not in the eyes of God, and the parties involved are still obligated to a marriage bond as far as God is concerned. They are married, not single.

Therefore, it is wrong to say that those are divorced for Biblical reasons and then are remarried are living in a constant state of adultery, and as such are destined for hell as habitual, unrepentant adulterers according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Hebrews 13:4, Revelation 21:7-8, and Hebrews 10:26-31. Intentional or not, it is a terrible misuse of spiritual authority to declare people condemned to hell who are not, or to declare them guilty and under God’s wrath for things that are in fact not sin before God.

Therefore, it is wrong to apply 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Hebrews 13:4, Revelation 21:7-8, and Hebrews 10:26-31 to those who have remarried after a Biblically permitted divorce.

3. It is wrong to teach that if someone remarries after an unbiblical divorce that their only true repentance is to divorce their current spouse.

This is compounding sin upon sin, and trying to correct one sin by committing another.

This is a long point – so hang on….

The case of the person who remarries after a divorce on Biblical reasons has already been addressed. Yet there are others who have “divorced” for unbiblical reasons, on the basis of reasons other than sexual immorality (Matthew 19:8) or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:12-15) who have remarried.

Such people must repent of their sin of adultery . They must do so in full confidence of the promise of 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

However, it is wrong and even destructive to teach that the only valid expression of repentance would be to leave their present spouse, and either be reconciled to their originally divorced spouse or live in celibate singleness until the death of their originally divorced spouse. This would be trying to correct one sin by the committing of another.

It would be like stealing from one person to make restitution to another: trying to correct one sin by committing another.
It would be like aborting the baby of a pregnancy of unmarried woman: trying to correct one sin by committing another.

This would also be ignoring Paul’s principle in 1 Corinthians 7:24: Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called. Paul wrote this principle in the context of the marriage mess the Corinthians had made and Paul spoke to by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 7. The basic sense is, “don’t try to unravel the sins and stains of the past. Commit unto God where you are called right now and obey Him in your present situation.” This principle was so important to Paul’s teaching on marriage and family life that he repeated it three times (1 Corinthians 7:17, 20, and 24).

This is not to say that there not some situations where repentance might mean a radical change. For example, if someone was in a same sex relationship that they and the culture regarded as marriage, repentance would mean breaking such a relationship and not saying, “God says we are to live as we are called.” But that is not a Biblical marriage at all, and not the same situation.

It is wrong to apply 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Hebrews 13:4, Revelation 21:7-8, and Hebrews 10:26-31 – passages that say that unrepentant adulterers will go to hell – to those who have repented of an unbiblical divorce.

I wonder what these people think of King David.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba
David arranged the murder of Bathsheba’s husband
David then married Bathsheba

I wonder if these people would say, “It’s OK that David married Bathsheba, and that God blessed that marriage with the son that would be heir to David’s throne and royal line. It’s OK because Bathsheba’s first husband was dead, and therefore she could remarry, and David could marry her.”

That is technically true – but David arranged the murder of her first husband!

Do these people think divorce or adultery are worse sins than murder? That someone can be forgiven for murder, but not for divorce or adultery?

It’s like what was said of a particular denomination that declared in their denominational policy that they absolutely could not have a pastor who was divorced, under any circumstances. Yet, they would allow and ordain a man as pastor if he had murdered someone and had suitably repented! The joke – if it could be called a joke – was that in that denomination, a pastor could never divorce his wife, but he could murder her.

When we depart from the Bible, even if we say our goal is to protect and promote God’s glory, we end up in moral confusion.

Question:

What about Ezra 10, where the Jews who returned to Jerusalem and Judah put away their pagan wives? Doesn’t this show us that it is a godly responsibility to divorce an ungodly marriage?

Now therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and those who have been born to them, according to the advice of my master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law (Ezra 10:3)

And they gave their promise that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they presented a ram of the flock as their trespass offering. (Ezra 10:19)

Response:

This is a singular occurrence in the Old Testament.
Nowhere does it say in Ezra that God commanded this.
This was ultimately ineffective; some 15 years later they dealt with the same problem in Nehemiah 13:23-28 – with no mention of a corresponding putting away of the wives.
God gives clear and specific instruction on this in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Believers who are married to unbelievers are not to seek divorce, after the pattern of what happened in Ezra 10.

4. It is wrong to teach that the only obedient option for a divorced person is to either remarry their divorced spouse or live celibate in singleness.

Again, this makes at least a few errors:

The Bible tells us that a Biblical divorce does “loose” someone from the marriage bond. 1 Corinthians 7:27 speaks to this: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
Ignoring the truth that there is, in God’s sight, such a thing as permitted divorce that does in fact break the marriage bond. In such cases the divorced person is regarded as single and they may therefore marry.
Ignoring the truth that even for the one guilty of adultery and/or unjustified divorce, they may confess their sin and truly repent of it while remaining in a subsequent marriage, because to divorce in such cases would be to hope to remedy one sin by committing another.

5. It is wrong to teach that Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 cancel out what God says about marriage and divorce in the full counsel of His word.

Luke 16:18: Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. Mark 10:11-12 says much the same thing.

If all we had in the Bible (and specifically the New Testament) regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage were these passages, then one might be able to say that any and every remarriage after divorce is adultery, and the only thing that can break the marriage bond is death.

However, we have many other passages that speak to the matter. Specifically, Matthew 19:3-9 teaches that God does recognize divorce on the basis of sexual immorality and 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 teaches that God recognizes divorce in the case of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.

Because of this, we don’t use passages like Luke 16:18 to “cancel out” these other passages. As those who must rightly divide the word of truth, we understand how these passages fit together. We also understand that if one passage of Scripture speaks to a topic, it does not say everything that there is to say, know, and believe about that topic.

We find an example of this principle – the principle of not using one verse to “cancel out” another – in James 1:27 (Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. If we took the same logic as those who believe that Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 say all there is to say about marriage, divorce, and remarriage, then we could teach that the only thing relevant in Christian religion is helping widows and orphans and purity from the world’s corruption. Not prayer, not evangelism, not loving others in God’s family, not receiving God’s word, and so forth.

We can’t take a passage and let it define everything about a Biblical subject when there are other passages that also speak to it.

6. It is wrong to teach that if one is sinned against in marriage by sexual immorality the only godly option is for them to forgive, reconcile, and remain married.

It is important to note that in Matthew 19:3-9 does not command the spouse who has been sinned against to divorce the spouse guilty of sexual immorality. There are many times when there can be forgiveness and restoration, especially when there is genuine repentance from the guilty spouse. We can also say that this is in general accord with God’s hatred of divorce (Malachi 2:16) and forgiving nature.

Nevertheless, the permission God gave for divorce is real. It is a concession to the weakness and frailty of fallen humanity (“because of the hardness of your hearts”), but it is a real concession, nonetheless. To say that God grants a concession, but God will never allow it to be used is the twist the Word of God and to place unrighteous and unbearable burdens upon people.

7. It is wrong to teach that God does not allow divorce and subsequent remarriage in the case of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.

Paul’s principle in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace) is much like that of Matthew 19:3-9 – a concession to the weakness and frailty of humanity. The wording of “is not under bondage in such cases” shows that in the case of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, the believer may in fact be divorced – that is, no longer bound or obligated to a marriage covenant.

This means that if they do accept the divorce initiated by the unbelieving spouse, they are not bound to a marriage, they are regarded as single, and are free to remarry in the Lord.

8. It is wrong to believe that “fornication” or “sexual immorality” as Jesus used the term in Matthew 19:8-9 refers only to sexual sin outside of the marriage bond, and not to adultery or unfaithfulness in marriage.

An example of the statement of this wrong belief: “We believe that, simply put, ‘fornication/sexual immorality’ are the various sexual sins of an unmarried person, and that adultery is the various sexual sins of a married person.” (Gladstone)

The idea put forth is that when Jesus gave permission for divorce in Matthew 19:8-9 (actually simply affirming the permission given in Deuteronomy 24:1 and defining “uncleanness” in the Old Testament permission), Jesus did not actually speak to the divorce of a marriage, but the divorce of an engagement.

This is a strange and bizarre interpretation, one that ignores the definition of “sexual immorality” (porneia) in Matthew 19:9 and the rest of the New Testament. The word is broadly used to refer to sexual sin and includes sexual sin both in marriage and before marriage.

It is true that among many Jews in Biblical times, engagement was seen as binding and needed some kind of divorce to release one from the obligation of future marriage. But to say that this and only this was what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 19:3-9 neglects not only the text of Matthew 19 itself, but also ignores the whole context of the question – the rabbinic dispute in Jesus’ day as to the definition of “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24:1.

9. It is wrong to regard the teachings or traditions of men as the law of God or to “put a fence around the law” for the supposed sake of God’s glory.

This is done when the analogy of Christ and the Church and marriage is extended too far, or when man’s interpretation of the law ignores the bigger picture, as the Pharisees did when Jesus rebuked them regarding the sabbath, proclaiming that man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man (Mark 2:27).

There are those who deny the scriptural truth that a Biblically permitted divorce allows subsequent marriage in the Lord, and do so under the thought that since marriage is an illustration of the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:29-33) we must do everything we can preserve the honor and purity of marriage. This goal is noble, but not when it denies the clear permissions and concessions that the Bible itself gives for divorce and release from the marriage bond.

To do that is to go beyond the commandment of God, to take the rules or traditions of men and to make them equal with the commandments of God. This is a dangerous and harmful thing to do, even when it is done with good intentions.

This error can be illustrated by the zeal of the religious leaders in the days of Jesus to preserve the Sabbath and its glory. They had ample Scriptural basis for Sabbath observance among the Jews under the Old Covenant, but they extended those laws beyond what was written and were therefore rebuked by Jesus. They saw the Sabbath laws as and end in themselves, and forgot that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.

To go beyond what is commanded by God or to deny what is permitted by God does not bring glory to God, no matter what is claimed or what the perceived motive is. There is no denying that marriage is a mess in the wider culture and among many believers, but…

The mess will not be cleaned up by wrongly dividing and wrongly applying Biblical truth.
The mess will not be cleaned up by heaping condemnation in this life and in the age to come upon those who receive the permissions and concessions God grants in His Word.
The mess will not be cleaned up by exhorting God’s people to a strange and unbiblical kind of repentance that answers one sin with another.
The mess will not be cleaned up by preachers and teachers who, in a claimed zeal for God’s glory, go beyond what the Scriptures command and deny what it actually permits.
The mess will begin to be remedied when God’s people humble themselves, biblically repent of past sins, and seek to glorify God where they are at regarding marriage and family.