Recon’s Black Ops

A couple weeks ago, in response to an e-mail from a blogger (Papa Hotel), who chimes in on Boundless from time to time, I opened the floor on these pages to anyone who could come up with a general Biblical case for divorce and remarriage.

Jesus provides only one specific case–marital unfaithfulness*–but I wanted to see what people could provide for a general case.

In other words, I was looking for the best Biblical argument I could find in favor of divorce and remarriage, for reasons other than a marital sex scandal.

The responses I received–from otherwise intelligent people–were mostly uncompelling. There was one very innovative argument that I will treat in a separate post, as I will give it one of my storied awards.

First, for the record, here are my views on the matter (this is the concise version):

1. Marriage is the first covenant in the Bible, which is rooted in Creation. Malachi affirms the covenant nature of marriage.
2. Covenants are permanent in nature, lasting as long as the parties to that covenant live.
3. Marriage is designed to reflect God’s relationship with the Church–the Bride of Christ–which is itself a covenant relationship.
4. Divorce–while permitted in the Old Testament–is a breach of covenant.
5. God hates divorce. Malachi affirmed this explicitly.
6. Teaching about adultery, Jesus laid down a hard line: (a) When a man divorces his wife–for reasons other than marital unfaithfulness–and marries another woman, he causes his first wife to commit adultery; and (b) whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
7. The Apostle Paul did not contradict Jesus on this: (a) a married couple must be reconciled to each other; (b) if it is a case of unequal yokes, the believer must strive to remain in the marriage; (c) if the non-believer wanted to end the marriage, the believer was to let the non-believer go.
8. Paul did not consecrate remarriage after divorce, although there is an operative principle that he did articulate: it is better to marry than to burn.
9. Ergo, remarriage after divorce is fundamentally evil, albeit a lesser evil than living in perpetual fornication.
10. The believing couple–conceding the fallenness of remarriage–can receive God’s grace.

Now, let’s look at the responses…

(1) DR’s Case. A respondent, using the moniker Divorced and Remarried (I’ll call him DR), has this to say:

My former wife divorced me. She was headstrong. Anything she did was without my consultation. I married her in good faith. I thought she wanted to be married with me, but after the marriage, our relationship soured from her demands and ambitions.

I worked this out a long time ago. I decided to seek a new relationship after 5 years of being single. There was no sexual adultery from the marriage, but I felt that there was no commitment (on her part) either. I made my vows. She violated hers.

There was no “good-faith effort to work it out”. She wanted out and that was that.

Am I supposed to just take it and live my life alone even though I felt I invested a lot of myself into the relationship?

It’s easy to follow the prescriptions of the Bible. In fact, I did throughout my marriage. I did what I could. However, once I was set free upon the divorce, the prescription was just too much. I cannot be a waste for the rest of my life.

I did justify my decision on faithfulness. The adultery was caused by the lack of commitment of my spouse.

Now, I’m married. I’m glad I did and I’m committed to my marriage as defined by the Bible.

On another note, you shouldn’t married a divorced woman if there are single inexperienced (no previous sexual partners) women available. I was able to find one. Lucky ain’t I.

In fairness to DR, what we have here is a situation that was unheard of in Jesus’ time: the wife divorcing the husband. In Jewish society, only the husband could divorce the wife.

This does, however, illustrate the dilemma created by divorce: by classifying remarriage as adultery, the offended spouse gets punished for the sins of the offender. This is contrary to all human instinct–we wish to punish the offender, not the offendee.

On the other hand, when one looks at the larger issue of what marriage is–a covenant relationship reflective of Christ’s covenant relationship with the Church–it makes sense. Our spiritual divorce–in the form of original sin–caused Jesus to suffer the punishment. His faithfulness made our eternal life–which we do not deserve–possible.

When one party (husband or wife) breaks the covenant, innocent people suffer dearly. The more God-honoring path is to remain single in such a scenario; this was the nature of Jesus’ response to the disciples about the types of eunuchs. (The context was the Disciples exasperation with Jesus’ pronouncement on divorce and remarriage, in which they said, “It is expedient for a man not to marry at all!”.

That said, we human beings are hard-wired to marry. That wiring does not get disconnected in the event of divorce. It is better to marry than to burn. Ergo, remarriage is an expression of human fallenness, but by no means beyond God’s grace.

One cannot help but empathize with DR, or those whose spouses left them in spite of their faithfulness.

My only admonition to him: Do not twist the Scriptures to make it fit your case. Concede your fallenness; confess your weakness as a man–and all men, who are not asexual, know what I am talking about–and plead for the grace of God.

Let the word of God be true, and every man a liar.

(2) Possum’s case. Possum–a regular on these pages–is no stranger to divorce. Like DR, she was in a bad marriage, and, by her own admission, filed divorce on the advice of a lawyer. (When Jesus said, “Woe to you, lawyers!” I have no doubt that He had Possum’s attorney in mind!) Here are some things she had to say:

If you think that following the rules (aka legalism) is your ticket in and is what makes you a Christian (or what Christianity is all about), then my friend, I am about to blow your mind. It’s about God, His love for us, and *heaps* of grace.

With all due respect, no one suggested any such thing. Actually, being a Christian is about God’s covenant with us, sealed and delivered with the blood of Jesus for our sins, empowered by His resurrection. To dismiss the discussion as a matter of legalism is disingenuous.

If you think the *ideal* “Christian” marriage will save you, it won’t. If you think *not* remarrying will save you, it won’t. If you think living in Tibet as a hermit will save you, it won’t. Don’t for one second fool yourself by thinking that *your* actions are going to add bonus points with God. Don’t become a whitewashed tomb (See specifically Matt. 23: 27-28, read the whole chapter if you’re so inclined).

Again, no one suggested that works will save anyone, and this, sadly represents an attempt to divert from the fundamental point: where is the case that justifies divorce and remarriage for any reasons other than what Jesus said?

Possum continues:

The Bible never gives *any* hermeneutical “ok” for *any* of our sin (lying, cheating, murdering, adultery, divorce, sexual impurity, etc.). The Bible will *never* say your sin is okie dokie. There is no such thing as a *lesser evil*. Sin is sin in God’s eyes; he makes no distinction between the white lie you told at breakfast, the gossip you spread at lunch and my divorce. They’re sin. We *are* sinfully evil. Check out 1 Cor. 6:9-10 for a list of those who won’t inherit the kingdom of God. No one is exempt from this list, and then, the escape clause (v.11)!!

Yes, there is such a thing as a “lesser evil”, as all sins are not equal.

(1) Some sins, for example, are abominations. (Homosexuality comes to mind.)

(2) Sexual sins are sins against one’s own body and carry effects that–for example–lying or stealing does not.

Nor are all punishments for sin equal, either. After all, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah–while they will end up in hell–will find it more tolerable than the Pharisees will. (Jesus said as much.)

Ergo, with respect to divorce and remarriage–and I am speaking to the general case, not the specific exception provided by Jesus–it is (always was) adultery, and yet it was permissible, as God gave provisions for its administration in the Law.

That said, by calling divorce and remarriage adultery, Jesus did not articulate a new standard; he merely shed light on the original design–rooted in Creation and echoed by Malachi–which had been perverted by the death of a thousand rabinnical interpretations.

EVEN THEN–in spite of the fact that it is, was, and has always been adultery–it did not carry a death sentence (stoning) like adultery typically did.

Sounds like a lesser evil to me.

That said, her frustration in this stems from the fact that she does get the fundamental point when she concedes that the Bible does not give us the hermeneutical “ok” for our sins.

Possum continues:

Now, some of you are scratching your heads. What did any of that have to do with hermeneutical divorce? It is my firm belief and conviction that any theological discussion leads back to our ONLY hope: Christ. Focusing on divorce vs. remarriage or different scientific creation theories or whatever else you want to debate about, needs to turn to Christ. If you are talking with an unbeliever, and the other topics open that door of communication, take it. You could be the last person who talks to them in this life.

It is a fact that when we sin, God is faithful to forgive us when we ask (I John 1:9). And I’ll close this with a quote from our DivorceCare series: “Divorce is an instance in your life, it is not a way of life” – Dr. Myles Munroe

A word of caution is in order here regarding sinning presumptuously. To say, “I know it’s wrong, I’m going to do it anyway, and God will forgive me later if I confess the sin,” is a huge risk. (FWIW: I don’t think Possum meant that, but some might try to interpret it that way.)

Moreover, to twist Scripture to justify what we want is just as bad. God will forgive, but He often lets us stew in misery for a while. We end up paying a horrific price.

Catherine Marshall provides a firsthand account–of this very issue in her own life–in Light in My Darkest Night. She was widowed–her first husband (Peter Marshall) died young. Her second husband, Leonard LeSourd, had been divorced. His wife was alcoholic. Catherine struggled with the issue, then decided to accept his marriage proposal. She rationalized away Jesus’ admonitions on divorce and remarriage.

Her book describes the period of spiritual darkness she experienced as a result of that rationalization.

*The Greek word is porneia, which was often used to describe a premarital scandal that occurred during the engagement but before the wedding. At best, this word also applies to adultery within the marriage as well.