Because of circumstances near and far, we have recently had occasion to review the Bible verses relating to the matter of divorce and remarriage. As we read them carefully with excellent reference books to hand, our distinct impression is that these verses do not provide the hard and fast set of rules we might desire. Our conclusion is that each case must be examined on the basis of its own circumstances with individual decisions made by a prayerful application of godly principles. The scripture passages do not honestly allow for the forming of dogmatic dictum’s on the subject. Consider the points one at a time.
The exceptive clause
As recorded in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, Christ forbids divorce except in the case of “fornication.” This particular word has caused much discussion. It can mean any kind of sexual sin — pre-marital infidelity, wanton promiscuity or adultery. Christ could have made our deliberations easier if he had said divorce was permissible for fornication (Porneia) and adultery (Moicheia). But we are deliberately left with a word that forces us to ponder underlying principles.
Did the Master allow remarriage as the obvious outcome of divorce for fornication? If divorce is permitted for fornication, one would logically think remarriage is permitted in this case. However, the Lord’s words never exactly state remarriage is allowed. We are left to inference and assumption.
The issue is further clouded by the complete omission of the exceptive clause in the accounts in Mark and Luke and in Christ’s subsequent summary of right conduct to his disciples recorded in Mark 10:11-12.
We would like clearer rules; if the passages were explicit, surely all ecclesias would become of one mind on the subject.
Not under bondage
In context, I Cor. 7:15,27 and 28 seem to be clear enough. If a married person is converted and their partner is not, the believer is free of marital obligations if their unbelieving partner leaves them: “if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.
Is this it? Is this the answer to a major practical issue. Upon careful reading, the case depends on the meaning of “loosed from a wife” (v.27). Does that mean unmarried or widowed or divorced? Wisdom answers: “I am not absolutely sure.”
What of those coming into the Truth who are divorced and have not remarried? The general principle cited in I Cor. 7:24 is “let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” Two specific situations are covered: slaves and circumcision. But what about the divorcee? The slave should be content to remain a slave unless it is obvious he can readily and usefully secure his freedom (v.21). Should the divorcee remain single unless marriage presents a far greater opportunity for godly service? The question could have been clarified with one sentence, but that sentence is not supplied.
Divorce under the law
Lately, some have contended that “some uncleanness” in Deut. 24:1 has reference only to pre-marital unchastity. The Hebrew phrase in that verse is identical to the one used in Deut. 23:14 rendered “unclean thing” in the KJV. This should make it clear that any hard and fast definition of “some uncleanness” is purely arbitrary on our part. However, one thing is certain, clearer terms could have been used which would have eliminated discussion among ourselves or among the Jews of Christ’s day.
Not accidental
The fact the Scriptures are not as clear on this matter as they could be cannot be accidental. The ideal is certainly stated in clear terms: one man, one woman, for life. What we dearly wish to have are equally clear statements on what to do when the ideal is not followed.
God could have given us precise rules to follow, but He has not. We are thus forced to consider specific situations in the light of principles and not a rule book. Surely this is one way of preparing us to apply principles to cases in the Kingdom.
Parables
Some try to extrapolate hard and fast rules from the analogies of God and Israel, Hosea and Gomer or Christ and the ecclesia. Every time, however, the parable has only limited application to real life as is illustrated by one of the letters to the editor in this issue. The parables are there in Scripture to teach vital lessons but they are not intended to be applied beyond the indicated lessons.
A continuing state?
Others in our community believe divorce and remarriage constitutes “a continuing state of adultery.” Reasoning that if the first intimacy with another partner is adultery, then subsequent relations must be too, they develop a set of hard and fast rules. The position sounds reasonable until its implications are recognized.
If the premise were correct, divorced and remarried people who come to a knowledge of the Truth would be living in “a state of adultery.” This would require their separation even if they had been married 40 years and had six children.
The alternative is to conclude their so-called “state of adultery” is negated by baptism.
Neither solution is tolerable. On one hand, forcing people apart flies in the face of Scripture precedent. Israel was required to keep their oath to the Gibeonites even though their covenant was wrongly entered into (Josh. 9:19-20). On this basis, the oath to the second wife should be honored regardless of when it was made. Furthermore, converts in Corinth were not told to break apart families although had been divorced and remarried when they came into the ecclesia (I Cor. 6:9-11).
On the other hand, the idea that “a state of adultery” ends at baptism even though the second marriage continues logically requires that the first marriage and divorce now is simply ignored. That means past covenants are negated by baptism. Such reasoning would require a newly baptized person to remarry their spouse to validate their vows. The “state of adultery” theory is shown to be incorrect by simply following the idea to its logical conclusions.
No set of rules
As much as we want a set of rules to cover the divorce and remarriage situation, we do not have them. This omission is so glaring that it cannot be accidental; it must be deliberate.
When we start facing real-life cases, we begin to see why we must prayerfully, with spiritual wisdom, consider each case individually.
For example, some “innocent victims” of unfaithful partners are not “innocent” at all. They may rightly claim their partners have been unfaithful but they fail to say they have virtually driven them to unf-aithfulness by their own harshness. Their right to exercise the exceptive clause is vastly different from the person whose partner has inexcusably turned to a life of decadence.
A married person may accept the Truth while their partner may not. One believer may put up with cruelty and unfaithfulness for 20 years and finally be divorced by the unbeliever. The application of “not under bondage” in such a case may be reasonable. The same guideline may not apply, however, if the believing partner nags the unbeliever until, finally, the unbeliever departs in a desperate attempt to seek peace and sanity. Treating both cases the same would not be reasonable.
A divorced person may learn the Truth but deliberately delay his baptism until he has remarried so his second marriage will be honored by the ecclesia. Such strategy makes a farce of true repentance. On the other hand, a divorced person who remarried 20 years before hearing of the Truth may technically be in the same class as the first example but can hardly be denied baptism or asked to separate from his partner of so many years.
One believer may divorce capriciously and remarry, thereby committing adultery. Six months later he seeks re-fellowship, acknowledging his sin but wanting to keep his second partner. A ready acceptance of such so-called repentance has led to the proliferation of divorces in some ecclesial areas. One may not believe in a state of adultery but one can certainly discern when a sinner is not truly sorry for sin.
Exercising wisdom
Some might argue that we are not capable of exercising sound judgment in individual cases. If we are not, we should be or we will not be qualified for ruling in the kingdom age. We should be able to act according to principles of loving-kindness, uprightness, judgment, graciousness and truth.
Perhaps we have not all individually developed to that point. But in the divorce and remarriage matter, we are talking about ecclesial decisions made after careful deliberation with ecclesial elders playing the key roles and time for advice to be asked of others familiar with the case. Under such circumstances, the ecclesia should be able to apply divine principles to a specific circumstance. That is certainly what the Corinthian ecclesia was expected to do when they were told, “do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth.” (I Cor. 5:11-12) The apostle spoke to their shame when he went on to say, “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?.. .Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you: no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?” (I Cor. 6:2,5).
Deciding in advance
Though it seems logical to work out guidelines before personal feelings become involved and emotions start running high, in the matter of divorce and remarriage this is not good ecclesial procedure. As many wise-hearted brethren have discovered, the phrasing of Scripture prohibits working out hard and fast rules in advance. What we should be doing in advance is providing sound counsel to all married brethren and sisters especially to those who may be headed for trouble.
In this matter, it is our conviction that we are left to apply principles to situations as they arise. That may be difficult now but it is preparing us to be rulers with Christ in the age to come.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One