WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER: MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE

What is Marriage?

Marriage is the oldest institution known to man. From the very first man and woman, God instituted marriage as an integral part of human civilization. Despite its longevity, marriage, along with divorce and remarriage raise many questions and spark much debate in the church and among biblical scholars. What is the significance of marriage? Are divorce and remarriage permissible in the Bible? If so, on what basis? What affect do our answers to these question have on our lives? This paper will seek to address these questions.

The topics of divorce and remarriage cannot be properly understood unless we first build upon the foundation of a proper understanding of what marriage is. Jay Adams writes,

There is no way in which divorce – the dissolution of marriage – or remarriage after divorce can be considered until certain very essential biblical facts about marriage itself have been established. Too often, those who discuss problems connected with divorce misunderstand (and misinterpret) the biblical data precisely because they have not taken the time to develop a biblical view of marriage.^[1]

In other words, if we get marriage wrong, then we will also get divorce and remarriage wrong. Therefore, we begin with the question, “What is marriage?” There are two important truths that may be stated to answer this question: 1) Marriage was created by God, and (2) marriage is a testimony of the gospel.

First, marriage was created by God. Adams writes, “Contrary to much contemporary thought and teaching, marriage is not a human expedience. God tells us that He Himself established, instituted and ordained marriage at the beginning of human history.”^[2] It was God who created marriage from the very beginning. We see this in Genesis chapter 2:18-24.[3]

The fact that God created marriage means that God, not man, has the authority to define what marriage is and set the boundaries for marriage. Adams writes, “Neither a private individual nor the state has any competence to decide who may be married (or divorced) and on what basis. The state has been given the task of keeping orderly records, etc., but it has no right (or competence) to determine the rules for marriage and for divorce; that is God’s prerogative.”[4] This prerogative is most clearly and succinctly stated by Jesus when he says in Mark 10:9, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” God has revealed to man in the scriptures his will concerning marriage. Because marriage is God’s institution, and he has revealed his will to man for his institution, we must submit to God’s authority concerning marriage.

Second, marriage is testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the “profound mystery” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 5:31-32, where he compares the marital one-flesh union between a man and a woman form Genesis 2:24 to the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church. Timothy Keller says that this is the “secret” of marriage:

But what is the secret of marriage? . . . It is the message that what husbands should do for their wives is what Jesus did to bring us into union with himself. And what was that? Jesus gave himself up for us. He died to his own interests and looked to our needs and interests instead (Romans 15:1 – 3). Jesus’ sacrificial service to us has brought us into a deep union with him and he with us. And that, Paul says, is the key not only to understanding marriage but to living it. That is why he is able to tie the original statement about marriage in Genesis 2 to Jesus and the church.^[5]

This is a profound truth with even more profound implications. This truth means that marriage is meant to be patterned after Christ’s sacrificial service to the church. It means that our marriages are actually testimonies of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. In fact, John Piper writes that this truth is the most important thing we can say about marriage.

The ultimate thing we can say about marriage is that it exists for God’s glory. That is, it exists to display God. Now we see how: Marriage is patterned after Christ’s covenant relationship to his redeemed people, the church. And therefore, the highest meaning and the most ultimate purpose of marriage is to put the covenant relationship of Christ and his church on display. That is why marriage exists.^[6]

Why is this such an important truth? Because it brings everything we know about the gospel to bear to our understanding of marriage. Therefore, as we approach the issues of divorce and remarriage we must consider how Christ loves the church, how he is faithful to the church, how he has sacrificed for the church, and how he has forgiven the church. Now that we are grounded on biblical foundation of marriage, we can discuss the issues of divorce and remarriage.

Divorce

?Is divorce biblically permissible? Naturally, we have three possibilities: (1) Divorce is permissible under any circumstances (anything goes), (2) divorce is permissible only under certain circumstances, and (3) divorce is not permissible under any circumstances (permanence).

First, we will consider the view that divorce is permissible under any circumstances. We will refer to this as the “anything goes” view. When compared to the scriptures, this view is simply not tenable. We need only to point to a few examples where divorce is not permissible to dismiss the notion that divorce is permissible under any circumstances. We can start with the simple truth that God hates divorce. In Malachi 2:16, God says, “For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” [7] Even if divorce is permissible under only certain circumstances, it is a bridge too far to say that divorce is permissible under any circumstance if God hates divorce. In fact, this is the very question the Pharisees ask Jesus in Matthew 19, which Jesus immediately rejects:?

Matthew 19:3-6 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” (4) He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (5) and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (6) So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Once again, people may still come to the conclusion that divorce is permissible under only certain circumstances based on verses that come later in this passage, but in light of verse 6, the “anything goes” view becomes unsustainable. Once you have one prohibition, “anything goes” is ruled out as a possibility. In case that were not enough, we may also look at 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, where Paul says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (11) (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.” There you have it: the wife should not separate from her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife. If anything goes, then what need is there for a prohibition?

However, someone may raise the objection, like the Pharisees did in Matthew 19:9 that Moses sanctioned divorce through the giving of the divorce certificate: “They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?’” What the Pharisees were referencing was Deuteronomy chapter 24:1-4. When we read this passage, at first glance, this may seem like Moses sanctioned divorce. However, this is not the case. In their commentary on the Pentateuch, Carl F. Keil and Franz. Delitzsch write, “In these verses, however, is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away.”^[8] Moses was not putting a stamp of approval on divorce here. Moses realized that because of their hardened hearts, some men would flippantly put away their wives. This is why Jesus says to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:8, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” What Moses was doing with this provision was essentially damage control. “The thought therefore, of the impossibility of reunion with the first husband, after the wide has contracted a second marriage, would put some restraint upon a frivolous rupture of the marriage tie.”^[9]

In interpreting this passage, we must be careful to see the difference between what God ordains is right what provisions God has made to limit the consequences of sin. C.E.B. Cranfield writes, “A distinction has to be made between that which sets forth the absolute will of God, and those provisions which take account of men’s actual sinfulness and are designed to limit the consequences. . . . The error of the Rabbi’ interpretation lay in their losing sight of this distinction.”^[10] Therefore, this certificate was not a seal of God’s approval for divorce but a merciful provision designed to contain the fallout from the consequences of their sin. The “anything goes” view does not have a leg to stand on.

Secondly, we there is the view that divorce is permissible only under certain circumstances. Many biblical scholars, such as John Murray are in support of the view that divorce is allowed in the case of adultery. The biblical basis cited in support of this view is in the so-called “exception clause” found in Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9. In Matt 5:32, Jesus says, “I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Also, in Matt 19:9, Jesus says, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Murray writes, “Fornication is unequivocally stated to be the only legitimate ground for which a man may put away his wife. . . . And this is the only case in which, according to Christ’s unambiguous assertion, a man may dismiss his wife without being involved in the sin which Jesus proceeds to characterize as making his wife to be an adulteress.”^[11]? Murray understands the clause to be unmistakably permissive of divorce on grounds of adultery. However, as this paper will demonstrate, “immorality” in Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9 does not “unequivocally” and “unambiguously” translate to adultery.

Other scholars, such as Craig Keener base their argument on the broad usage of? “πορνει?α”, the term for “immorality”. Keener surveys a number of possible specific interpretations of “immorality”, including premarital sex, forbidden marriage, spiritual adultery and incest.^[12] He rejects these interpretations because they are too specific. Keener writes,

The problem with all these interpretations is that they impose too specific an interpretation on the word “immorality.” This term implies any sort of sexual sin, except when the context designates a particular kind; and the context here fails to narrow the meaning of “immorality” down in any way. “Immorality” here is not just premarital sex, not is it just incest; it is any kind of sexual unfaithfulness to one’s current spouse. Since the kind of unfaithfulness normally perpetuated by people already married is adultery, the kind of immorality that would most often be applied here is adultery.^[13]

Keener asserts that the immorality that Jesus refers to in the exception clause is in fact, adultery. What is interesting about this argument is that Keener rejects other interpretations for being specific, and then assigns the specific interpretation of “adultery” to “immorality”. Essentially, Keener is trying have his cake and eat it too. You cannot argue against specificity and then argue for the specific meaning of adultery.

Keener is correct regarding the broad range of meaning for “immorality”, but the interpretation of this passage does not depend on the range of meaning for the word but its usage in the context of the Gospel of Matthew. “Immorality” (πορνεια ) should not be translated as “adultery” (μοιχεία) in 5:32 and 19:9. If Matthew’s intended meaning was adultery, then why not use the word for adultery in the exception clause? Why use “immorality”, a term that implies any variety of sexual sin? Also, if Matthew’s meaning in the 19:9 clause is in fact, “adultery”, then that would make the sentence structure very awkward: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for [adultery], and marries another, commits adultery.” “Adultery” does not make grammatical sense here. Also, if “immorality” means “adultery”, the sentence becomes even more awkward in 5:32: “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of [adultery], makes her commit adultery.” How is the husband making his wife commit adultery if his wife has already committed adultery? When one approaches these verses in this way, it becomes evident that πορνει?α does not equal μοιχεία in these texts. The question, then, is exactly meaning does Matthew assign to πορνει?α in these passages? For the answer to that question, we turn to the permanence view.

To begin the argument for permanence, we will look at a number of scriptures. Having already considered Matthew 5 and 19, we will first consider Mark chapter 10:

Mark 10:2-12? And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (3) He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” (4) They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” (5) And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. (6) But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ (7) ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, (8) and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. (9) What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (10) And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. (11) And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, (12) and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

This is Mark’s Synoptic account of the showdown with the Pharisees in Matthew 19. Mark does not include the exception clause. We have already seen that the Mosaic provision of the divorce certificate is not a stamp of approval for divorce. The important thing to note here is that if you divorce and marry someone else, you are called an adulterer, no exception. This is because divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond. As far as God is concerned, your first marriage never ended, and so you committed adultery in the course of your second marriage.

Next, we will look at Romans 7:1-3, which says,

Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? (2) For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.? (3) Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Paul reinforces the truth that divorce cannot break the marriage bond. The only thing that is said to break the marriage bond is death. While your spouse lives, no matter if you have been divorced for years, the scripture says that you are still legally bound to your spouse. Neither divorce, nor adultery, nor anything else breaks the bond of marriage. Only death can break it. Marriage is truly “until death do us part”.

Next, we will consider 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 which says.

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (11) (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.? (12) To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (13) If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (14) For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.? (15) But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (16) For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (17)? Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

We have to recognize that this is not permission or an endorsement for divorce. Similar to Deuteronomy 24, it is a recognition that divorce may happen. Paul’s instruction is that the marriage not be dissolved. The question is: what do you do if you are in a marriage with an unbeliever, and your unbelieving spouse divorces you anyway? Douglas Wilson writes,

But if the unbeliever is not pleased with the godliness of his spouse and leaves, then let him leave. The Christian is no under bondage is such cases. God has called us to peace, so this should not be an occasion for fighting (v.15). Someone else might say that they “cannot allow the unbeliever to depart” because she still wants to be used as an instrument of his salvation. “But how do you know,” St. Paul replies, “whether or not that will happen?” (v. 16). Leave such things in the hand of God.^[14]

Paul would rather see the couple be reconciled, but he recognizes, like Moses, that someone with a hardened heart may still be determined to leave, and so the believing spouse must let them go, since we are called to peace. This is what Paul means when he says that “the brother or sister is not enslaved”. ?Paul is not saying that the marriage bond is broken, he is saying that there comes a point where even you have done all you can to pursue reconciliation, there is nothing you can do to keep the other from leaving.

These are a few scriptures where divorce is not biblically sanctioned. However, we are still not finished. We have to go back to Mathew 19 and see what Matthew really means by “immorality” in 19:9. This is where hermeneutics plays a vital role. The overwhelming testimony of scripture is that divorce not permissible. These clauses in Matthew 5:23 and 19:9 are the only places in scripture where it seems like there may be an exception to the rule. Therefore, we have to let the other passages we have already mentioned guide our interpretation. Robert Plummer writes, “If we believe that all the Bible is inspired by God and thus noncontradictory, passages of scripture that are less clear should be interpreted with reference to those that are more transparent in meaning. . . . Another dimension of letting scripture interpret scripture means listening to the full panoply of texts that touch upon a subject.”^[15] We have already ruled out the possibility that “immorality” means “adultery” in 5:23 and 19:9 and we have looked at the explicit passages which prohibit divorce. What, then can we do to determine Matthew’s intended meaning? Another hermeneutical principle is beginning with the immediate context and going out from there. Robert Stein writes, “to understand what Paul means in a particular verse in Romans, we should look at the context he provides for us, beginning with the immediate context and proceeding to the more distant. Thus we seek help from what Paul says in the verses surrounding that text, in the neighboring chapters, in the rest of Romans, then in Galatians.”[16] We have already considered the immediate context in chapter 19, and gone out from there to chapter 5. From there, we proceed to the beginning of Matthew, to the birth narrative in Matthew 1:18-25. Piper writes,

Matthew is the one Gospel that tells about Joseph’s intention to “divorce” his betrothed Mary because he thought she had committed fornication. “Her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19). The word for “divorce” here (apolusai) is the same as in Matthew 19:9. Moreover, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” or “righteous” (dikaios) in resolving to “divorce” Mary. There is no suggestion that Joseph would have been prohibited from marrying someone after “divorcing” Mary in this betrothed situation.^[17]

The reason Matthew includes the “exception clauses” has everything to do with how he recounts the birth of Jesus. Matthew describes Joseph in his birth narrative in a way Luke does not, as a just man. He resolves to divorce Mary quietly and Matthew calls him just. This is because, during their engagement, before you were ever married, if your future spouse was unfaithful, it was lawful to divorce her. That sounds odd to us in our culture, but in the Jewish culture, divorce was required to dissolve an engagement. Adams writes, “Engagement, for us, is often a trial period. . . . There is nothing really binding about it. In the Bible, on the other hand, an engagement was absolutely binding. . . . In the engagement the marriage covenant was made, and an engagement could be broken only by death or by divorce (Deut. 22:23; Matt. 1:16-24).^[18] Matthew includes the clauses to avoid confusion, whereas he calls Joseph a just man for resolving to divorce Mary during their engagement and whereas Jesus makes an absolute prohibition against divorce. Jesus is not saying that a husband or wife may divorce their spouse in the case of adultery. Rather what he is saying is, “When you hear me give an absolute prohibition of remarriage after divorce, don’t include in that prohibition the divorce of a betrothed couple because of fornication.”[19] Therefore, we may conclude that the so-called exception clause is not an exception at all, and that divorce is not biblically permissible. Finally, we must not forget that marriage is meant to reflect the glory of God and the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:32). Again, Piper writes, “Therefore, if Christ ever abandons and discards his church, then a man may divorce his wife.”[20] God has promised that he will never leave or forsake his church (Heb 13:5). Likewise, under no circumstance may a husband divorce his wife or a wife divorce her husband.

Remarriage

We now proceed to the question of whether remarriage is biblically sanctioned. Based on what we have already seen, that divorce is not allowed, and the only thing that dissolves the marriage bond is death, we may answer the question by saying that remarriage is only permissible if one’s spouse has died. In fact, there are only two places in the Bible where remarriage is explicitly endorsed, and they are both in connection with the death of the spouse. One is Romans 7:1-3. The other is 1 Corinthians 7:39, which says, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

To consider another text, we may look at Luke 16:18 which says, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Once again, if you divorce and marry another, you are called an adulterer. The important detail to note here is the wife divorced from her husband. If another man comes along and marries this woman, it is still called adultery. Note that between Mark 10 and Luke 16, everyone is included here: 1) the man who initiates the divorce, 2) the divorced woman, or innocent party, and 3) the third party. All parties involved are said to commit adultery. Gordon Wenham writes,

What is striking . . . is the implication that divorce does not break the marriage bond, so that sexual relations with anyone but one’s first spouse is adultery. . . . A woman is not free to marry another man after divorce. If she does, she commits adultery. In other words, she is still bound by the vow of exclusive loyalty to her husband. If either the husband or the wife divorces the other and remarries, he or she commits adultery against the other because they are bound together as husband and wife.^[21]

The reason that this text is important to highlight is that it rules out any suggestion that there are innocent parties that may remarry. Any remarriage is considered adultery. The same principle applies to any of the other texts that have been mentioned thus far. For example, if we go back to Matthew 5:32 or 19:9, Wenham writes, “There is no suggestion here that a husband gains the right to marry again. The most that permissive interpreters can claim is that this text leaves open the possibility that an innocent husband may remarry. This text certainly does not authorize remarriage in such circumstances.”^[22] The bottom line is that any argument that seeks to advocate permission for remarriage for an innocent party is overruled based on Mark 10, and especially Luke 16; not to mention the fact that remarriage is only endorsed in the two passages which allow remarriage for the death of a spouse. Therefore, the conclusion that remarriage is not biblically permissible stands.

Practical Theology

?It is not enough to stop at what the Bible says about marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Our answers to these questions affect our real lives. When one comes to the conclusion that marriage according to the Bible is a lifetime, one-flesh union between a man and a woman with no allowance for divorce or remarriage, that has certain implications on how we ought to live.

How we approach marriage should affect how we care about others. Some may say, “Are you telling me that if my spouse leaves me, I am single for the rest of my life?” Humbly, if we desire to be faithful to the Word of God, then we must answer yes to that question. It takes humility to submit to God’s Word in all things. It means putting God’s desires before our own. But God gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). Do we believe that? Do we believe that Jesus is near to the brokenhearted (Psalm 34:18), that he heals them and binds up their wounds (Psalm 146:3)? If this is true, and it is also true that God gives grace for some to remain single for life (Matt 19:12), then we have to believe that God gives grace to those who are divorced. Furthermore, are we committed to encouraging those people whose lives have been scarred by divorce? Wenham writes, “This mutual concern must especially be extended to those who have been divorced, who suffer tremendous pain and guilt and encounter many practical difficulties. They need reassurance that no matter what they have done in the past, God cares for them – and he will forgive them if they seek it.”[23] We have a responsibility to care for those in need.

How else does the way we think about marriage affect our lives? It affects the way we think about forgiveness. Meditating on the truth that marriage is a reflection of Christ and the church and that God will never leave or forsake his church is a call to radical forgiveness and longsuffering. Colossians 3:12-13 says, “Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, (13) bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.” Bearing with one another means bearing with the sin of the one who has sinned against you. When we think about how much God has born with us, how much he has forgiven us, even when we have been unfaithful to God, how can we not also extend that same radical forgiveness to our spouses, even if they should commit adultery?

The way we approach marriage affects how we think about the wedding vows. If we promise to love and to cherish, until death do us part, do we mean what we say? Do we heed the command of Jesus to? “Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'” (Matt 5:37)? Or do we lie as we repeat the vows while holding on to an exception clause in our heart saying, “until death do us part (or as long as you are faithful to me)?

How we think about marriage should affect how we teach one another. Wenham writes, “We cannot change the attitudes and practices of people unless they are aware of Christ’s standards. . . . At every level of church life, from the seminary to the home, our Lord’s teaching about marriage must be passed on.”[24] We must not shy away from our responsibility to instruct one another, for as Paul writes in Romans 15:14, “I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another.” This must happen in all spheres of the Christian life. All Christians, not just the pastor, should be involved in educating the church on the biblical view of marriage.

This is not an exhaustive list on how our view of marriage should affect our lives. The point is that as followers of Christ, our theology of marriage should translate into how we think, how we act, and how we care for and counsel others. Because marriage is the foundational institution of our society and the church,[25] because how we approach marriage bears witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, we must strive to honor marriage in all that we think, all that we say, and all that we do. To God be the glory!

bibliography?