Redemption During and After Divorce

In my last post I wrote about what I hate about divorce. In this post I want to write more redemptively. While Christians should always try to avoid divorce, there are redemptive things that can result from it. I am not suggesting that the things I am about the reference cannot be accomplished in marriage. But sadly they too often are not. So, if you are divorced, it is not the end of the world. Your life is not over. The following are some positive things that can result from divorce:

• One can recover their true identity in Christ. Too often married people have unhealthy identity issues with their spouses. 
• One learns to trust God solely. 
• No relationship loss after divorce will every be more painful or life-altering. 
• Many times God will restore one's life with a marriage that is God-honoring and fulfilling. 

No doubt there are many other results that could be noted. But these will suffice for the present purpose. If you know someone who is divorced, or is going through a divorce, please share this with them. It may be the grace and hope that they need. 

I Hate Divorce Too

It is no secret that I have gone through a divorce. In conversations on this topic, people often say to me, "God hates divorce." The aforementioned phrase is a quote—more or less—of Malachi 2.16. Often it feels as if people use this phrase to insinuate that those who allow for divorce and remarriage in certain cases do not hate divorce. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. 

I was reminded of above truth again this evening as I talked about divorce with a friend whose parents are divorced. Divorce doesn't just hurt the spouses; it hurts the children too. My friend and I both agreed that we hate divorce. He recounted his story about his parents in a way that saddened me deeply. Our conversation reminded me once again of the tragic consequences of a fallen world. 

I sat recently at a conference table filled with preachers. The topic of divorce came up and at least one preacher referenced Malachi 2.16. My response was that as the only divorced preacher at the table that I hate divorce more than all of them combined. The point of this post is simply to say that no one hates divorce more than those who have experienced it. I insist that it is impossible for a person who is still happily married to their first spouse to hate divorce more than me. Or any normal person who has survived divorce. 

I know no one who is pro-divorce. I know no one who went into a marriage hoping that it would fail. Certainly, no true Christian would. What do I hate about divorce?:

• I hate the human brokenness that produces it. 
• I hate the pain of separation that results from it for all parties involved. 
• I hate the isolation, suspicion and calloused judgment that sometimes comes from fellow Christians. 
• I hate the loneliness that follows it. 

In a subsequent post, I am going to write about the redemption that is possible after divorce. 

Divorce and Remarriage: May Both Parties in a Divorce Remarry?

My answer to this question is going to cause some people to jump off my bandwagon. Many Apostolics believe that the "innocent party" may remarry, but the "guilty party" may not remarry. In most cases, terms like "innocent" and "guilty" are are misleading. The Bible does not discuss the MDR question in terms of guilt or innocence. Rather, it discusses MDR in terms of covenant. The concept of covenant brings me to my first question. 

Whom Does A Broken Covenant Release?

For those who do not believe both parties are freed to remarry in divorce I have a question:

• Is a broken covenant still in force? The answer to this question is, "No, it's broken." If it is broken enough for the party who did not break the covenant to remarry without committing adultery, then it must no longer be binding. If the covenant is no longer binding, then what covenant is being violated if either party remarries? The covenant can't be binding for just one party; it's either binding for both or neither. The only biblical answer is that once the covenant has been broken legitimately then both parties are free to remarry. 

In Deuteronomy 24.1-3 the woman in whom the uncleanness was found was free to go be another man's wife after she was put away with a bill of divorce.  She could not be another man's wife just being put away, because there was a covenant still in place. But if she was given a bill of divorce—even though the uncleanness was in her—she was free to remarry. There was no way to release just one party from the covenant. Again: it's both or neither. So the answer to the question about the so-called guilty party remarrying is, "Yes, they can!"

Divorce and Remarriage: Does God Hate Divorce?

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (Malachi 2:16 KJV)

Anyone that has engaged the topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR) has either heard or used this verse. In most cases, from my perspective, it is misused. Many anti MDR advocates will throw out the phrase "God hates divorce" to prove that divorce and remarriage is a sin. As will be demonstrated in this blog, that is misleading at best. 

Does Malachi 2:16 teach that God hates divorce? Furthermore, does it teach that divorce is a sin? Ultimately does it teach that all remarriage is sinful? I am going to argue in this blog post that the answer to each of the above questions is no. 

God Hates Divorce

I will be refuting that "God hates divorce" is either a biblical phrase or means that divorce is sinful. Firstly I am going to deal with the idea that it means that divorce is sinful. Secondly I will deal with whether or not it is a biblical statement. 

Is Divorce Sinful?

Does the phrase "God hates divorce" based on Malachi 2:16 teach that divorce is sinful? The answer is, no! Then what could it possibly mean? Am I saying that God actually likes divorce? The phrase neither means that God likes divorce nor that divorce is sinful. Like many issues, its not as simple as an either-or. Many times there is a third, or even fourth option. Such is the case here.

"God hates divorce" cannot mean that all divorce is sinful. How can I say that with such confidence? Because God himself divorced his wife Israel (Jeremiah 3:8). If all divorce is sinful, then it was a sin for God to initiate his divorce. This would add a whole new layer to the Could Jesus Sin? debate. No one will claim that God sinned. Therefore, whatever Malachi 2:16 means it cannot mean that all divorce is sinful. 

So what could the phrase possibly mean? For anyone to say that they hate something does not mean that they think the thing they hate is immoral. The following is an extreme example: I hate anchovies. This by no means suggests that I think eating anchovies are immoral. It just means that I don't like them. Obviously God's hatred for divorce is much more significant than my hatred for a tiny fish. But the point is that we often hate things at are morally neutral. We even hate things that are morally good. Does anyone besides me hate to pay bills? Does anyone besides me hate to correct your kids? While we hate to do them, they are necessary actions. If Malachi 2:16 teaches that God hates divorce, then I would argue that while he hated it, it was a necessary and moral response an unrepentant adulterous wife. As a divorced man, I can say truthfully that I hate divorce. I can say confidently that I—and others who have suffered divorce—hate divorce more than those who have never been divorced. 

What Malachi 2:16 Actually Says

Malachi 2:16 does not say as is often quoted that "God hates divorce." It says God hates "putting away." There is a difference between "divorce" and "putting away". I am going to introduce a concept here that I will flesh out in more detail in later blogs. I realize that this concept will be strange and difficult for many of my readers to wrap their heads around. But I ask that you open your mind and consider what I am about to say.

The argument for the distinction between "divorced" and "put away" is found in Deuteronomy 24:1:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV)

Notice carefully the progression in this text: write her a bill of divorcement, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house. The bill of divorcement is separate and distinct from sending out (putting away). It is possible to put away one's spouse without divorcing them. And men in Israel were doing just that. When they put away their wives without a bill divorcement, they were putting them in a position that they could not remarry. And if they did remarry they would be guilty of adultery. So Moses commanded them to not just put them away but to also give them a bill of divorcement (Matthew 19:7). If she received a bill of divorcement when she was put away then she was free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24:2). 

Can you see the injustice of putting away a woman and not giving her a bill of divorcement? Yes? So did God. When the men of Israel put away their wives with out divorcing them God said they were dealing "treacherously" with their wives (Malachi 2:14). God hated putting away without a bill of divorcement—not divorce. Now you know why I stated earlier that it is misleading to say that "God hates divorce." So, does God hate divorce? I am sure he does in the sense that it broke his heart that Israel was unfaithful. But that was not the issue that Malachi 2:16 was addressing. So the answer is, the Bible never states that God hates divorce!

MDR: Easy on Adultery

I was reminded again tonight in a conversation about divorce and remarriage how often people misrepresent the other side. This is going to appear self-serving as I will be pointing out how the other side misrepresents my side. I do this with full awareness that my side does it's fair share of misrepresenting too. Now that we have that out of the way...

I hold the view—as I have for a long time—that there are valid reasons for divorce and remarriage. The no divorce and remarriage advocates equate remarriage after divorce with adultery (Luke 16:18). Consequently, they say about people who allow divorce and remarriage that they allow adultery, they are easy on adultery, or their churches are full of adultery. 

Obviously I find this absurd for several reason, But allow me to flip the table and frame it in the following way. There are scores of women in no remarriage churches who have lived with abusive, serial cheaters for years as a consequence of that doctrine. They tolerate the abuse and cheating with all of its consequences because they think they can never remarry. And in many cases, the cheating husband will continue to cheat because they know the wife won't do anything about it. 

I suggest the view that judges the adulterous spouse by divorcing them is the one being strong against adultery. And the view the makes someone feel like they have to tolerate adultery or live alone is the view that facilitates adultery. That's the view that is more conducive to adultery thriving. 

Admittedly this does not prove one way or the other whether the Bible teaches that a divorced person may remarry. But it is a good response to an extra-biblical argument. 

Matthew 19:9: Espoused or Married Wife Part 2

In recent discussions with various friends on the subject of divorce and remarriage the issue of Matthew 19:9 came up. As I am aware there are only two ways to view this verse: 1. The wife of Matthew 19:9 is the espoused wife (Deuteronomy 22:23, Matthew 1:18-20). 2. The wife of Matthew 19:9 is not an espoused/betrothed wife, rather she is a married wife (Deuteronomy 24)1. Let me state here, in case you have not read my other blogs on this issue, I hold to the second view.

Two things should be noted about the first view: Why they conclude that Matthew 19:9 is the espoused/betrothed wife and not the married wife. The way they arrive at that conclusion. The why and the way are important to understand. The way they arrive at their conclusion is baseless. The why is equally unwarranted.

Firstly the why. The reason why they conclude that the wife of Matthew 19:9 is the espoused wife, and not the married wife, is to avoid the obvious implication that infidelity on part of a married person is grounds for the innocent party to divorce and remarry. However, this is the necessary implication of this text if a married wife is under consideration as I contend.

Secondly the way. The way they attempt to prove that the wife of Matthew 19:9 is the espoused wife, and therefore hold to a no divorce and remarriage for any reason view, is by appealing to Matthew's use of the word fornication. Among those who reject that the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 applies to married persons there are two arguments made about the word fornication: 1. Married people cannot commit fornication; therefore the term fornication demands that the Matthew 19:9 wife is an espoused wife. 2. The word fornication, if used alone, can include adultery; however, when both fornication and adultery are used in the same context they are being contrasted and cannot refer to the same thing. I have responded both of these arguments in other blogs. 2, 3

When you look at the context of Matthew 19 you readily understand that the married wife is the kind of wife that is under consideration:

1. With the wife under consideration they had been "joined together" by God, and they had become "one flesh," an obvious euphemism describing sexual union (1 Corinthians 6:16).
2. The wife they were discussing had to be given a bill of divorcement as prescribed by Moses. The only possible law they could be appealing to is Deuteronomy 24:1. The wife of Deuteronomy 24:1 was the married wife; when she was given the bill of divorcement by her husband he "sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house." Surely no one would suggest that this describes the espousal period, as cohabitation would not have been permitted by the law.

These facts demand that the married wife be under consideration in Matthew 19. To consider otherwise is, in my opinion, not being honest with the context.

This finally brings me to the purpose that I am writing this particular blog. In response to my argument, based on Deuteronomy 24, that the wife of Matthew 19 is the married wife and not the espoused wife, a friend of mine argued that "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24 cannot be sexual in nature. I want to try to honestly set forth his argument and then give a response.

My friend's argument is: uncleanness in Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot be sexual because the punishment for uncleanness is she is put out of her husband's house; however, the punishment for sexual sin demanded she be put to death (Deuteronomy 22). If the sin of uncleanness was sexual, she would be put to death, not merely put out of her husband's house. His argument is that death was mandatory for sexual sins, therefore "uncleanness" could not be sexual.

If I can demonstrate a single case which shows this premise to be false, then his argument fails. One of the cases that carried the death penalty was the unfaithfulness of a betrothed woman.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 ESV

23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,

24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

This describes a situation where a betrothed virgin willingly lies with a man other than her intended, and her penalty was that she was to be put to death. Is death the only option for the betrayed husband? No. If the betrayed husband finds out about the unfaithfulness of his betrothed must he have her put to death? No. Is there ever case where the betrothed betrays and is spared death? Yes.

Matthew 1:18-20 ESV

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

It must be pointed out that when Joseph realized that his betrothed was with child, the only logical answer in his mind was betrayal. He was unaware that a miracle had taken place. It was only later that he was visited by the angel and became aware of this fact. He decided, while fully convinced that she had been unfaithful, to "divorce her quietly." You mean there was an option other than death that was available to him? Yes.

So, it is entirely possible, as we have an example, that a wife could commit an act punishable by death and merely be "put away (KJV)," and not "put to death." Therefore, uncleanness could include something of a sexual nature. The same would also have to be true of the other cases in Deuteronomy 22. I will examine this in more depth in a later post.

Secondly, it would not matter if uncleanness did not include a sexual sin. Let's say that it does not. Jesus contrasted what He taught with what Moses taught and narrowed the parameters. The original question in Matthew 19 was, "can a man put away his wife for ever cause?" Jesus said they could not, "except for fornication." Therefore, even if uncleanness was term used to apply to nonsexual things, Jesus restricts the bill of divorcement to fornication alone and not other causes.

What this does serve to prove, and that the no divorce and remarriage view cannot handle, is that the discussion in Matthew 19 was concerning the married wife of Deuteronomy 24, and consequently proves the wife of Matthew 19:9 is the married wife. This without question allows for divorce and remarriage for fornication.

I just finished this at 1:11am. It probably makes no sense. Please feel free to ask questions for clarification.

Not Under Bondage: The Pauline Privilege?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 KJV

There are two marital demographics that Paul addresses in this text, “the married” and “the rest.” I am going to demonstrate that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers, and “the rest” refers to marriages where one is a believer and the other is a unbeliever. Paul never explicitly addresses marriages where both are unbelievers, although I believe that he implicitly refers to them in 1Corinthians 7:14.

Unto The Married

An important point to be made at the outset is the audience that Paul is addressing is the Church. The instructions in this text are given to Christians, unless otherwise stated; therefore, are to be understood as regulating marriage within the Church. Let us demonstrate that when Paul says, “unto the married (verse 10),” he is speaking to Christian marriages, and not to marriages of unbelievers or to mixed[1] marriages.

He is writing to those who had written to him (1 Corinthians 7:1). He is writing to people who pray and fast (1 Corinthians 7:5). He is writing what he ordained in all the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17). He is writing to the called in the Lord (1Corinthians 7:22-24). He is writing to the brethren (1Corinthians 7:29). He is writing to those who care for the things of the Lord how they may please and serve him without distraction (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

These are the people that Paul is writing to in verse 10, namely believers. “The married” cannot be speaking of marriages where one is believer and the other is not. Paul addresses the religiously mixed marriages in verse 12 and calls them “the rest,” and “such case.” I think it is obvious from the context that “the married” are both believers. I am not alone in this understanding as the majority of scholarship also agrees.

““the married,” 1Co_7:10, where both husband and wife are believers”[2]

“in which he has respect to such as were upon equal foot in matters of religion, who were both of them believers in Christ”[3]

“to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10).”[4]

The text as well as these scholars agrees that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers. The rules that Paul gives concerning equally yoked marriages is: The first rule says, “Let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10b)…and let not the husband put away his wife(1 Corinthians 7:11b).” The second rule says, “let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” This going to be set in contrast to the rules that Paul gives about marriages where one is a believer and the other is an unbeliever.

But to the Rest

What does Paul mean by the phrase, “but to the rest,” and what are the implications? “But to the rest” must refer to the marriages of a believer to an unbeliever. Paul says, “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:12-13).”

Notice Paul modifies his language for the unequally yoked marriages. To “the married” he says, “let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10);”however, “to the rest (unequally yoked marriages of a believer to an unbeliever),” he modifies his command to, “if he be pleased dwell let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:13).” Paul does not place this qualifier on “the married;” their command is unequivocal, do not depart.

Paul gives a different rule to the equally yoked marriages than he does to the unequally yoked marriages. Evidently Paul and God viewed the two classes of marriages differently and placed different rules on them. It could not be clearer to the open mind that two different rules about departing exist in contrasting these two groups.

Not only did the departing rule differ, but the response rule for if they do depart differed also. For “the married (equally yoked)” the rule is “let them remain unmarried or be reconciled;” however, the rule for “the rest (unequally yoked)” is quite different. Instead of remaining unmarried or be reconciled like “the married,” Paul says the believer is, “not under bondage in such cases.”

The question is, what bondage are the believers, in such case that the unbeliever leaves, not under that the other cases are? The bondage that these deserted believers are not under are exclusive to their case alone. No one else has this particular liberty.

Those that hold to a no exception, or to a fornication only exception view of divorce and remarriage, argue that “not under bondage” does not refer to the marriage bond. They argue that what Paul is saying is that they are not obligated to follow them or make them stay, and that they can let the unbeliever go, but they can’t remarry.

Remember now, whatever “not under bondage” refers to is exclusive to “such cases;” no one else would have this liberty. If I can show that no one is under the bondage of merely cohabitating if they are deserted, then I can prove that “not under bondage” do not mean mere cohabitation.

“The married” of verse 10-11 are also “not under bondage” to cohabitate in any way, because they can also depart or be departed from and “remain unmarried.” So what is the bondage that “the rest…in such cases” are not under that “the married” are under? The only possible answer is “the married” are under bondage to “remain unmarried,” if they divorce; however, “the rest…in such cases” are not under that bondage. That can be the only liberty that this particular circumstance has that is unique to “such cases.”

---

[1] Religiously mixed, not racially mixed.

[2] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[3] John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[4] Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

Fornication: What Does It Mean? Part 1

In my experience a great deal of the divorce and remarriage debate centers on the definition of “fornication” in Matthew 19:9. The “no divorce” advocates argue that the use of fornication proves that Matthew 19:9 is addressing espoused (engaged) couples and not married couples. This is based on the idea that fornication can only be committed by a person who has never been married. I think that it is clear from the context of Matthew 19 that is not the case, but let that be as it may, I want to focus on the definition of fornication from both the English and the Greek.

ENGLISH:

“voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.”[1]

It is clear from this definition that fornication is not limited to people who are not married at all, but also to people who are not married to each other, although they may be married to someone. Anytime two people who are not married to each other have sexual intercourse it is fornication. Married people can commit fornication by having sex with someone with whom they are not married.

When a married person has sex outside of their marriage it is both fornication and adultery. It is fornication because they had sex with someone they were not married to, and it is adultery because the sex violated a covenant.

“voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage”[2]

Here fornication is defined as, “voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage.” The question that must be asked is, can a married person have sexual intercourse outside of their marriage? The answer must be yes. If a married person has sex outside of their marriage they have committed fornication.

“sexual immorality in general, esp adultery”[3]

This dictionary includes adultery in its definition of fornication. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.

GREEK:

The following are quotes from Greek scholars defining fornication. Greek scholarship virtually unanimously includes adultery in the definition of “pornea,” the Greek word for fornication.

“sexual intercourse in general…used of adultery.”[4]

“harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.”[5]

“in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 it stands for, or includes, adultery”[6]

“it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (porneia) which is technically adultery.”[7]

OTHER TRANSLATIONS:

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 ESV

“I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 ISV

“And I say to you, That whoever leaveth his wife not being an adulteress, and taketh another, committeth adultery. And whoever taketh her that is divorced, committeth adultery.” Matthew 19:9 Murdock

“And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.” Matthew 19:9 Webster

“And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 WNT

“And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19:9 YLT

CONCLUSION:

It is undeniable from the Greek that fornication includes adultery. It is also certain that the English word fornication is not limited to sex between two people who have never been married, but includes married people who has sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

Matthew 19:9 correctly uses the term fornication as an exception to the divorce and remarriage law, because sex outside of the marriage bond (i.e. fornication) is a valid reason for the innocent person to divorce and remarry.

---

[1] "fornication." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[2] "fornication." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[3] "fornication." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers. 24 Sep. 2010. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fornication).

[4] Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 532

[5] James H. Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 364

[6] W.E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishing), p. 465

[7] Robertson’s Word Pictures, Quoted from E-Sword version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.24.10, http://www.e-sword.net/