In Part I of this chapter, published in the previous issue, an attempt was made to set the stage for a discussion of divorce and remarriage from the viewpoint of Scripture. Two fundamental principles from the Word of God were stated there and must be repeated here:

1. God hates divorce. "I hate putting away [or divorce], saith Jehovah the God of Israel" (Mal. 2:16 JND). "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6).

2. God loves forgiveness and reconciliation. "Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you" (Eph. 4:32). "Let her… be reconciled to her husband" (1 Cor. 7:11). (See also Matt. 5:24; 6:14,15; 18:21-35; 2 Cor. 5:18.)

These two principles form the backdrop for all of the discussions to follow.

There are many different viewpoints found in Christendom and even among born again Christians concerning divorce and remarriage. These may be broadly categorized into the following positions:

1. Divorce is not permitted for any reason.

2. Divorce is permitted under certain circumstances, but remarriage is not permitted for any reason.

3. Divorce and remarriage are both permitted under certain circumstances.

4. Divorce and remarriage are permitted under virtually all circumstances.

In considering these four positions, it is clear, first of all, that God intended marriage to be a permanent bond between a man and a woman. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:5,6; see also Gen. 2:24). "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband" (Rom. 7:2). However, many of the Jews were grossly violating God’s Word and purpose for marriage, divorcing for almost any reason (Matt. 19:3). At that time a controversy about divorce was taking place between the rival rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai. Rabbi Shammai taught from Deut. 24:1 that the sole ground for divorce was some grave matrimonial offence, something evidently unseemly or indecent. Rabbi Hillel, on the other hand, held a very lax view, arguing that the ground for divorce could include a wife’s most trivial offences, such as being an incompetent cook or having plain looks. In Matt. 19 we read that the Pharisees asked Jesus for His opinion in regard to this controversy. His response was first to draw their attention back to their own Scriptures (Gen. 2) concerning the permanency of the marriage bond. He then stated, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (verse 9). Since adultery is a violation of God’s commandments, divorce must therefore also be a violation_except for the cause of fornication.

There are some Bible teachers today who limit the scope of fornication to unfaithfulness during the engagement period. They claim that the "exception clause" of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 only allows for the breaking of an engagement (such as considered by Joseph, Matt. 1:19), not of a consummated marriage, for the cause of unfaithfulness. However, the basic meaning of the Greek word for "fornication" and its use throughout the New Testament do not seem to support this notion. People often differentiate the words "adultery" and "fornication" in the following simplistic way:"Adultery refers to an immoral act after marriage and fornication to such an act before marriage." But the Greek word porneia translated "fornication" throughout the New Testament has the primary meaning of having a relationship with a prostitute, and, by extension, any illicit sexual relationship, either before or during marriage. While the prostitutes themselves were usually young unmarried women, often slave girls brought in from a conquered country, the men who visited them were not necessarily unmarried. The word moicheia translated "adultery" throughout the New Testament has a more restricted meaning of intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife, or between a married woman and a man not her husband. "Fornication," as used in the Scriptures, is a more general term and often includes adultery as well as premarital relationships. Thus, it does not seem warranted to restrict the term "fornication" to unlawful premarital relationships alone.

Further, if the "exception clause" applies to couples engaged to be married, let us note how Matt. 19:9 could be read:"Whoever shall break an engagement, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who had once been engaged to another commits adultery." Thus, if there has been no unfaithfulness, but an engagement is broken due to some other reason, and both persons remain virgins, Scripture would be saying that these persons would be committing adultery if they were later to marry other partners. Such an application puts a definite strain upon the definition of "adultery." It also negates part of the purpose of an engagement period, namely, for a couple to learn more about each other in view of the possibility of living the rest of their lives together, to identify beforehand potentially disastrous problem areas if they were to marry, and to pray together to learn definitively God’s will concerning the proposed marriage_all leading to the possible outcome of termination of the engagement if it becomes clear that it is not God’s will for the marriage to be consummated. Thus, the restriction of the exception clause to breaking of an engagement rather than to divorce seems not to be supportable from Scripture.

On the basis of the preceding arguments, the first of the four positions listed above_"divorce is not permitted for any reason"_does not appear to be valid. Likewise, the verses cited from Matt. 5 and 19 set aside the fourth position_"divorce and remarriage are permitted under virtually all circumstances." Now, if divorce is permitted under certain circumstances, does Scripture likewise give permission to remarry under these same circumstances? It would appear, again on the basis of Matt. 19:9 that it does:"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." Some might argue that the exception clause in this verse is attached to "put away his wife" and not to "marry another." Let us read the verse again, omitting the clause about marrying another:"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, committeth adultery." Clearly this does not make sense apart from the assumption that the person instituting the divorce will remarry another. If remarriage after divorce were not permitted under any circumstances, verse 9 would most likely have been written:"Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another committeth adultery." The exception clause would be superfluous in this case. Thus the second position_"divorce is permitted under certain circumstances but remarriage is not permitted for any reason"_does not appear to have scriptural support.

We are left with the third position_"divorce and remarriage are both permitted under certain circumstances." However, we still find much difference of opinion with regard to trying to define precisely the "certain circumstances" under which divorce and remarriage are permitted by Scripture. In order to consider in adequate detail the various aspects of this important matter, it will be necessary to continue this discussion in the next issue of this magazine, if the Lord be not come.