In the previous issue, four broad categories of viewpoints concerning divorce and remarriage were listed and discussed. On the basis of various Scriptures, particularly Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, three of these positions were eliminated, leaving us with the position that "divorce and remarriage are both permitted under certain circumstances." However, as pointed out at the conclusion of the previous article, 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. This is the topic under consideration in the present article.

Three situations will be discussed in the following pages:

1. A believer is divorced and the former spouse remarries.

2. The believer’s spouse commits fornication, but does not divorce the believer.

3. The believer’s spouse deserts, separates, or obtains a divorce, but does not remarry and does not commit fornication.

Divorce and Remarriage by the Believer’s Spouse

If a believer is divorced and the former spouse remarries, this might be considered as "fornication in the extreme" on the part of the former spouse. Therefore, it may be inferred from Matt. 19:9 that the believer in this situation is free to remarry without being guilty of adultery. However, let it be added that the one divorced (or equally, one who is widowed), should not feel compelled to remarry, but should carefully weigh before the Lord the option of remaining unmarried. The apostle Paul offers the advice, "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. … Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife" (1 Cor. 7:8,27; see also verses 32-34, 38-40). The one who has lost husband or wife through death or divorce should prayerfully seek to learn what the Lord is trying to teach through this trial, and to determine if the Lord has a special service to be carried out while in the unmarried state. (See the March-April 1981 issue of Words of Truth, page 30, for further thoughts on this subject.)

Fornication but Not Divorce by the Believer’s Spouse

If the spouse of a believer commits fornication, but does not initiate a divorce from the believer, it would seem, again on the basis of Matt. 19:9, that the believer is given permission to divorce the unfaithful spouse and to remarry without being guilty of adultery. As noted in Part II of this chapter, because of the variety of contexts in which this word "fornication" is found in Scripture, there does not appear to be any basis for permitting divorce for certain classes of sexual sin and not for others. However, for one who may be contemplating initiating divorce from an unfaithful spouse, there are some important questions and principles to consider.

First of all, it is important to consider the attitude of the so-called "innocent party" toward the marriage and toward the sinning spouse. If a marriage is floundering, it may be that one or both partners_instead of trying to take the necessary steps of confession, forgiveness, reconciliation, etc._are secretly looking for a scriptural excuse to terminate the marriage. A single act of infidelity on the part of one’s spouse, whether present or past, whether repented of or not, may be seized upon as a justifiable reason for divorce. Considering the exception clauses of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 alone, one cannot argue against this reason. But we must consider this matter in the light of the entire Word of God. We must balance the tendency to seize upon any act of marital unfaithfulness as a basis for divorce with those fundamental principles stated in the previous two parts of this chapter that God hates divorce and God loves forgiveness and reconciliation. Certainly, if the sinning spouse has confessed and repented of his/her sin to the spouse, there is an obligation to forgive, just as God "is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" when we confess them to Him (1 John 1:9); we are also exhorted to forgive "one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you" (Eph. 4:32). But even more, God has forgiven us far beyond those sins we have consciously recognized, confessed, and repented of. And He is always seeking to draw His wandering, sinful children back to Himself. Are we to be any different from our heavenly Father in this respect? Should we not be patiently, prayerfully seeking the return and reconciliation of our errant spouse, however great or extensive the sin?

In this regard it would be well to read the account given in the first three chapters of Hosea concerning the prophet Hosea and his wife. Upon direction from the Lord, he married a harlot, then had three children by her. Subsequently she left him to resume her trade as a harlot. According to Mosaic law, he was perfectly justified in having her stoned to death for adultery. But instead he pursued after her, keeping track of her whereabouts, and working by various means to draw her back to him (Hosea 2:6-8). Finally, when she was reduced to the wretched condition of a slave and placed upon the auction block, he bought her_his own wife_for the substantial sum of 15 pieces of silver and a quantity of barley (3:2). Then he said to her, "Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man; so will I also be for thee" (3:3). This, of course, was not just the story of Hosea and his wife; it was written to the nation of Israel to illustrate the kind and amount of love which God had for the nation of Israel which had forsaken Jehovah for idol worship. For us Christians as well, it serves as a pattern for the length to which our love should go in seeking reconciliation with a wayward spouse. Let us remember also that very rarely is the fault or failing one-sided. All behavior is caused, and there may well be reasons within the marriage why one has looked elsewhere for gratification.

Thus, before divorce for fornication is even contemplated, the "innocent spouse" should truly be doing everything within his/her power (or, more properly, through the power of God and under the direction of the Holy Spirit) to bring about restoration and reconciliation of the sinning spouse. But what if the spouse yet persists in unfaithfulness, while at the same time having no desire to terminate the marriage relationship? Such a situation makes a travesty of the marriage relationship as well as placing an immense emotional strain upon the faithful spouse and the rest of the family; thus it may be best for all concerned to force the unfaithful one to make a choice between the two mates_with separation or divorce being a possible outcome.

If divorce does occur under these circumstances, the "innocent party" is free_as noted above_to remarry another. However, the desire and hope for reconciliation should not cease once a divorce has been obtained. My own counsel to such a one would be not to consider marriage to another person until there is indication that reconciliation will never or can never occur. Thus, the one who has obtained a divorce would do well to wait either for the Lord to work the miracle of reconciliation or for the matter to be resolved by the unfaithful one remarrying another person. This latter, as pointed out above, is an extreme act of fornication or adultery, and renders impossible recovery of the original marriage.

Divorce but Not Fornication by the Believer’s Spouse

So far we have considered the question of divorce and remarriage of a believer when fornication or remarriage of the unfaithful spouse has occurred. Let us now consider the status of the Christian who has been deserted or divorced by his/her spouse but where there is no evidence of fornication on the part of the departing spouse. The crucial question here, of course, is whether there is freedom for the believer to remarry in such situations. Let us consider this question for two classes of situations.

First, if both partners are believers at the time of the separation or divorce, there is clear instruction given in 1 Cor. 7:10,11:"Let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife." The context of verses preceding and following give proof that verses 10 and 11 are addressed particularly to saved couples. The only two options provided by the Word of God in this situation are "remain unmarried" or "be reconciled."

Second, if one partner is a believer and the other is not, instruction is provided in 1 Cor. 7:12-16:"If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 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. 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. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"

In the corrupt city of Corinth, it was not uncommon for a new believer in Christ to have previously been an idolater and perhaps also an adulterer, and to have an unsaved spouse still taken up with the corrupt practices prevalent in that locale. Thus the question no doubt was posed to the apostle Paul as; to whether it was appropriate to continue living with one’s unsaved spouse_to continue in that unequal yoke with an unbeliever while now linked with Christ. The apostle’s response is clearly given in this passage:If the unbeliever is willing to continue the marriage, this is fine; do not leave or break up the marriage. Again, the fundamental principles of the permanency of marriage and God hating divorce are in evidence here.

But what if the unbeliever is not content to continue the marriage? What if he is ashamed or embarrassed to have a wife who will no longer join him in his corrupt or worldly practices and who would much prefer to spend her time reading the Bible, worshipping with other believers, etc? What if he threatens her that unless she gives up her new religion he will leave or divorce her? "If the unbelieving depart, let him depart" (verse 15). In other words, although God’s desire for all is permanency in marriage, He does not expect one to give up Christianity in order to keep his or her marriage from disintegrating. While we are enjoined to submit ourselves one to another in the fear of God, and while wives are to submit themselves unto their own husbands (Eph. 5:21,22), this submission and subjugation cannot be carried out at the expense of obedience to the Lord. "We ought to obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29); "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Col. 3:18). This seems to be the setting for the next phrase of our passage, "A brother or a sister is not under bondage [or servitude or subjugation] in such cases" (1 Cor. 7:15). In other words, that attitude of submissiveness and serving one another which is so important in developing and maintaining a happy marriage cannot be carried to the point of compromising our relationship with and responsibility toward our Lord for the purpose of preventing the marriage from breaking up.

It is argued by some that "not under bondage" means that the bond of marriage (referred to in 1 Cor. 7:27,39 and Rom. 7:2) is broken when an unbelieving spouse departs or divorces, thus freeing the believer to remarry another. To some extent this notion has been promoted by a misreading of the Greek words in the four passages, in 1 Cor. 7:15, "bondage" is douloo, while in Rom. 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:27,39 "bound" is deo. At least three prominent Bible teachers have based their interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:15 at least in part on the mistaken notion that the same Greek word is used in these four passages.* Douloo means "to be in servitude" and is also found in Rom. 6:18 and 22 in speaking of Christians becoming "servants of righteousness" and "servants to God." Deo means "to bind, as with a rope or chain," and is also found in Mark 11:4 in reference to a "colt tied by the door," and in Acts 12:6 and 24:27 of prisoners bound by chains or other measures. If it were meant that the departure of the unbelieving spouse resulted in the breaking of the marriage bond_as in the case of death_the precisensss of the Greek language would probably dictate that the word deo rather than douloo be used in 1 Cor. 7:15.

*Wilbur E. Nelson in Believe and Behave, Charles R. Swindoll in Strike the Original Match, and John MacArthur, Jr. in his cassette series on Divorce and Remarriage.

It may therefore be concluded that while the believer is not required to contest a divorce by an unbelieving spouse, or to give up his or her Christian religion in order to appease the unbelieving spouse and keep the marriage together, there does not appear to be any clear warrant for remarriage in such a situation. In fact, according to Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, remarriage by the believer would result in an adulterous relationship unless there is fornication on the part of the unbeliever or the marriage bond is broken by remarriage of the unbeliever to another person. Thus, the advice given to married couples in 1 Cor. 7:10,11_"remain unmarried, or be reconciled"_would seem to be appropriate in this situation as well.

There is another misconception which many have concerning the "bondage" referred to in 1 Cor. 7:15. Having to remain unmarried for an indefinite period of time while hoping for reconciliation is regarded by many to be a state of bondage. The believer is not able to enjoy marriage with the original spouse, and neither is he or she free to remarry another as long as the unbelieving spouse does not break the original marriage bond by remarrying or committing fornication. It is thus argued that "not under bondage" in 1 Cor. 7:15 means that there is freedom for the believer to remarry under such circumstances. However, this interpretation does not fit in with the context of the entire passage. The apostle Paul did not regard it bondage to be in an unmarried state, but rather freedom. The reader is referred back a couple of pages to what seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of "not under bondage" in the context of the entire chapter.

Those who teach that "not under bondage" gives the deserted or divorced believer freedom to remarry are essentially adding another exception clause to that found in Matt. 5:32. Let us again examine carefully Matt. 5:32 to see the implications of this new exception with respect to four classes of married couples; in each case we will assume that fornication is not involved:

1. If both husband and wife are believers, the divorced or deserted one becomes an adulterer if he/she remarries.

2. If neither are believers the same is true.

3. If the divorcer or deserter is a believer and the spouse is an unbeliever the same is true.

4. However, if the divorcer or deserter is an unbeliever and the spouse is a believer, the above-mentioned interpretation of "not under bondage" implies that the divorced or deserted one does not become an adulterer if he/she remarries.

Thus, this teaching clearly creates a serious logical inconsistency which is quite out of character with the laws of God. For this reason, along with the others presented above, there does not appear to be scriptural warrant for remarriage following divorce or desertion in the absence of fornication.

To those who may reject the foregoing arguments and yet insist that "not under bondage" implies liberty to remarry, I would again urge that the fundamental principles of "God hates divorce" and "God loves forgiveness and reconciliation" be very carefully considered whenever such a situation of divorce or desertion arises. Thus remarriage, if it occurs at all, should be put off for a lengthy period of time_perhaps years_to allow adequate time to see if the unbeliever’s heart will be changed in response to the spouse’s prayers and in response to the periodic reaffirmations of devotion by the spouse and of the desire for reconciliation. Reconciliation with the original spouse rather than remarriage to a new one should always be uppermost in the mind of the believer.

The final chapter in our series will deal with the approach to be taken by local churches or assemblies of believers with regard to those who may violate these principles of divorce and remarriage.