Divorce and Remarriage
Dr. Paul Manuel—2015
The prevalence of divorce and remarriage in our society has not left the church untouched. Most congregations include members or constituents whose families have undergone restructuring. Nevertheless, some Christians condemn all divorce and remarriage, appealing to Jesus’ statements, such as the one in Mark’s gospel:1
I. Divorce
Gentile partners did not always adopt Israel’s God (Rahab and Ruth not withstanding16). In fact, the opposite was more often the case; their pagan backgrounds exerted a negative influence on their spouses and children.17 Intermarriage also violated an ancient prohibition God had given through Moses:18
Siding with Shammai (so also Davies 1988:530-531),26 Jesus contrasts this popular but erroneous understanding of the Mosaic law on divorce (“It has been said”) with the divine intention that stands behind the law:27
If the get was issued according to Shammai’s and Jesus’ opinion, the act of immorality has already made her an adulteress, and the husband who divorces her does not then bear the responsibility of making her an adulteress if she subsequently marries another man (Gundry 1982:91).30 Once again, this discussion does not give a full treatment of the matter, because it only deals with selected issues (e.g., with only one of the parties and with only one of the legitimate grounds; see n. 13).
In vv. 8-9, Paul addresses the first group, those who are not married, either because they have never had a mate or because they have lost their mate to death or divorce:33
In vv. 10-11, Paul addresses the second group, married couples where both parties are believers and where one party (perhaps both) thinks that being single has greater spiritual potential:35
In vv. 12-16, Paul addresses the third group, couples (which he distinguishes from the previous group as “the rest”) where only one party is a believer:
Because the problems in Jerusalem and Corinth had different starting points, the solutions to those problems were also different. The returnees to Jerusalem were (predominantly) believing Jews. They knew that God had said of Israel, “I set you apart from the nations” (Lev 20:24, 26), and “you are a people holy to the LORD your God” (Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21). In a flagrant disregard of that status, the returnees “mingled the holy race with the peoples around them” (Ezra 9:2), making necessary the remedy: “Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives” (10:11). The members of the Corinthian church, with its preponderance of gentiles (“idolaters” and “pagans” 1 Cor 6:9; 12:2), began at a different point, and only after coming to faith were they “sanctified…and called to be holy” (1:2; cf. 6:11). Because they had married before achieving that status, they may maintain those unions. Their new standing with God has “sanctified” their previous commitments.39
Although Paul’s point here “is not completely lucid” (Fee 1987:301), it may acquire some clarity in contrast to Ezra’s situation (and may be more prosaic than profound):
In response to the historical situation at Corinth (“the present crisis” v. 26), Paul advocates a range of alternatives to marriage:42 celibacy for singles, separation (i.e., divorce without remarriage) for believers, divorce from unbelievers. His chief concern in each case is that they seek whatever state will free them from spiritual impediments. The fourth alternative demonstrates yet another context in which dissolving a marriage may be permissible, even preferable: when it promotes “undivided devotion to the Lord.”
From these passages, it is evident that marriage, although an institution established by God, is not inviolable.44 Through instruction and illustration, He indicates that there are legitimate, divinely-allowable grounds for divorce (and there is no reason to assume this list is complete), as follows:45
If divorce is permissible—even preferable, in some situations—what about remarriage? Can a person who has dissolved one union establish another?49 Here, as well, it is necessary to gather all the biblical data before formulating an opinion. There is not as much discussion in scripture about remarriage as there is about divorce, perhaps because, once a union has ended, both parties are free to do as they wish in this regard.
II. Remarriage
The second restriction governs the average Israelite, who may divorce and remarry with but one exception:
When Nehemiah returns from Babylon twenty-five years after Ezra, he finds that the earlier reform was brief, lasting barely one generation,59 for he finds a number of men with foreign wives and, like Ezra, is distraught:
Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. (Deut 7:3b) The only difference is that Nehemiah adds the phrase “or for yourselves,” implying that those God is addressing, who had sons and daughters of their own and who perhaps had not brought their Jewish wives on the arduous journey from Babylon, could remarry (although not to foreign women).
The one exception to his discouragement of (re)marriage is his instruction to those who dissolve mixed unions. To them, he says nothing about what they should do after a divorce:
Although the biblical writers say little about remarriage, what they say primarily is that there are few restrictions as long as no prior commitments remain:68
These passages do not exhaust what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage, but they do represent its main treatments. How, then, should the results of this survey inform a person’s understanding? First, he should not take the extreme view that divorce is always wrong. There are several, legitimate grounds (in addition to Jesus’ exception in Matt 5:32, etc.) that preclude such a rigid position.70 The same is true of remarriage. Even with the narrow focus of Paul’s remarks, it is evident that (re)marriage is more common than remaining single and that such a state is quite acceptable in most cases. Second, he should realize that no single passage contains all God has to say about either issue. In order to develop a more complete appreciation of His perspective, it is necessary to consult several, preferably all, related texts.
Why should we bother looking at Old Testament and New Testament passages for guidance concerning this issue when they address historical and cultural situations very different from our own? Unlike ancient cultures, most western cultures today have very different attitudes toward marital relationships:
In addition to offering direction about specific practices, the value of biblical instruction lies in what it reveals about the mind of God—about His priorities and about how His people must order their lives to meet those priorities in their own historical and cultural setting. While God does not address every situation that strains marriage to the breaking point, uniting those situations in which God does permit divorce is a common, timeless principle: holiness. This theme is what allows us to evaluate other possible reasons for divorce, to determine which are valid and which are not (e.g., abuse, irreconcilable differences). The question we must answer in each instance, and the one that determines if divorce is permissible, is whether the reason accords with God’s holiness or, instead, reflects our own selfishness.
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)However attractive it may be to have a clear delineation of right and wrong, few issues lend themselves to either-or categories, and any treatment of marital relationships must include other passages in the biblical text that argue for a more nuanced position or that offer more information.2 The parallel account in Matthew, for example, has a more complete transcript of Jesus’ words:3
Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matt 19:9)In light of the limited information these few passages offer, therefore, it is necessary to conduct a broader survey to understand God’s perspective on the issues of divorce and remarriage.
I. Divorce
A. According to MosesWhen God instituted marriage, His intention was that it be permanent. Some Pharisees question Jesus on this matter, and he refers them to Genesis:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ [Gen 1:27] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ [Gen 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matt 19:4-6)They press him further, and Jesus indicates that God allowed divorce as a concession to man’s sinful nature:5
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” (Matt 19:7-8)Jesus acknowledges that sin has altered the edenic model of marriage and that the original permanence of the union is subject to revision. The contrast here is between God’s perfect will and His permissive will, between what He approves and what He allows (so also Davies 1997:14).6 On the one hand, God states, “I hate divorce” (Mal 2:16), but, on the other hand, He speaks about divorcing Israel for the nation’s unfaithfulness.7 God recognizes that a marriage might fail because one or both parties undermine it.8 So as not to make a bad situation worse, He provides for the formal dissolution of a marriage contract through the issuing of a “certificate of divorce,” called a get:9
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house… (Deut 24:1)The law required that the man issue the document.10 Therefore, legally a husband could divorce his wife, but at this time a wife could not divorce her husband.11 This does not mean the wife was at the mercy of her husband’s disfavor.12 At least by the late Second Temple Period, however, a woman did have the right “to seek the aid of the Court to induce or compel her husband to grant her a [certificate of] divorce under certain conditions (as for instance...his apostasy...for his unfaithfulness, if he refuses to [support] her, for cruelty towards her)” (Blackman 1983 3:391).13 Moses does not specify the grounds for divorce, saying only that it requires “something indecent”, which could refer to any “behavior fundamentally in violation of the essence of the marriage covenant” (Sprinkle 1997:531).14
B. According to EzraThe Bible contains few examples of divorce, and it is difficult to determine how prevalent the practice was in early Israelite society.15 Nevertheless, divorce played a significant role later in the nation’s history. When the exiles first returned from Babylon, they were a minority in the land and, given the hardships of establishing new settlements, were predominantly male. Consequently, those who sought mates often looked outside the community, to the surrounding gentile population. The result was a rash of mixed marriages that threatened the integrity of the new Jewish state.
Gentile partners did not always adopt Israel’s God (Rahab and Ruth not withstanding16). In fact, the opposite was more often the case; their pagan backgrounds exerted a negative influence on their spouses and children.17 Intermarriage also violated an ancient prohibition God had given through Moses:18
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations…. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. (Deut 7:1, 3-4)The people’s disregard for this prohibition contributed to the religious apostasy that had led to the exile from which their descendants were now returning.19 When Ezra arrived, he saw that these former exiles were in danger of repeating history, and he was understandably distraught: Would they so quickly provoke God to anger again?20 After prayerful consideration, the elders realized that the most appropriate course of action was divorce:21
Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law…. So the exiles did as was proposed…. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to investigate the cases, and by the first day of the first month they finished dealing with all the men who had married foreign women. (Ezra 10:3, 16-17)These measures were harsh, but their severity underscores the seriousness of the situation.22 Widespread intermarriage, especially at this early stage in the nation’s recovery, could lead to complete assimilation within a few generations.23 Israel’s survival as a distinct entity in the land required that the returnees maintain their ethnic and religious distinctives.
C. According to JesusDuring the Late Second Temple Period, the two great rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai debated the meaning of the phrase “something indecent” in Deut 24:1, asking what constituted grounds for divorce. Hillel advocated a liberal view that “indecent” meant anything displeasing, even if the wife burned her husband’s dinner. Shammai advocated a conservative view, that the term only meant unfaithfulness.24 In many such discussions, the opinion of Hillel predominated, and his position on this issue attracted a sizable following:25
Siding with Shammai (so also Davies 1988:530-531),26 Jesus contrasts this popular but erroneous understanding of the Mosaic law on divorce (“It has been said”) with the divine intention that stands behind the law:27
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matt 5:31-32)According to Hillel’s liberal opinion, a husband could issue the get (which states, “Behold, you are permitted [to be married] to any man” [m Git 9:3]) on any grounds,28 ostensibly freeing the woman to remarry. If, however, the husband issues the get on illegitimate grounds, he exposes her to the charge of adultery should she join with another man.29 Addressing this popular understanding, Jesus speaks just about the man because, according to the legal procedure God established, the man must validate termination of the marriage by giving the woman a get, which some men took to be the only requirement. Jesus is criticizing the man who would divorce his wife improperly. Moreover, a man who then takes the issuance of a get as freedom to marry a woman who possesses such a document, assuming that the previous marriage has been properly dissolved, commits adultery if the marriage was actually improperly terminated. Jesus is saying that a get is legal only if the reason for its issuance is legal, in this case, for the unfaithfulness of the wife. Again, this is a partial treatment of the divorce issue since it deals only with the potential unfaithfulness of the wife and not with that of the husband.
If the get was issued according to Shammai’s and Jesus’ opinion, the act of immorality has already made her an adulteress, and the husband who divorces her does not then bear the responsibility of making her an adulteress if she subsequently marries another man (Gundry 1982:91).30 Once again, this discussion does not give a full treatment of the matter, because it only deals with selected issues (e.g., with only one of the parties and with only one of the legitimate grounds; see n. 13).
D. According to PaulIn his first letter to the Corinthian church, Paul addresses three groups that have particular relevance for this study. Initially, before addressing these groups, he seems to promote celibacy (“I wish that all men were as I am….unmarried, as I am” vv. 7a, 8b), because the single life permits greater devotion to God, but he later reveals that there are current circumstances behind his instruction:31
Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are…. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short…. For this world in its present form is passing away. I would like you to be free from concern….that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor 7:26, 28b-29, 31b-32a, 35b)Whatever difficulty the Corinthian Christians were facing, overcoming it required them to avoid unnecessary diversions and to focus their energies on the problem at hand. Therefore, one must view Paul’s advice about forming and dissolving relationships in light of this struggle.32
In vv. 8-9, Paul addresses the first group, those who are not married, either because they have never had a mate or because they have lost their mate to death or divorce:33
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:8-9)Paul recommends the single life for them, unless such a state would prove more distracting than freeing, in which case (re)marriage is preferable.34
In vv. 10-11, Paul addresses the second group, married couples where both parties are believers and where one party (perhaps both) thinks that being single has greater spiritual potential:35
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. (1 Cor 7:10-11)Paul issues a general denunciation of divorce, either to counter the zeal of some who would advocate separation as means of greater dedication (“their apparent rejection of marriage on ascetic grounds” Fee 1987:291) or to prevent dedication from becoming an excuse for divorce with an eye toward (eventual) remarriage (ibid., p. 295).36
In vv. 12-16, Paul addresses the third group, couples (which he distinguishes from the previous group as “the rest”) where only one party is a believer:
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances. God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (1 Cor 7:12-16)Unlike his advice to the previous group, Paul permits divorce here. The problem is similar to the one Ezra faced: religious incompatibility. What is different is that the possible conflict within the marriage does not arise from disobedience. These are not unions that begin mixed, when a believer marries an unbeliever; these are unions that become mixed, when one of the parties subsequently comes to faith.37 In such cases, the believer must not initiate a divorce but should agree to it if the unbelieving spouse so desires.38
Because the problems in Jerusalem and Corinth had different starting points, the solutions to those problems were also different. The returnees to Jerusalem were (predominantly) believing Jews. They knew that God had said of Israel, “I set you apart from the nations” (Lev 20:24, 26), and “you are a people holy to the LORD your God” (Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21). In a flagrant disregard of that status, the returnees “mingled the holy race with the peoples around them” (Ezra 9:2), making necessary the remedy: “Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives” (10:11). The members of the Corinthian church, with its preponderance of gentiles (“idolaters” and “pagans” 1 Cor 6:9; 12:2), began at a different point, and only after coming to faith were they “sanctified…and called to be holy” (1:2; cf. 6:11). Because they had married before achieving that status, they may maintain those unions. Their new standing with God has “sanctified” their previous commitments.39
Although Paul’s point here “is not completely lucid” (Fee 1987:301), it may acquire some clarity in contrast to Ezra’s situation (and may be more prosaic than profound):
- For Ezra, marriages that begin mixed evince a propensity to unrighteousness that promotes the believing spouse’s spiritual weakening and discourages the unbelieving spouse’s spiritual awakening.
- Because the relationship is heading in the wrong direction, it is advisable to dissolve the union.
- For Paul, marriages that become mixed evince a propensity to righteousness that promotes the believing spouse’s spiritual strengthening and encourages the unbelieving spouse’s spiritual awakening.
Nevertheless, Paul goes on to say that the believing party should not attempt to keep the marriage intact against the wishes of an unbelieving spouse in the hope of some later conversion:41
- Because the relationship is heading in the right direction, it is acceptable to preserve the union.40
How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. (1 Cor 7:16-17)The governing principle—“God has called us to live in peace”—indicates that it is better to end the marriage than to endure the unrelenting strife of conflicting beliefs.42
In response to the historical situation at Corinth (“the present crisis” v. 26), Paul advocates a range of alternatives to marriage:42 celibacy for singles, separation (i.e., divorce without remarriage) for believers, divorce from unbelievers. His chief concern in each case is that they seek whatever state will free them from spiritual impediments. The fourth alternative demonstrates yet another context in which dissolving a marriage may be permissible, even preferable: when it promotes “undivided devotion to the Lord.”
From these passages, it is evident that marriage, although an institution established by God, is not inviolable.44 Through instruction and illustration, He indicates that there are legitimate, divinely-allowable grounds for divorce (and there is no reason to assume this list is complete), as follows:45
- Some indecency, according to Moses
- Potential apostasy, according to Ezra
- Sexual infidelity, according to Jesus
- Religious incompatibility, according to Paul
If divorce is permissible—even preferable, in some situations—what about remarriage? Can a person who has dissolved one union establish another?49 Here, as well, it is necessary to gather all the biblical data before formulating an opinion. There is not as much discussion in scripture about remarriage as there is about divorce, perhaps because, once a union has ended, both parties are free to do as they wish in this regard.
II. Remarriage
A. According to MosesThe Pentateuch contains two general restrictions for remarriage.50 The first restriction governs a priest:
They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God…. The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the LORD, who makes him holy. (Lev 21:7, 13-15)Because a priest served in the sanctuary, he had to maintain a higher degree of holiness than did the average Israelite (Manuel 2007 n. 76). This requirement extended even to his marriage, although his wife would never enter the sanctuary proper. That the particular aspect of holiness in view in Lev 21 is only ceremonial purity is clear because marrying a widow was never a question of personal morality.51 Thus, the presence of the divorced in this list with the widow indicates that divorce is likewise just a matter of ceremonial purity. Here God states His chief concern—holiness—and alludes to His intention for marriage—permanence.52 Nevertheless, this first restriction for remarriage applies only to the priestly caste.53
The second restriction governs the average Israelite, who may divorce and remarry with but one exception:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deut 24:1-4)54If a woman remarries after a divorce, she may not reunite with her first husband. (The principle presumably applies also to a man who remarries after a divorce, although, in a polygamous society, he may have more than one wife.55) The reason Moses gives is that “she has been defiled” (lit. “she had been caused to declare herself [i.e., forced to admit that she is] unclean”.56 The meaning may be that, having confessed her unfaithfulness, she has admitted to being impure and unfit for her husband. With repentance, there is apparently the possibility of reconciliation, even after divorce, as long as she remains unmarried.57 Her remarriage, however, makes that unfit condition (vis-a-vis her first husband) irreversible.58
B. According to NehemiahPresumably, the mass termination of mixed marriages among those who had returned from exile was not simply to dissolve improper relationships. While that action reduced the influence of paganism on Jewish society, the resulting surplus of unattached males, if they were unable to remarry, would not have strengthened the fledgling community. The elders’ intention must have been that, once free, these men could establish proper relationships, with Jewish women. The book of Ezra, however, closes with a list of those who had married foreign women and does not record what followed. Nevertheless, there is a clue in Nehemiah, another post-exilic book, as to the understanding Jews had of remarriage.
When Nehemiah returns from Babylon twenty-five years after Ezra, he finds that the earlier reform was brief, lasting barely one generation,59 for he finds a number of men with foreign wives and, like Ezra, is distraught:
I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God’s name and said: “You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves.” (Neh 13:25)The oath contains an almost verbatim quote of the prohibition against such unions that God had given through Moses:60
Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. (Deut 7:3b) The only difference is that Nehemiah adds the phrase “or for yourselves,” implying that those God is addressing, who had sons and daughters of their own and who perhaps had not brought their Jewish wives on the arduous journey from Babylon, could remarry (although not to foreign women).
C. According to JesusIn Jesus’ day, rabbinic debate concerned the proper grounds for divorce, which he treated on more than one occasion. Although there was evidently little question about the permissibility of remarriage,61 he did touch that issue obliquely:
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt 5:32)
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matt 19:9)Without due cause, the get is invalid, which means the original marriage contract is still in force. Should one party, improperly divorced, then cohabit with another party, both would be guilty of adultery. Only a valid divorce frees a man or woman to remarry.62 Jesus says no more about this subject, but it is notable that what he does say places no limitations on remarriage, as long as the previous marriage is no longer in effect.
D. According to PaulUnlike other biblical authors, Paul addresses the issue of remarriage, and he generally advises against it:63
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am…. To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband…. Now about virgins…. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are [emphasis added]. (1 Cor 7:8, 10-11a, 25-26)Paul’s counsel on this matter is part of a broader recommendation that, in anticipation of Jesus’ imminent return,64 believers should avoid worldly entanglements that distract from whole-hearted devotion to God. Consequently, the apostle gives the same advice to all.65
The one exception to his discouragement of (re)marriage is his instruction to those who dissolve mixed unions. To them, he says nothing about what they should do after a divorce:
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her…. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances. (1 Cor 7:12, 15)66Given the consistency of Paul’s counsel to the other groups in this chapter, though, he would likely advise those who are divorced to remain unmarried, as well. In each case, however, Paul’s recommendation does not stem from a conviction that remarriage is wrong but from a concern that remarriage (as well as marriage) can be an impediment to godly service:
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs…. But a married man is concerned about…how he can please his wife …An unmarried woman…is concerned about the Lord’s affairs…. But a married woman is concerned about…how she can please her husband. I am saying this…not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor 7:32-35)Furthermore, Paul states that the motivation for this advice is “the present crisis,” referring to the physical pressures of the day (famine) or to something these believers in particular face (persecution) in the immoral and hostile environment of Corinth.67 Therefore, what he writes to them about restricting (re)marriage is specific to their situation and does not necessarily apply beyond it.
Although the biblical writers say little about remarriage, what they say primarily is that there are few restrictions as long as no prior commitments remain:68
- It must not be used to restore a former union according to Moses.
- It must not be outside the covenant community according to Nehemiah.
- It must follow a valid divorce according to Jesus.
- It may hinder one’s spiritual devotion according to Paul.
These passages do not exhaust what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage, but they do represent its main treatments. How, then, should the results of this survey inform a person’s understanding? First, he should not take the extreme view that divorce is always wrong. There are several, legitimate grounds (in addition to Jesus’ exception in Matt 5:32, etc.) that preclude such a rigid position.70 The same is true of remarriage. Even with the narrow focus of Paul’s remarks, it is evident that (re)marriage is more common than remaining single and that such a state is quite acceptable in most cases. Second, he should realize that no single passage contains all God has to say about either issue. In order to develop a more complete appreciation of His perspective, it is necessary to consult several, preferably all, related texts.
Why should we bother looking at Old Testament and New Testament passages for guidance concerning this issue when they address historical and cultural situations very different from our own? Unlike ancient cultures, most western cultures today have very different attitudes toward marital relationships:
- Marriages are not arranged by the parents.
- Polygamy is not acceptable or even legal.
- Adultery is not punishable by death.
- Divorce is not up to the husband alone.
In addition to offering direction about specific practices, the value of biblical instruction lies in what it reveals about the mind of God—about His priorities and about how His people must order their lives to meet those priorities in their own historical and cultural setting. While God does not address every situation that strains marriage to the breaking point, uniting those situations in which God does permit divorce is a common, timeless principle: holiness. This theme is what allows us to evaluate other possible reasons for divorce, to determine which are valid and which are not (e.g., abuse, irreconcilable differences). The question we must answer in each instance, and the one that determines if divorce is permissible, is whether the reason accords with God’s holiness or, instead, reflects our own selfishness.
For the Bibliography and Endnotes, see the pdf here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Relevant and civil comments are welcome. Whether there will be any response depends on whether Dr. Manuel notices them and has the time and inclination to respond or, if not, whether I feel competent to do so.
Jim Skaggs