Remarriage of Wrongfully Divorced People

[Brownie]

Here is John Murray on the subject. Which I found to be helpful.

"For these reasons there is much to be said in favour of the view that I Corinthians 7:15 contemplates the dissolution of the bond of marriage. This interpretation must not be summarily dismissed as inconsistent with our Lord's teaching or as incompatible with the ethics of marriage as enunciated by Paul himself. It is, however, of the greatest importance to maintain that, if this position is adopted, the application of this liberty must be limited to the precise conditions specified or implied by the apostle.Too frequently this liberty has been applied to cases
that do not fall within the category defined by the context of I Corinthians 7:15. It is this loose and indiscriminating application that must be obviated. The following limitations must be observed.

(i) Paul is dealing with mixed marriages and not with marriage between two Christians. What he says in verse 15, therefore, cannot have relevance to a case of separation,however aggravated, where both spouses may be regarded, in the judgment of charity, as members of the household of faith. Such an application would be gross distortion of the text.

(ii) Paul is dealing with the case of wilful separation on the part of the unbeliever. He expressly disallows separation or dismissal on the part of the believer. The Christian must not take any initiative in parting from or in putting away the unbeliever. The believer may not even solicit desertion on the part of the unbeliever. To be very concrete, the believer must not make it so unbearable for the unbeliever that the latter will be induced or compelled to depart.

(iii) The separation in view must be conceived of as finding its root in fundamental religious discordance, not simply disagreement respecting certain aspects of Christian faith and practice but discordance between the Christian faith and its antithesis."

He seems to limit the "abandonment clause" for lawful divorce to mixed marriages. Which I would tend to agree with, but situations can be more complex and nuanced than first appear.

Thanks! This is exactly what I was trying to say . But as you say, situations are complex and I don't want to cause someone grief by seeming callous. However, that also shouldn't lead to abandoning God's precepts (pun intended).
The one text that does come to mind is Matt. 18:17. If there has been extensive mediation by the church and one party keeps sinning, a case could be made that this text applies, reducing the situation to the one Paul describes, as the sinning party would be treated as an unbeliever. But is this a valid argument?

 

[DanSSwing]

Here is John Murray on the subject. Which I found to be helpful.

(i) Paul is dealing with mixed marriages and not with marriage between two Christians. What he says in verse 15, therefore, cannot have relevance to a case of separation,however aggravated, where both spouses may be regarded, in the judgment of charity, as members of the household of faith. Such an application would be gross distortion of the text.

(ii) Paul is dealing with the case of wilful separation on the part of the unbeliever. He expressly disallows separation or dismissal on the part of the believer. The Christian must not take any initiative in parting from or in putting away the unbeliever. The believer may not even solicit desertion on the part of the unbeliever. To be very concrete, the believer must not make it so unbearable for the unbeliever that the latter will be induced or compelled to depart.

(iii) The separation in view must be conceived of as finding its root in fundamental religious discordance, not simply disagreement respecting certain aspects of Christian faith and practice but discordance between the Christian faith and its antithesis."

He seems to limit the "abandonment clause" for lawful divorce to mixed marriages. Which I would tend to agree with, but situations can be more complex and nuanced than first appear.

But if a supposed Christian abandons a Christian spouse, would not church discipline require the abandoner be confronted and, if he/she refuses to repent, be expelled and treated as an unbeliever—in which case this passage would once again apply?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

But if a supposed Christian abandons a Christian spouse, would not church discipline require the abandoner be confronted and, if he/she refuses to repent, be expelled and treated as an unbeliever—in which case this passage would once again apply?

That's why I said it can be more complex and nuanced in reality. How long can a true believer fall into sin? These are hard situations...and I don't envy the pastor that has to shepherd someone through them.

 

[Theoretical]

But if a supposed Christian abandons a Christian spouse, would not church discipline require the abandoner be confronted and, if he/she refuses to repent, be expelled and treated as an unbeliever—in which case this passage would once again apply?

This assumes church discipline is pursued or even initiated, which was I thought actually one of the most helpful pieces of Murray's book in terms of discussing the complicated problems that arise when discipline isn't brought or initiated by the church itself. He highlights the complexity of when the church has dropped the ball or it wasn't done from years before.

 

[py3ak]

Sometimes a missing ingredient in long threads on sensitive topics is a commitment to actually addressing the organic unity and growth of what Scripture says across all its pages. This is often the case when people speak as though Matthew and 1 Corinthians were the only relevant texts. The Lord shows us the way when he locates the Mosaic law within the flow of redemptive history.

In Exodus 21:11 slave wives have a right to go out free if the commitments made or owing to them are not kept. Free includes no continuing obligation.

Deuteronomy 24 assumes the practice of divorce, and regulates its misuse. Part of regulating its misuse is proscribing reconciliation after an intervening marriage. Almost painfully obvious is the absence of any prohibition of remarriage except to the original spouse.

The terms of a marriage covenant include several different items. The one-flesh union has legal backing. There are multiple ways to violate the terms of that covenant, because that covenant does not include only one term in it.

 

[MW]

Here is John Murray on the subject. Which I found to be helpful.

I would not add anything to Murray except to say that mixed marriages is within Paul's purview of pastoral counsel to believers. On the broader scale of morality Christians may not treat the law of marriage as unique to themselves or set up any special exemptions that only apply to them. "Marriage is honourable in all." So what applies to one man equally applies to another whether he is a believer or unbeliever.

 

[Polanus1561]

@darrellmaurina any insight to this, particularly from your Dutch Reformed knowledge where this was/is a big issue?

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

To contribute to the resources for reference, following is a section from what I have developed over the years in our church's membership class through the Westminster Confession of Faith, the most pertinent parts of analyzing chapter 24. As my footnotes didn't come through I'm also attaching a PDF of the class on the whole chapter that preserves the footnotes (sorry it's out of a large document so if not the first time noting a source it may not include it in whole). I've bolded a quote by J. Murray as well as the section for letter d. below that has some striking comments from past commentators that are most relevant to the question and discussion.

WCF 24:5: Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.(l) In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorcem) and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.(n)
(l)Matt. 1:18-20. (m)Matt. 5:31-32. (n)Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3.

Divorce is allowed by Scripture in restricted instances, but it is a result of the Fall and never encouraged. Research shows divorce to be the number one detriment to the security of children, and its rate to increase in subsequent marriages. Marry well once, and live well married until death. When divorce occurs, notice only the “innocent party” violated by adultery is qualified to remarry.

WCF 24:6: Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriageo) wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion, in their own case.(p)
(o)Matt. 19:8-9; 1 Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6. (p)Deut. 24:1-4.

The Confession here makes a strong statement against the autonomy of married couples to frivolously divorce and destroy Church and State, and certainly would condemn “No Fault Divorce” laws. The marriage bond is serious and sacred, not to be entered into lightly, and not to be exited unbiblically (see ch. 22). Williamson explains, “ … it is the duty of both Church and State to uphold the divine ordinance.” Note John Murray’s criticism here, that desertion should be allowed only by unbelievers: “The restrictions of the Confession are far-reaching when it says, ‘such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate’. But the failure strictly to confine the liberty of dissolution to the precise conditions prescribed by the apostle in this passage must be recognized, and the loophole left thereby cannot be maintained on the basis of Scripture.”

Some concluding remarks.

a. Don’t take entering into marriage lightly, take living in marriage seriously, and do not consider “divorce” in all situations as your go-to back-up plan. If you are asking about what ways you can get out of marriage, you are asking the wrong question of hard-hearted Pharisees (See PRPC sermons on Matt. 5:31-32, “Marriage is Meant to be Permanent” and Matt. 19:1-10, “Never Give Up On Your Marriage!”

b. You should rather be asking, how do I forgive and invest in preserving my marriage to honor the Lord? Also, notice that a sin forbidden by the seventh commandment (WLC 139) is “unjust divorce, or desertion”. Remarriage in all cases is not your right; King Jesus restricts divorce and remarriage, the latter being what is actually the cause of “adultery” in Mt. 19. If these restrictions seem harsh, it is because you live in a wicked culture. God says not to put asunder what He Himself joins in marriage, and He hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). Pastor will be very careful with marriage and remarriage.

c. If your marriage is struggling, please seek pastoral support through marriage and family counseling (discipleship) in the Word; help can be had, and prevention is worth its wait in gold.

d. The Confession here is not promoting divorce, but giving restrictions to it to preserve marriage: “The emphasis in these sections is not to make divorce easy, but to stress the permanence of marriage.” The Church should be careful to preserve the sanctity of marriage by not countenancing unbiblical dissolutions of it for ungodly “remarriages”. Gordon Clark soberly states, “ … when the civil law allows divorce for looking cross-eyed or for dyeing the hair another shade, the law of God is violated. Christians therefore and all church courts are obligated to treat such divorces as illegal and as null and void. If people so divorced marry again, the Church must regard them as living in adultery and cannot receive them into fellowship.” A.A. Hodge concurs: “ … if the parties to a marriage unrighteously dissolved marry again, they are to be regarded and treated by those who fear God as living in those new marriages in the sin of adultery.” Divorce is against God’s creative and redemptive purpose: “Divorce in every case is a confession of defeat, an acknowledgement of failure. The Bible allows divorce, not approves it. Moses’ law was a regulation, not a justification of divorce. He suffered the putting away, but commanded the bill of divorcement.”

e. Heed your responsibility regarding the seventh commandment to preserve marriages. WLC 138 says your duties include, “watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses … modesty in apparel … and conjugal love”. WLC 139 says sins forbidden include, “all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks … immodest apparel … lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays”. In summary, WSC 71 and 72 make it clear it is your duty to preserve your own and your neighbor’s chastity in thought, word, and deed. If you look on someone lustfully (or draw lustful looks), you are guilty of adultery.

f. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, and singleness is honorable as much as married life is. As Jesus is your true spiritual Husband, and marriage to Him will never be dissolved, not even in death, be sure to find your sense of value and joy in your marriage union and communion with Christ. If people considering, entering into, or living in marriage would heed these words, there word be much less rampant divorce, and much happier living. Here are a few very pastoral thoughts from the RP Testimony that goes alongside the WCF as it relates to being single:

• 1. Marriage is an ordinance of God; however, to be unmarried is also an equally honorable state, and it may be the will of God for a person to remain single. Every effort should be made to submit to the direction of God in this matter, and to maintain a chaste and obedient life style. 1 Cor. 7:7-8.
• 17. We deny that marriage is a more spiritual state than the single life, or that it is necessary for eternal salvation. 1 Cor. 7:7-8.
• 18. We deny that marriage is necessary for officers in the Church. 1 Cor. 7:7.

g. Finally, this chapter on marriage is so important, because “The family is to be a community of teaching and learning about God and godliness … The building of strong family life must always be a priority in our service to God.”

h. See the handout by Pastor’s Greek professor, per his request, on Matthew 19:3-10.

i. This verse is worth closing on, Heb. 13:4: Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

j. Matthew Henry’s famous quote: “The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

Some concluding thoughts from Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, on the Seventh:

“The thing implied is that the ordinance of marriage should be observed (152). “God instituted marriage in paradise; he brought the woman to the man. Gen. ii 22. He gave them to each other in marriage. Jesus Christ honoured marriage with his presence. John ii 2. The first miracle he wrought was at a marriage, when he turned the ‘water into wine.’ Marriage is a type and resemblance of the mystical union between Christ and his church. Eph v 32. (153)” “The special duties belonging to marriage, are love and fidelity … In marriage there is a mutual promise of living together faithfully according to God’s holy ordinance” (153). “[Adultery] is a breach of the marriage-oath. When persons come together in a matrimonial way, they bind themselves by covenant to each other, in the presence of God, to be true and faithful in the conjugal relation” (154). “That which makes adultery so sinful is, that it is needless. God has provided a remedy to prevent it. ‘To avoid fornication let every man have his own wife.’ I Cor vii 2 … to keep ourselves from the sin of adultery. ‘Let every man have his own wife,’ says Paul … I Cor vii 2” (155). “To avoid fornication and adultery, let every man have a chaste, entire love to his own wife … It is not having a wife, but loving a wife, that makes a man live chastely” (160). “Pure conjugal love is a gift of God, and comes from heaven; but, like the vestal fire, it must be cherished, that it go not out” (161).

 

[darrellmaurina]

@darrellmaurina any insight to this, particularly from your Dutch Reformed knowledge where this was/is a big issue?

I just saw this now. Apologies for the delayed response.

My personal view is that there is such a thing as a biblical divorce, and when a biblical divorce happens, the innocent party is free to remarry. If we lived under a covenanted Christian commonwealth, which we do not, an adulterer would be executed in at least some situations, leaving the victimized spouse a widow and biblically free to remarry. I fail to see how the failure of the state to implement biblical justice against a profligate adulterer means that the victim of adultery is forced into a life of poverty with low-income jobs insufficient to support her children.

(Yes, I know that there are adulteresses with male husbands as victims, which was the case with Dr. Beeke, and also that in today's world a woman with children will often be able to find a job capable of supporting her family, but that wasn't the case for most of church history with widows and women who were abandoned by adulterous husbands left in dire poverty.)

Apart from clearcut cases of adultery, things get really messy. There are hundreds of complicating factors that elders have to wrestle with.

We don't live in the 1500s and 1600s when our confessions were written and presumed a civil government that, even if it was Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican, still had a common foundation in Christian principles and a Christianized interpretation of Roman law. We also have to deal with massive immorality among young people at a level never before seen, thanks to birth control and abortion eliminating the fear of pregnancy, and modern medicine making most sexually transmitted diseases either preventable or curable, and those few which can't be cured or prevented can usually be treated.

I don't have a good answer for a young Baptist couple who come to me and say, "My girlfriend got married right out of high school to her boyfriend because her 'purity culture' preacher pushed early marriage when she was 18 to a man who wanted to sleep with her and who she thought she loved, but she wouldn't go to bed with him until marriage. Her 20-year-old husband beat her and her two children, and she divorced him while he was in prison after violating his probation by breaking a no-contact order and threatening to beat her up again if she didn't take him back."

If I say "no" to that couple, what about another couple who were raised in non-Christian homes, slept with large numbers of people and lived with some of them and had children with multiple partners, but never actually married any of them, get converted, have an obvious and unchallengeable testimony of personal conversion, and want to be officially married in a "church wedding" after an appropriate period of living separately despite having children together.

For second couple, the man and woman have never been formally and legally married to anyone so there is no divorce to deal with, but a massive history of immorality with multiple partners leading to multiple children and child custody cases. For the first couple who were raised in an evangelical church, the woman wanted to remain pure but followed poor advice by an evangelical pastor. They can't claim ignorance of biblical teaching on divorce as the second couple might be able to claim for pre-conversion sin. However, the first couple's pastor had a "cheap grace" attitude and said intimacy outside of marriage is wrong, but remarriage after divorce is fine with minimal repentance. Do we say the first couple's pastor was the problem and marry them because of poor teaching leading to ignorance? I might be willing to say that about people coming from a church with a liberal pastor, but not with an evangelical Baptist pastor who is a brother in the Lord.

I know what I'd like to say, and it's a pretty hard line. If this were 1825 and not 2025, I'd be saying different things. I want to say those things today, but I don't think I can.

I don't know what to do in hard cases, but I would ask REALLY hard questions about how sincere the repentance of the second couple is, and would (at minimum) check court records to verify the girlfriend's story in the first case. "Hard cases" sometimes look less hard when we dig deeper and find out that the people are covering up important details.

Beyond that, I think we need to take a very, very hard look at what we are teaching in our own churches so these things aren't happening with our own people and then become the problem of someone else's church if we mishandle our own young people in our own churches.

 

[darrellmaurina]

So we all are clear here, Brownie is a member of one of the most conservative denominations in the Netherlands. His denomination is far to the right of almost every denomination in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. He's not any sort of liberal or loose or "light" (to use a "Dutchism").

He also is working with a different set of confessions. The Westminster Confession of Faith allows for divorce for grounds other than adultery. The Three Forms of Unity do not cite abandonment that cannot be remedied by the civil magistrate as a ground. That means Presbyterians are confessionally REQUIRED to believe things (or take an exception) that are not required for the Dutch Reformed, and on which there is some level of diversity of opinion among churches that hold to the Three Forms of Unity.

The Reformed confessional families are close but not identical, and some of those differences date back four hundred years.

We actually had a sermon a few months ago that dealt with this. This minister said it's lawful to flee the house and live separately, but also said that there should be no divorce or remarriage, to honor the Lord. I thought that was beautifully put.

Rev. Winzer,
Could you explain why abandonment is even considered as a ground for divorce? In Matt 19, Jesus seems to say the opposite - in the beginning abandonment wasn't a ground for divorce and after the disciples ask why Moses wrote about abandonment, Jesus says it was because of their hardness of heart. Then He explicitly states only adultery is a ground for divorce. Paul later gives permission to divorce if the unbelieving party wishes to, but isn't that the NT equivalent of abandonment? The unbeliever with a hard heart of stone wanting a divorce?