Divorce- The Second Unforgivable Sin?
Pre-amble
This message was written while I was at Theological College - Wycliffe Hall in Oxford, England.
I have been asked what a PCC is. The PCC is the parochial Church Council which is equivalent to the eldership of a church in a different denomination.
The question I had been posed for a PCC meeting is as follows:
DISCUSS THE ISSUES RELATING TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE RIGHT TO ALLOW WEDDINGS IN THE PARISH CHURCH OF COUPLES IN WHICH, AT LEAST ONE PARTNER HAS A SURVIVING SPOUSE FROM A PREVIOUS MARRIAGE
Introduction
We have to decide at the next PCC whether or not we will allow weddings to be conducted where one or both parties have been previously married (I will refer to these as second marriages).
I would stress that we are not proposing to perform “automatic” second marriages but only to perform second marriages after very careful consideration by the clergy of the reasons for failure of the first marriage – and indeed the attitude of the divorced person to that first marriage.
I think it is important that we consider what the Scripture has to say on the matter and the pastoral issues that follow. As these are quite complicated, I have decided to set out the major biblical texts and pastoral issues for you to consider before the meeting to help you to come to a reasoned opinion on the matter.
The issues
So far as divorce is concerned, there seem to me three differently held beliefs that genuine Evangelical Christians hold, so far as the Bible’s teaching on second marriage is concerned:
Belief 1
The first is that the Bible is unequivocal that divorce is forbidden and consequently a second marriage is out of the question.
Belief 2
The second is that, although God hates divorce, he has allowed divorce and re-marriage in certain circumstances (i.e. on the grounds of adultery and on the grounds of desertion)
Belief 3
The third is that as human beings are fallen creatures and although divorce is not in God’s plan, we can be forgiven from it if we repent and that the Christian Gospel is one of a fresh start. Accordingly, one can divorce.
If we, as a PCC, adopt either the second or third option, then there are two further considerations to the question of whether a second marriage in church is permissible. These are:
Consideration 1
That although God allows divorce to terminate the marriage, a second marriage is not an option but the parties must reconcile or remain single or
Consideration 2
Divorce terminates the marriage finally and the parties are free (after a reasonable period) to remarry. Some believe that this applies whether or not the divorced party was a committed Christian at the time of the first marriage and divorce. Others believe that the first marriage and divorce must occur before the divorced party was a committed Christian.
So to start with I want to consider whether Scripture taken as a whole sanctions (or at least does not expressis verbis forbid) divorce and if divorce is allowed whether or not second marriage is sanctioned or forbidden.
At the start, I do not want to be selective in considering only the passages of Scripture that support what I believe is correct. If I were to do so, I would run the risk of proof texting my own prejudice rather than allowing the Scriptures to inform.
1. The Biblical Issues
I would like to start looking at what the Bible has to say about divorce by first considering the key passages in the Old Testament and then by looking at what the New Testament has to say.
1.1 Key Old Testament passages
1.1.1 Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1 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 2 And if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man 3and 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 dies4 the her first husband who divorced her is not allowed to marry her again after she has become defiled.
Here clearly divorce is allowed only however if the husband finds “something indecent about her”. I think we need to consider that the term “something indecent” (in Hebrew ervath dabhar) means. It is thought that it would primarily cover adultery, but it might also cover pre-marital sex but is unlikely to cover the case where he is simply wanted a younger or a more beautiful wife (cf Malachi 2:14)
You might ask, why did the Israelites have this system of a “bill of divorce”.
In a society where there was no central record keeping system (as we have in St. Catherine’s House and Somerset House in London), the certificate of divorce would allow the woman who wanted to re-marry. It was the only way that she could prove that she was really free to do re-marry. Indeed without a bill of divorce, she would be liable to stoning as an adulteress.
Interestingly in this passage, if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he cannot on the second man’s death, re- marry her. To my way of thinking, this clearly means that the first marriage has been broken by the divorce irreparably and does not continue. Indeed in Dt. 24, it is clear that the second marriage is sanctioned and is not a case of “living in sin”.
So in Dt. 24 divorce for “something indecent” (Hebrew ervath dabhar) – note for no other cause - was allowable and second marriage is clearly foreseen.
You may want to look at specific passages where situations are set out where, when a man has married a woman and he can never divorce her (Dt. 21:10-14, Dt. 22:13-18 and 28-29) and those passages that state that second marriage is not an option for the priests.(Lev. 21: 5-8)
1.1.2 Mal. 2:13-16
13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands 14 You ask “Why?”. It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.15Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and in spirit, they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. 16 “I hate divorce” says the Lord God if Israel “ And I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his agreement” says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit and do not break faith.
Here the prophet Malachi, writing about 300 years before Christ, rebukes the Jews for their practice of divorce.
On the face or it, it would seem to be a clear case that divorce was not allowed under any circumstance. However this would contradict Dt.24 and indeed Jesus’ own admission that divorce - in line with Dt.24 - was “allowed” under the law of Moses.
So, since divorce was sanctioned in Dt.24, (i.e. if the husband found a situation of ervath dabhar – something indecent in the wife), some commentators feel that the reference to the “wife of your youth” implies that the Jews were not divorcing according to Dt. 24 (i.e. because they have found “anything indecent” in the wife) but because the wife was no longer young and the man has gone off to find a younger wife – in other words he was marrying a “trophy wife”.
Of further interest is an incident in Ezra 9 & 10 involving divorce. In this case, the people of Israel -including the priests - had married foreign women, from tribes that practised abominations. Ezra was appalled at this and challenged the people about his. Their response of repentance was to divorce their foreign wives even though there had apparently been no ervath dabhar (anything indecent) found in the wives. Presumably the abominations the tribes of the wives practised (and so presumably the wives too) were considered ervath dabhar. But there is no evidence on this.
1.1.3 Summary on the Old Testament position
It seems reasonable to me to draw the conclusion that the Old Testament sanctioned divorce and made allowance for a second marriage.
1.2. Key New Testament passages
The question therefore has to be asked if, in the New Testament, there is anything that overrules this.
Jesus made some very strong sayings about divorce as we shall see below. But it is interesting , when considering Jesus’ attitude to the OT law to remember that Jesus said that He had not come to abolish the law or change it but to fulfil it (Mt. 5:17).
It is also important to consider not only the context but also the people to whom Jesus was speaking.
The background on divorce in Jesus and Paul’s day was that divorce and second marriage were allowed according to Dt. 24. In Jesus’ time there was controversy as to the understanding of what the term ervath dabhar (something indecent) of Dt 24 meant.
Michael Green in his Commentary on Matthew has put the positions as follows. The understanding of ervath dabhar in Jesus’ day among Jews
“split the conservative school of Shammai from the liberal school of Hillel. The former restricted it to unchastity. The latter allowed it to include burning the toast at breakfast. Accordingly there soon developed a great disparity between the ideals and the practice of Judaism concerning divorce. Given the fallenness of human nature, it is easy to see how the interpretation of Hillel won the day with the men”.
Indeed, one of the rabbis of the Hillel school, Rabbi Akiba said that a man may divorce his wife for no other reason than he found another woman more beautiful.
The people to whom Jesus is speaking were the Jews, God’s covenant people and so it is I believe pertinent to ask who are the modern equivalent to the Jews of Jesus’ day. I believe they are the church. Therefore can what Jesus said be applied to those who were outside God’s covenant?
Therefore, at the very least I have doubts therefore that we can expect people who are non-Christian at the time of their divorce to be bound by what Jesus said. As most weddings in the parish nowadays will fall within the category of “non-Church” people, this could apply to a lot of people that we marry in church.
To me, the key New Testament passages are
1.2.1 Matthew. 19: 3-12
3Some of the Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read” he replied “ That at the beginning, the creator ‘made them male and female’ 5 and said ‘ For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together let man not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not that way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said the him “If this is the situation between husband and wife, it is better not to marry”
11 Jesus replied “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; men made others that way; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
In this passage, Jesus stresses the importance of marriage and that divorce is not something that should lightly be entertained. Indeed Jesus states quite clearly that God’s Will is not that man should divorce but because of our fallen nature he has permitted divorce.
The difficult passage is verse 9, and is described as the Matthean Exception
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another commits adultery.”
One view of this Matthean Exception, espoused by commentators who take a literalist view - like Andrew Cornes (who holds the view that divorce and re-marriage is a complete anathema to Jesus) is that only this exception applies to divorce – and this does not allow for a second marriage
A different view, first espoused by Erasmus of Rotterdam and followed by the Reformers of the Church of England, is that the phrase except for marital unfaithfulness, qualifies not only divorce but is also determinative for a second marriage.
In other words, the essence of the text would be as follows:
9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman, except for marital unfaithfulness of his wife, commits adultery.”
What does “marital unfaithfulness” – in the Greek porneia mean? It seems that the term porneia covers any act of unchastity, harlotry, prostitution and fornication.
Interestingly Ken Crispin has suggested that the term porneia (from which our word pornography is derived) equates with the Hebrew ervath dabhar (something indecent).
1.2.2 Matthew. 5.31-32
31 It has been said “Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce” 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress and any one who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”
It is interesting to note that Jesus does not say “The Law says” because Dt. 24 is not being quoted verbatim. If Dt.24 was being properly quoted, reference to the ground of divorce ervath dabhar (something indecent) should have been made. Instead he seems to be referring to the Hillel school of thought when he says: It is said…..
It therefore seems to me that Jesus is simply saying that ervath dabhar (something indecent) has to be the ground of divorce.
One commentator has suggested that if you divorce your wife for any other reason that marital unfaithfulness this would mean
“.. that the wife is stigmatised as an adulteress…. Because ervath dabhar was the only ground of divorce… Jesus is making the accusation that the Jews are changing the import of the laws of Moses, and when the wife is divorced, she is placed in the position as being regarded as an adulteress in terms of the actual wording of the law…”
1.2.3. Mark 10:2-12
2 Some of the Pharisees came and tested him by asking: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied
4 They said “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses you this law,” Jesus replied.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’ 7 For his reason a man will leave his after and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.11 He answered “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery with her 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
This is obviously a harder passage because it does not include the Matthean exception.
In the same way as he did in the passage in Mt. 19, Jesus is discussing with the Pharisees about divorce. When they ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, they are well grounded in the Old Testament Law and were well aware of the parameters of Dt. 24.
However, as I have mentioned earlier, there were two schools of thought about divorce. The conservative school of Shammai allowed divorce only for unchastity and the liberal school of Hillel allowed divorce for any reason e.g. to quote Michael Green including burning the toast at breakfast.
The Jews’ answer to Jesus question “What did Moses command you?” mirrors the Hillel school of thought.
Jesus replies by telling them that Moses permitted divorce because of their fallen nature (and interestingly enough he does not say that he is now overturning divorce) but goes on to talk about God’s ideal – that is to say what marriage was created for. This ties in well enough with the passage in Mt.19 above.
Where the difficulty comes is in Mk.10:11-12 (and Luke 16:18) where Jesus says:
“11 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery with her 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
There is no Matthean Exception.
There are a number of possible explanations:
1. One explanation is that, Jesus appears to be saying that if a man divorces his wife AND re-marries, he commit adultery. In other words, divorce may be allowable but second marriage is wrong.
Interestingly Jesus only states that it is the party that is guilty of causing the divorce that commits adultery. Is it therefore not unreasonable to assume that the innocent party is free and therefore can remarry, though this is not stated?
2. A second interpretation is that., although God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16) it was permitted by Moses “for the hardness of your hearts” (Mk. 12:5).
In other words, as Michael Green has put it, it was a “concessive regulation”. God allows divorces even though it is far from God’s ideal. Jesus then goes on to set out what God intended as the ideal marriage relationship to be when man was created and that God had originally intended it to be for life. (Mk 10:6-9) And Jesus is still talking about the ideal (in Mk. 10:6-9) when he says that if the divorced person re-marries he/she commits adultery.
If this is the correct approach, we should probably conclude that this debar a second marriage in church.
3. A third explanation may be that it is God’s ideal that man should not divorce (even though permitted) and Jesus is using a strong image to express God’s moral revulsion at divorce – that it is as if it is adultery.
If this were to be the case, this would not be the only place where Jesus uses exaggeration or non-literal language to make a strong point (for example no one can literally have a plank in his eye – Mt. 7:3)
4. A fourth interpretation of Mk. 10:11-12 is that it is only if a man divorces his wife in order to marry another woman that this is adultery. In other words, if the new woman is the reason for the break-up of the first marriage. If this interpretation is correct, then this would have a significant effect on any second marriage policy, were a second marriage policy to be adopted.
However I like the explanation that David Instone-Brewer proposes:
He believes that the Matthean passage and the Marcan and Lucan passage say the same, because of the Jewish 1st Century background on the divorce issue.
"The Pharisees asked Jesus ’Does the Law (i.e. Dt 24:1) allow divorce "For Any Matter" (the Hillelite interpretation). He replied, after a long digression that this text allowed divorce for ’nothing except "Indecency"’ (the Shammaite interpretation). This meant that those who were divorced "For Any Matter" were not validly divorced, so they were theoretically still married. Therefore ’if they marry another, they are committing adultery’."
"Matthew was correct to add these phrases (of the Matthean Exception - my comment)to his account because any first century Jewish reader would have mentally done likewise. The older version which is preserved in Mark and Luke did not contain these phrases because they would have been superfluous. They may not have been spoken in the original debate, because they were obvious in this context for any first century Jew."
Instone -Brewer gives a modern example of such a situation. "Imagine someone asking ’Is it lawful for someone under 18 to drink in this country?’ It would be superfluous to add ’alcoholic beverages’ even though the question is meaningless without them. Similarly, the question ’Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ was meaningless because Dt 24:1 clearly permitted it. Therefore any first century Jew would add the obvious words on the grounds of "Any Matter". They were obvious because they referred to a well-known and current legal debate.
(Divorce and Re-marriage David Instone-Brewer pp 8-9)
Although the Matthean exception is not present in these passages and - for some there is a difficulty in reconciling this passage with the passage from Mt. 19 -I think there is a reasonable explanation for holding that the passages are equivalent.
1.2.4 Romans 7:2-3
2 By Law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if the husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
3 So then if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
Here Paul speaks indirectly about a woman who re-marries while her husband is still alive.
One explanation may be that the Apostle Paul sees second marriage as adultery, but I don’t think this really fits what Paul is saying.
The alternative explanation is that since the only reason for divorce is porneia (marital unfaithfulness), the woman who divorced would automatically be branded as an adulteress. Although, at face value, it might seem that Paul equates second marriage with divorce, I think that a key to understanding this passage comes from the phrase “she is called.” In other words, it is people perception that she is an adulteress. Accordingly this passage is not actually commentating on divorce and second marriages at all.
1.2.5 I Cor. 7:1-2, 8 –15 27-28 and 39
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to marry” 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
8Now to the unmarried and widows I say :It is good for them to stay unmarried as I am 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord) A wife must not separate from her husband 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 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 13 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. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 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.
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord but I give a judgement as one who, by the Lord’s mercy, is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think it is good for you to remain as you are. 27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries she has not sinned.
39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
In this passage the Apostle Paul is re-iterating the words of the Lord in Mt. 19 and Mk 10 that divorce is not God’s ideal and as such we, as Christians should not therefore divorce.
In v. 8 Paul speaks to the “unmarried” in Greek agamos. If they are unable to control themselves, (presumably sexually) they should marry.
The word in v. 25 that Paul uses for virgins (i.e. the never before married) is parthenos. So if in v. 8, he is speaking to those who have never been married, why did he use agamos and not parthenos. Clumsy language you might say, but unlikely knowing Paul’s training under one of the top Pharisees of the day, Gamaliel.
Even less convincing is Andrew Cornes who suggested that the term agamos means “unmarried after divorce” in 1 Cor. 7:11 but in 1 Cor. 7:8 the same word agamos means “never before married”. Though you might argue that all this means is that Christians may not remarry at all.
I warm to the third explanation that Paul used agamos rather than parthenos precisely because he did not intend to only address the virgins (i.e. the never before married) in v. 8.
Accordingly, Ken Crispin in his book, Divorce, The Forgivable sin?” has suggested that agamos refers to “a person who is no longer married but who may have been married in the past”. Indeed it would make a lot of sense in the context of what Paul has just said because, on divorce, one does not suddenly lose one’s sexual desire.
And on this tack it is worth remembering that the backcloth of verses 8-15 is verses 1 and 2. Paul is suggesting these courses of action are to avoid immorality – i.e. by those who cannot bear the single state, that is to say – they should get married.
Having said that we have the enigma of v.15. What does the phrase
“A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances.”
1. One explanation is that Paul is saying that a Christian should not feel he, she must run after the spouse to bring them back at any cost.
2. Another explanation is that the Christian should allow the departing spouse to go and not resist a divorce. Paul however is not sanctioning re-marriage.
3. A third explanation is that when the deserting party leaves, the Christian is free to divorce and re-marry. He /she is no longer bound in any way to the departed spouse. Accordingly, the deserted party is free to re-marry. This explanation is known as the “Pauline privilege”
For me this third explanation seems the most plausible. Paul is allowing for divorce on the grounds of desertion of the Christian partner.
If you agree with me on this, you might want to consider whether the Pauline privilege is only applicable to a Christian who has been deserted by a non-Christian (which would seem to be the gist of Paul’s argument) or would it apply if the deserting party were a Christian. And the question is do verses 10 and 11 address this situation.
If you agree with the Pauline Privilege, you might want to consider the question of whether, when a marriage has been terminated for a number of years (and so the other party is no longer living with the Christian) if this is equivalent to desertion.
Executive summary
1. Having looked at a number of Scriptural passages, it does seem to me that there is a reasonable case for saying that divorce is sanctioned in Scripture, at least for “marital unfaithfulness” (the Matthean Exception) and “desertion” (the Pauline Privilege).
Is there an option of re-marriage for the “innocent party”. Indeed is there such a thing as a “innocent party”?
2. What are the pastoral implications for sanctioning or refusing a second marriage?
2.1 Some considerations for advocating second marriages
2.1.1 The Gospel is one of grace and forgiveness
By allowing second marriages, we are showing a sign of grace and forgiveness, provided of course that the divorced party has recognised and repented of the breakdown of the first marriage (and breaking of the marriage vow)
We all sin and by God’s grace we can be forgiven. Divorce is not an unforgivable sin. The Christian Gospel is about putting the past in order (and this is important especially making sure that the children of the first marriage are properly taken care of e.g. financially) but also behind us and moving forward.
With this in mind, you might wish to consider whether a second marriage ceremony should include an acknowledgement of the first marriage and its breakdown and that the faults (of the person marrying for the second time) have been confessed to God and as far as humanly possible everything from that first marriage has been put in order.
Instone-Brewer proposes that the two who wish to get married say a prayer on the night before the wedding, just after the Wedding rehearsal as follows:
"Heavenly Father, you have cared for me from my birth, and you have promised to love me unconditionally; I come to you in repentance. I confess that I have made promises to you and to others which I have not kept. I promised to love and care for others, and I have not fulfilled this as I should. Please forgive me my sin, and comfort those whom I have let down and hurt. I ask you for strength for the future, to be able to keep the promises that I will make. Amen"
2.1.2 An unnecessary barrier to the Gospel
If we refuse to marry people for a second time, are we creating an unnecessary barrier to the Gospel. There is a danger that people who want to marry for the second time will feel that their second (registry office) marriage is somehow less valid and as such that they are second class people in church.
One could counter argue and say that divorce has legal and practical results for the divorced party, one of which is that they cannot be married in the sight of God (and consequently the church). Some would also see it as a devaluation of the first marriage and indeed some people don’t want a marriage service that repeats the format of the first.
2.1.3 The present C of E policy is inconsistent
The Church of England practice of offering a “Service of Prayer and Dedication” in place of a second marriage is illogical.
On the one hand if God has forbidden a second marriage, how can the Church bless what is forbidden?
On the other hand if God has not forbidden second marriage, why deny a second marriage in church (which is in the sight of God) and only offer a “Service of Prayer and Dedication”.
In other words, by affirming through a “Service of Prayer and Dedication” that this second marriage is acceptable to God, you deny this by refusing a second marriage in Church.
There is, however, a counterargument that says that as marriage is so sacred, by refusing a second marriage in Church, the Church is sending out a strong signal against divorce.
The Roman Catholic Church is at least consistent on this point - for it will neither perform second marriages nor bless a second marriage as the Roman Catholics do not recognise the validity of a second marriage.
One interesting enigma in the C of E set up is that if a man kills his first wife, he can marry for a second time in church (if he is baptised and lives in the parish) but he cannot marry a second time if he is divorced and his former partner is still living.
What are we saying by that - that divorce is a more heinous crime than murder?
2.1.4 Cohabitation/Divorce
If a person has cohabited with another but is not married officially, then when that relationship splits up both parties are entitled to marry in church.
Now I think cohabitation fulfils the criteria for a marriage as intended by God in Gen. 2:24
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh
My reasoning is that in cohabitation, the partners leave father and mother and set up their own home and through sexual intercourse they are united to one another and become one flesh – and indeed they also emotionally become one flesh.
In Mt. 19 Jesus defines marriage in the sight of God the Creator in this way too.
This being the case, I think it is hypocritical of the church to marry a former co-habitee but not a divorcee.
You might ask then, why marry cohabitees at all. I would answer that is simply to legitimise a marriage that has already de facto taken place.
2.2 Some considerations against advocating second marriages in church
2.2.1 What message are we sending out about marriage?
It is almost universally accepted that divorce goes contrary to God’s perfect plan of marriage for a married couple.
By allowing a second marriage in church, the church is being seen to condone divorce and is saying, subconsciously that life doesn’t really have to be a lifelong commitment, which is only broken by death.
Surely second marriages should not be allowed if marriage is an indissoluble bond (the two become one flesh in Gen 2:24 and Mt. 19:5)
Perhaps the question that should be asked is: Is the church going to conform to society or is it meant to be a prophetic voice for the Gospel – speaking out against evil in our society?
2.2.2 Feelings of the other partner of the divorce
How does the divorced (innocent?) spouse feel. He/she may well be living in the same village, indeed may well still be a member of the church, whereas his/her ex-partner wishing to remarry in his/her church may only be an occasional member or not a member of the church at all. How would we deal pastorally with the hurt former spouse?
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, whichever way we decide the question of second marriages in church, there are going to be pastoral consequences.
I suggest we decide on the matter on the basis of how we think Jesus would have decided the matter.
To this end also I suggest that his example in Jn 8:1-11 is relevant.
In that passage, you will recall the woman caught in adultery was condemned by the Pharisees according to the letter of the law but found forgiveness from Jesus – even to the extent that it could be said of Jesus that he had “gone soft” on sin.
Jesus would have forgiven the divorcee but would he have condoned a second marriage. That you’ll have to decide for yourselves
And of course in conclusion we must pray about what decisions we take
I know that this subject is a sensitive issue and I don’t want to cause unnecessary offence.
If you would like to discuss this matter with me please e-mail at mndale@aol.com
Two good books on the issue are:
1. Divorce and Remarriage by David Instone- Brewer (Grove booklet) and
2. Divorce - The Forgivable Sin by Ken Crispin.
Since first writing this paper David Instone Brewer has brought Ex 21:10-11 to my attention in a paper he has written on Divorce
I can do no better than to quote him on this point:
Although the church forgot the other cause for divorce, every Jew in Jesus’ day knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate. Rabbis said he had to do it voluntarily, so if he resisted, the courts had him beaten till he volunteered!
These three rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows—we find them listed in marriage certificates discovered near the Dead Sea. In later Jewish and Christian marriages, the language became more formal, such as "love, honor, and keep." These vows, together with a vow of sexual faithfulness, have always been the basis for marriage. Thus, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce.
The three provisions of food, clothing, and love were understood literally by the Jews. The wife had to cook and sew, while the husband provided food and materials, or money. They both had to provide the emotional support of marital love, though they could abstain from sex for short periods. Paul taught the same thing. He said that married couples owed each other love (1 Cor. 7:3-5) and material support (1 Cor. 7:33-34). He didn’t say that neglect of these rights was the basis of divorce because he didn’t need to—it was stated on the marriage certificate. Anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce "What God has joined together - David Instone Brewer in Christianity Today Oct 2007 (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html)
