Is divorce and remarriage permissible for Christians?

Hi Brian,

You asked, "If remarriage is not permissable what would happen to the young man who was married, whose wife leaves him never to be seen again, since he has established for his life that he needs the imitacy of a wife."

The young man is still married to his wife who left him. Once a covenant is established, it cannot be undone; this is the nature of the covenant of marriage. If the young man "remarries," the state and the positive law may recognize the new marriage, but God does not because he is still married to his wife who left him. Therefore, this "new marriage" results in the sin of adultery. This is the New Testament message, and it's clear.

Let us turn the question to the area of homosexuality. If a young man has homosexual tendencies, would it not be better to let him satisy his lusts by uniting in marriage with another man? Of course not.

Hi Gina,

You wrote, "It is said that if an unbeliever leaves a believer, the believer is free to remarry, doesn't it?"

No, New Testament Scripture nowhere advocates this.

Hi Godmetal,

You wrote, "you disappoint me. You are smarter than this, look at what you quoted in making your challenge.

You also wrote, "Hermas isn't even recognized as part of the canonical books.

Ah, but it was recognized as canonical for over three centuries by many Christian Churches. Churches accepted epistles as canonical mainly for one reason: it is to be read in the liturgy. So, Christian churches would read what they believed to be in accord with their own beliefs.

My point is that all Christians at all places in all times have recognized the grave immorality and sinfullness of remarriage, and this form of Protestant serial polygamy is the result of men falling from the standard of Scripture.

It's wonderful to note that the Fathers were fallible, but unanimous consent to a universally held doctrine is another matter that numerous professional Protestant exegetes do not pass over lightly. The canon of New Testament Scripture is a perfect example.

If, in our imprudence, we believe ourselves to be wiser than those who stand in the rich life of the early Church (a quote from Luther comes to mind), we may be setting ourselves up for disaster. I can show from Scripture that remarriage for the Christian is gravely wrong, and my quotations from the Fathers are merely evidence of Christianity's historic doctrine.

The Protestant allowance for remarriage hinges upon the porneia exception clause, and it's a stretch and leads the Protestant who remarries into grave sin.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Gina,

When you refer to Scripture, please include the chapter and verse to make things easier.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor 10 this, "A wife should not separate from her husband - and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband - and a husband should not divorce his wife"

If a married couple separates, there can be no remarriage on the part of either party. This is the consistent teaching of Scripture and the Church throughout the history of Christianity because a sacramental marriage (one between two baptized Christians) is unbreakable.

Grab your Bible and Read Mark 10:2-12. I would type it out right now, but I'm late for a meeting on campus, and this computer bars me from the copy/paste feature (I'm in the JPII library ).

God bless you,

Carson

[ April 18, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Larry,

I take it that you advocate divorce and remarriage, which I believe to be contrary to the New Covenant as is clear from Scripture.

You wrote, "It is clear in Scripture that God does recognize divorce and remarriage (cf. Deut 22). In fact, in some cases God even commanded divorce (Ezra). Whatever we say about divorce, we cannot say it is always wrong and we cannot say that it does not end a marriage."

Divorce and remarriage is a stipulation of the Deuteronomic law. So also are herem warfare and usury. Jesus revokes the Deuteronomic concessions that were given by Moses due to the hardness of hearts and restores marriage to its original status, thereby extinguishing the possibility of divorce and remarriage, as I have shown above (in other posts).

You wrote, "Scripture is clear that when an unbeliever departs from a marriage, the believing spouse is "not bound" (1 Cor 7:15). The question is what are they "not bound" to. Some say he is not bound to hold it together. Some say that he/she is not bound to the marriage. Some say that he/she is free to remarry. The whole of biblical evidence about marriage leans towards the last position in my opinion but there is a great deal of debate about this because the Bible is not explicit."

In Catholic teaching, only the marriage between two baptized believers is irrevocable. Divorce/Remarriage is allowed to the Catholic who is married to a nonbeliever; this is called the "Pauline privelege" in Catholic marital legislation, and is so named after this particular verse that you have brought up (..funny Scripture would have any such precedence in Catholic tradition..) So, the latter interpretation agrees with the doctrine the Church has advocated for 2,000 years. Only those who are in the New Covenant are bound to its prescriptions, and in the context of marriage, this necessitates two believers.

You wrote, "Both Christ and Paul give NT exceptions. Moses gave certain commands regarding divorce and Ezra commanded the people to divorce. A biblical view must take into account all of these things."

A Biblical view will also recognize the nature of the Deuteronomic Law and its abolition with the advent of the New Covenant and its demands.

I would refer you to what Paul says earlier in v. 10-11, "To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband - and a husband should not divorce his wife."

Is Paul simply giving arbitrary instructions or is there a fundamental basis behind his instruction, which he explicitly mentions is not his own, but a direct Tradition of Jesus (probably identical to Mark 10 and Matthew 19)? Why should she remain single? Because if she remarries, she will commit adultery because the marriage bond is irrevocable as Jesus emphatically tells us in Mk 10:11-12. Sometimes the presumptions of Paul far outweigh his assertions, and, thankfully, they're discernable through analyzing the assertions (and the wider context of Scripture). This fact is also prevalent in his epistle to the Romans.

You make a good case in point of a Protestant who desires one doctrine, confesses the final authority of Scripture, reinterprets Scripture to fit desire (thereby doing an injustice to Scripture), and in the process, incurs upon himself an open door to advocating, preaching, and upholding the sin of adultery. Your inherent negative prejudice concerning Catholicism, which includes any teaching it proposes, will probably (in my personal opinion) bar your acceptance of the Scriptural witness, which is a poverty for a brother who loves the Lord Jesus so dearly.

I suggest reading and meditating upon Mark 10:2-12. However, fundamentally, I believe a deeper wound needs to be healed: namely, an aquisition of a desire for the heights of the demands of the New Covenant and the promises these demands contain, which is inseparable from the need to separate oneself from submitting concupiscent desire and retaining an objective willingness to receive the Word of God unmarred. This is a remedy that I, too, need and desire; I pray for it in my daily prayer.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 18, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Jason,

I noticed that in your post above, you didn't attend to any of the issues at hand or to Scripture. And, I would prefer to engage in fruitful dialogue that engenders mutual understanding and learning.

Do you advocate divorce/remarriage between two Christians, and if so, would you mind explicating the Scriptures?

Thank you and God bless you,

Carson

[ April 18, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "I thought they were very well represented by Larry's posts." and "No, I do not advocate divorce for anyone....but I think it is not allowed for Christians," which is confusing.

If you disagree with Larry, then why do you uphold Larry's view? Am I missing something?

Hi EagleLives911,

I'm in Ohio too.. on the Eastern border just off the Ohio river in Steubenville; which part of the state do you reside?

You wrote, "It is fine to look down one's nose at divorce spouting chapter and verse to legitimize one's legalistic position until that one happens to be you..."

To paraphrase you, "It is fine to give the Biblical New Testament teaching on divorce, but when application of Christian doctrine is personally applied, it does not apply because the Word of God is subject to my own dispositions, feelings, and reasoning ... especially when I disagree with its precepts."

Being a Christian requires walking the walk. If you disagree with Christian doctrine as clearly explicated by Scripture, then you shouldn't call yourself a Christian. We don't decide the terms of the New Covenant; this should be self-evident.

And, this isn't to say that the terms are authoritarian precepts that hinder our freedom as Christians (then we would be Muslims). God's commands are precisely medicinal and paternal. He demands of, asks of, and treats us as a loving Father would. Everything is ordered to the good, as Paul tell us in Romans, even our worst sufferings.

You wrote, "God divorced Israel."

God never divorced Israel. In fact, he even said through the prophet Malachi, "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless." (Mal 2:16)

It's impossible for God to divorce Israel because of the covenant. If God made a contract (and not a covenant) with Israel, he could easily revoke the agreement; however, the covenantal nature of the bond entails unconditional continuity. Marriage isn't a contract. It's a covenant, and it images the relationship between God and his People, esp. Jesus and the Church.

When Israel violated the terms of the covenant, they endured the curses of the covenant, but the covenant was never dissolved. If anything, Israel should be the perfect example of the extremes to which the covenant can be violated, yet it remains steadfast because of its nature.

For instance, Hosea was made to marry Gomer the prostitute precisely to show Hosea (personally) what it felt like for God when Israel, His Bride, committed adultery with the gods of other nations through their incessant idolatry.

The Christian Church is the continuation of Israel. Christians are fulfilled Jews. Where the Jew was pruned, the Gentile was grafted, but the covenantal relationship remains. The Christian is a son of Abraham and David.

You wrote, "Adulterers used to be stoned to death. Then the wronged spouse who was widowed was free...to remarry. Not bound."

Divorce was allowed for reasons other than adultery by Deuteronomic concession, "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house.." (Dt 24:1)

The concession by Moses was allowed precisely to prevent a greater evil, namely, husbands killing their wives so they could remarry. Christians are dispensed from this Second Law.

In the covenant of marriage between two baptized Christians, an indissoluble bond is formed between the marriage partners. Jesus' clear teaching in Mark 10:6-12 is reaffirmed by Paul in 1 Cor 7:10-11.

Divorce and Remarriage after the Marriage of two Christians has never been taught, condoned, or practiced in Christianity until the Protestant Reformation, when each man, armed with his own copy of the Scriptures, became an authority unto himself with regard to Christian doctrine. With this newfound and false liberty (which stems from the advent of personal conscience with William of Ockham, a dissenting English Catholic Franciscan theologian/philosopher of the 14th c.), many Christians have falsely taken the porneia exception clause to horrendous conclusions. And, other Protestant Christians have recognized the futility of this interpretation and stand behind what I present to you with full approval.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 19, 2002, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi wishtolearn,

You wrote, "I suppose you might feel a little different if you were married already or in an unhappy marriage."

I probably would "feel different." But, again, are feelings the basis of our lives as Christians or is the Word of God? Sometimes I feel like a Fundamentalist speaking with Roman Catholics who are ignorant of and almost despise the Bible. Is there something wrong here?

You wrote, "You mentioned something about God not recognizing a second marriage after a divorce. Why not? Does he have his eyes closed?"

No, in fact, the reason he doesn't acknowledge a second marriage is due to the fact that his eyes are wide open. He can see the supernatural reality of the marital bond between the divorced couple, whereas Christians who divorce and remarry, in their blindness (according to the flesh), appeal to the five senses.

You wrote, "I have a funny feeling he understands all of our shortcomings and failures and cares about our overall happiness."

Absolutely; I affirmed this in my post above and cited his paternal care as the basis behind his precepts. Marriage is a sacrament precisely because we have shortcomings and failures. What the Jews were unable to keep in the Old Covenant, Christians are empowered to do in the New Covenant by the New Law (the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit); this is the Gospel, and it's corresponding new life is outlined, quite nicely, in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) by the God-man who started this entire Christian controversy. Also, Cf. Romans 8:4.

You wrote, "Divorce is crummy, no doubt about that. But what if it leads to a better life for both original partners?"

What if not being a Christian leads to a better life for the pagan? What if he/she doesn't have to face martyrdom when asked by an authoritarian atheistic regime if they believe in the Lord Jesus? Obviously, then, it would be better for the person not to be a Christian.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 19, 2002, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi ChristianCynic,

You wrote, "Weber, no idiot-- not even you-- has any competence to claim that when Jesus stated an exception to a principle He did not mean it."

As I've shown in my previous response to you, I personally consent to the Patristic View, which allows for divorce between two married Christians. You're burning a straw man (and apparently not reading my responses).

Perhaps you could respond to the Scripture I gave you and exegete the Word of God for us. Isn't that what "Bible Only" Christians do?

God bless,

Carson

[ April 19, 2002, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Brian,

You wrote, "I do wish your conclusions were different but I do appreciate your passion and effort."

My conclusions are identical with over 1500 years of Christianity. Never in the history of Christianity before the advent of Protestantism has divorce and remarriage been allowed for either of two baptized Christians once they are married. You should wish that the whole of Christendom's conclusions for a millenium and a half were different before you look at what I say.

For some reason, I feel like I'm the only person on this board (less the other Catholics) that feels the full weight of this fact. And, Christianity, for good reason, has disallowed this because of an orthodox rendering of Scripture. We, in our concupiscence, come to God's Word and look for outs and lessen the Word to fit our presumptions and desires, and simply point to Scripture as our final authority, when in actuality, we're marring the very face of Scripture in our desire for one interpretation that agrees with the flesh.

You wrote, "Two questions I don't feel you addressed. First, Pastor Larry asked why the covenant of marriage is unbreakable but the covenant of salvation IS breakable."

The New Covenant is made between Christ and his Church. Those who are grafted onto or pruned off of the Church according to whether they have the grace of Christ is a separate matter from the unbreakable and eternal New Covenant.

You wrote, "The other question from my post was about the young man, maybe say 22 years old, left alone by his wife. Does he go the rest of his life now without the love that only a wife can provide?"

Yes. It's what we call "living a celibate life". Christians with homosexual disorders live this life. Paul lived this life. I'm currently living this life. You see, he's still married to his wife regardless. The true question is: "Is it better to commit adultery or live celibately?"

Jesus says, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

St. Basil the Great (b. 329; d. 379 - Doctor of the Church), in his The Moralia (73:1), which is an anthology of 1,553 New Testament quotes, he succinctly explains this teaching of Jesus, "Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself."

God bless,

Carson

[ April 19, 2002, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Pastor Larry,

You wrote, "A case can be made for remarriage. I would not condemn all remarriage and nor would I allow all remarriage. 1 Cor 7:27 seems to give allowance for remarriage without sin though again, it is a debated topic." and "I ... am not totally convinced either way. I can see both sides of it."

It's evident that you don't have a doctrine concerning "divorce and remarriage" after the marriage of two Christians, and that you're leaving the topic to further debate.

Well, when is enough "debate" enough? Or are we never to know? What if, in fact, your indecisiveness is allowing for adultery? This is the dilemma, and it's a serious one. This is the reason that I'm so adament about the position I advocate, and I hope you can understand why.

You wrote, "The RCC has a convenient thing called "annulment" which by any other name ... well its like the rose ... In other words, changing the name does not change the fact that it breaks a marriage."

An annulment is a decree that a marriage never took place (there are certain conditions that must be met for the sacrament to take place - one of which is an "unconditional assent"). It does not dissolve a marriage that did take place. There's a strong theological difference that must be respected.

I would like to bring to the fore another point that shows how the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not intended to provide a loophole for divorce and remarriage when one of the partners commits adultery. It's one that I, just recently, came about, and it's a strong argument.

It should trouble us that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11-12, "And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him'" and Luke 16:18, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage.

We should also be bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16. Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? Our inclination should inquire as to whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.

Also, why does Matthew use the word porneia instead of the word moicheia which means adultery?

Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. Why should Matthew not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia.

Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication rather than adultery?

If we go back and look at Matthew's record of Jesus' birth in Matthew 1:18-20, we find that Joseph and Mary are referred to each other as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other, and these terms are probably used for two reasons: (1) the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and (2) to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today.

In verse 19 Joseph resolves "to divorce" Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was "just" in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.

Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19, in a difficult situation. He has before him the absolute sayings of Jesus that if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery, that is, he commits a grave injustice. Nevertheless, the one divorce that Matthew has contemplated with his readers in chapter 1 has been described by him as a "just" possibility.

Therefore, in order to avoid the shocking inconsistency between what he has said about Joseph and what Jesus says about divorce, Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said.

This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages: (1) it does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke, (2) it provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew's exception clause instead of moicheia, (3) it squares with Matthew's own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19, and (4) from a redaction-critical standpoint it is very crafty addition which promotes the truth of Jesus' own absolute command and the rightness of Joseph's intention in resolving to divorce his betrothed, Mary.

God bless,

Carson