Andrews University

School of Education

A PERSONAL POSITION PAPER ON THE ISSUE OF

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

by

Coreena Blum

POSITION PAPER

Submitted to Dr. Jane Thayer

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for RLED635 Theological and Ethical Foundations of Family Life

at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan

Summer 2002

March 15, 2003

bruceblum@gmx.net

P.O. Box 3424

Lake City, CA 96115

INTRODUCTION

There would be no divorce and no remarriage in a sinless universe. Divorce and remarriage only occur in the context of sin. Unfortunately, now that sin exists there is no good or "right" solution for it. For example, when a eight-year old girl is impregnated through the abuse of an older male relative, those close to her must make a heartrending decision. The girl is too young to carry the child to term. If the baby is not aborted, both the baby and the young girl will die, but abortion takes the life of the unborn child. What is the "right" answer in this situation? A choice has to be made, and either choice is bad–to abort the baby is to sin, yet to do nothing is to condemn both baby and girl to death. God is in a similar situation. After sin entered the scene, God had two choices, both bad–to condemn us to die or to condemn Jesus to die. How can we say which one is "right"?

The issues of divorce and remarriage reflect the complexity of the sin problem. Because of this, I think that to ask–"Is divorce and/or remarriage right or wrong or permissible?"–is to ask the wrong question. I think that the way the first three authors in the book Divorce and Remarriage went about proving their position from various biblical texts, though convincing in some instances, sidetracks readers from the bigger issue of how to understand divorce and remarriage in the greater context of the character of God who is both gracious and just in dealing with sin. In this paper, I will address these issues in light of that greater context.

DIVORCE

Due to the nature of this assignment, and the need for brevity, I will only deal with two of the most controversial scripture passages on divorce–Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-9. I believe that the Bible writers were inspired by God as they wrote and compiled their messages. I believe that the stories and illustrations occur in the order that they do because the author, inspired by God, was communicating a message about God that is bigger than any one story or illustration can convey alone. For this reason, I will lean heavily on the context of each of the above passages in interpreting what each has to say on the issue of divorce.

MATTHEW 5:31-32

This passage on divorce is the third illustration in a group of six that Jesus gives to correct current misunderstandings regarding the nature of biblical law. There is a repeating pattern throughout this section that solidifies the relationship of each passage to its neighbor. In each of the six passages Jesus begins with the phrase "You have heard that it was said" or "It has been said" followed by "But I tell you." In each case, the "You have heard that it was said" phrase reminds His listeners of some aspect of Old Testament law; then Jesus goes on to "tell" His listeners what it means to break "one of the least of these commandments" (Mt. 5:19). His explanation of the law should have had the intended effect of convicting His listeners that they were not among the category of the "great" (Mt. 5:19) in the kingdom of heaven–"whoever practices and teaches these commands" (Mt. 5:19)–but instead were among the "least" (Mt.5:19)–those who break "one of the least of these commandments" (Mt. 5:19); for who can deny that he or she has not at times been angry with a brother or looked lustfully at someone else or resisted an evil person, etc? I believe Jesus intended His words to convict His hearers then and us today of our unrighteousness and our need for a greater righteousness–one that "surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law" (Mt. 5:20)–that is deeper than external obedience to the Old Testament law.

I think Matthew 5:17–"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"–which introduces this entire section, points us to the source of our righteousness and thus is key to a correct interpretation of this entire section, including our passage on divorce. In Matthew 5:17 we understand that Jesus came to fulfill the law; in the next verse, there is a reference to "everything" being accomplished; following this, Jesus explains what it means to be "least" and "great" in the kingdom of heaven; then finally He emphasizes our need for a righteousness superior to that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. I think these four verses are linked for a reason. I believe Jesus came to "fulfill" the law and to accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished. I also believe that Jesus is the only person who has ever lived and who will ever live who can truly be called "great" in the kingdom of heaven because only He did truly practice and teach these commands. Finally, only Jesus' righteousness has surpassed that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law because only He truly kept both the letter and the spirit of the law. None of the rest of us qualify.

In Romans 7:7 we read that the law reveals to us what sin is; here in Matthew 5 Jesus makes it clear from the law that sin is more than external "right" behavior, and that we all are guilty of transgression and in need of a "greater" righteousness. In Galatians 3:23-24 we read that the law is to do more than point out our sinful condition and great need but to also "lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." The question still remains, how do these passages which point out our great need lead us to Christ as the "fulfillment" of the law?

I suggest that Jesus picked these specific six passages from the Old Testament law to give us a vivid picture of exactly how He "fulfilled" the law as described in Romans 13:10 which states that "love is the fulfillment of the law." If we look at each of these passages in the context of the life of Jesus, we see clearly how mankind has miserably failed to keep the law, but how Christ succeeded in loving us even in the midst of our failure. I will deal here only with the first three.

Christ loved when people were angry with Him, angry enough to plot to murder Him. His life was of little worth to these men (See Mt. 26:4 and John 11:50-53). Christ lived the law in this case by coming to be reconciled to those who had something against Him (Mt. 5:23-24). But man chose to reject His terms of reconciliation and instead handed Him over to the judge, and to the officer, and kept Him as a prisoner until He had indeed "paid the last penny" (Mt. 5:25-26). In fact, one of the ways Jesus demonstrated His love toward us is in revealing to us how angry we are and what that anger has done to Him as well as how great His mercy is in paying "the last penny". The last penny in the time of Jesus was a reference to the smallest copper coin–in other words, Jesus has paid the complete cost of my sin.

Christ also loved the adulterers–those who look lustfully at another. In Matthew 21:23, in speaking to the chief priests and elders of the people, Jesus tells the parable of the tenants who "looked lustfully" after a vineyard, so lustfully that they killed the landowner's son in order to seize the vineyard. It is clear in this passage that those unfaithful tenants represent the chief priests and elders of the people, those who were to watch over and nurture God's people (the vineyard) until harvest time. Jesus informs these unfaithful tenants in verse 43, that the kingdom of God will te taken from them and given to others. This parable helps explain what adultery is. Adultery is more than a physical act of sexual digression by a married person. It seems to be any time we "lust" after and/or attempt to take what is rightfully God's and not ours–whether it is power or control or even our desire to have a good reputation as someone who does great things for God. Ultimately, our ministry and our very lives belong to God, and any time we lust after them for ourselves, we are committing adultery.

Jesus gave strong counsel for what to do with adulterers. In Matthew 5, He said that if your right eye "offends" you, it is better to pluck it out than to let your whole body be cast into hell. I understand from this passage that the right eye is the thing that is "lusting" after another. Matthew 21 is similar to Matthew 5 again in that the tenants are to be removed from the kingdom like the right eye is to be removed from the body. I believe that the right eye and the tenants both refer to those who had been instructed with the care of God's bride, his woman (Mt. 5:28), His vineyard, but who had failed as caretakers. From this passage we read that there comes a time when it is better to lose one part of the body than the whole.

I do not think that it is a coincidence that the passage on divorce follows the passage on adultery. Divorce is a separation like the separation that occurs when a body part is cut out from the rest of the body. From this text it is plain that there is a point when it is better (though not good or right) to cut a cancerous or gangrenous part of the body from the rest of the body. It is a severing that entails much loss and pain, similar to the loss and pain that occur as a result of divorce. And just as cutting out an eye or cutting off a hand would be a last resort, so should divorce be a last resort, only occurring if there is no way to remain in the relationship and still "live."

Even Jesus experienced the pain of divorce. Over and over again He refers to His people as an "adulterous generation." In Matthew 23 Jesus' woes hold the Pharisees and teachers of the law accountable for their stewardship. These woes function like a bill of divorce because of their unfaithfulness–they had not only lusted after what belonged to Him but had not born fruit unto righteousness (Mt. 21:19), and "the kingdom of God will be taken away from [them] and given to a people who will produce its fruit." (Mt. 21:43)

In issuing this "bill of divorce" Jesus did not "sin." As always, He was fulfilling the law of love. Love includes both grace and truth. Jesus was honest with His unfaithful people regarding their sin, but He was also gracious in refusing to let their sin continue to affect and harm the rest of His body. Jesus forebears long before He judges, but when He does judge, He does so righteously.

These passages on law both reveal to us our own unrighteousness, while pointing us to the love and mercy of Christ who came to "fulfill" the law. There is no doubt that He is the greatest, and we are the least. Because we have not and cannot live up to the kind of love required of the law, exemplified in the life of Christ, we need a righteousness greater than the external righteousness of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. We need the righteousness of Christ. The good news is that the righteousness of Christ is available for all those who believe. As Romans 10:4 states–"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."

I make my conclusions to this passage at the end of my section on divorce.

MATTHEW 19:3-9

I think that Larry Richards does a good job of interpreting how this passage on divorce fits within its context. The context teaches that spiritual greatness consists not in good works but in humility and forgiveness (see Richards' argument in Divorce & Remarriage, pages 220-
222). I think the context teaches that spiritual greatness includes honesty and justice as well.

In Matthew 18 there are three clear references to judgment. First, if a part of the body causing you to stumble, it should be cut off. I dealt with this issue in the section on Matthew 5, so I will not address it further here except to note again that there seems to be a point at which separation is needed for the good of the entire body.

Matthew 18 also gives advice for dealing with someone who has sinned against you. Again, Jesus is the prime model for how to live this counsel, for He vulnerably came alone to this earth to be honest with us about how our sin problem is affecting us as well as the rest of the universe. In Jesus' counsel in Matthew 18, there reaches a point in the relationship where separation occurs. There is a point when someone who has been a family member (Mt. 18:15) should be acknowledged as somehow outside of the family fellowship (Mt. 18:17). This separation, though painful, like cutting off a hand or foot, should not be done in anger or bitterness. On the other hand, we should love the separated member as Christ loved tax collectors and pagans.

Matthew 18 concludes with a powerful parable about the love and forgiveness of God as well as the consequences of rejecting that love and forgiveness. The servant in the parable is similar to the offending brother in Mt. 18:15-17 (who "refuses to listen"). The servant seems to not have listened or heard what the king said. Although the king forgave his debt and freed him, he turned around and attacked someone who owed him a pittance. The choking behavior of this man is similar to the offensive behavior of the hand or foot in Mt. 18:7-10. When harmful behavior like this occurs it is right for God to judge, so that others are not unnecessarily hurt. To be both gracious and just God offers forgiveness freely but judges those who refuse that grace.

I think that this context is significant for a correct understanding of divorce in Matthew 19:3-9. Jesus' ideal is clearly for marriage to be permanent; in this passage He validates the "one flesh" concept of marriage. But because of sin there are occasions when one part of the body becomes dangerous to the survival of the rest of the body. Jesus identifies the root of this problem as hard heartedness, illustrated in the context by those who refuse forgiveness or reconciliation. When forgiveness and reconciliation are rejected, and it becomes clear to many (the church and the king's other servants in these two stories become involved) that a person has become a danger to the health of others, then separation may be the "better" of two bad options.

If I am to be fair to the context, then I must conclude that the "marital unfaithfulness" described in the context is equivalent to the behavior of those who reject God's grace and forgiveness outright (previous context) as well as those who reject it through their reliance on their own goodness or works to get eternal life (following context). Like the passage in Matthew 5 it is clear that adultery is more than just a sexual act. It is an attitude of the heart.

CONCLUSION

–Sin is more than external behavior; Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 5 that one can keep all the externals but still be too dangerous to be allowed into the kingdom. In the case of divorce, we cannot "not sin" just by not getting a piece of paper certifying divorce. God is not "fooled" by our outward "right" behavior. He sees the "heart" adultery within the marriage, the resentment, the bitterness, the control, and the hate that lie hidden under the surface, and He holds us accountable for these attitudes.

--There comes a time when divorce/separation is the better of two bad options–when to do less than separate would do more harm than good.

–The decision to divorce should not be entered into any more readily than one would decide to cut off a body part. The question–"Is divorce okay or right?–seen in this context becomes an absurd question, as absurd as asking–"Is it okay or right to cut off my hand?" The obvious answer is "No!"–it is wrong to cut off a body part, though it might become a last-ditch effort to save one's life.

–Because the issues of adultery and divorce are so complex, it is difficult to determine when divorce may be the better of two evils. We cannot make up any "rule" that applies to every situation. When we start making rules about which evil thing to do, we have missed the point.

I think that if people understood the seriousness of the sin problem as well as the mercy and grace of God, there would be far fewer divorces. If people admitted their need and received the forgiveness of God in practical everyday situations, they would become more safe to be around, and as a result, their marriages would improve. Unfortunately, I do not think most people truly recognize their need or are in a position to receive mercy. They are often blinded to the love of God by their own pain. Many of these people choose to divorce, hoping that this will ease their pain. To divorce is a serious and painful decision, but I believe Christ's righteousness is available for those, who for issues of life or death, make that painful choice. It would be good for the rest of us to remember that just as we would show compassion to someone who has experienced an amputation, so should we show the same compassion to those who divorce.

REMARRIAGE

God is in the business of revealing something about His character through marriage. He uses the metaphor of marriage throughout scripture to reveal His covenant mercy and faithfulness to Israel as well as His commitment to righteousness and holiness within the relationship. As seen earlier in this paper, there came a time in history when God's longsuffering came to an end, and He ultimately chose another woman to be His bride. In Revelation we can read about the celebration that will occur when God finally marries His intended. So, even though God has experienced the pain of separation and divorce, He also looks forward to a "remarriage" ceremony.

Whether this fact makes remarriage "right" or "permissible" is still the wrong question. Remarriage only occurs in the context of divorce, and it is plain that divorce is wrong. I think, however, that we can learn a lesson about God through His painful relationship with "Gomer", and His "remarriage" to spiritual Israel.

ROMANS 7:1-6

I think that remarriage as presented in Romans 7:1-6 gives an insightful picture of God's mercy and justice in dealing with our sin problem. Paul uses marriage and remarriage in this context to illustrate to his readers what it means to die to the law and to live to God. Paul begins this chapter by saying that "the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives" (Rom. 7:1). The implication here is that the law does not have authority over a man if he has died. Paul uses marriage to illustrate. He notes that a woman is bound to her husband as long as her husband lives, but if her husband dies, then she is free to remarry without becoming an adulteress (Rom. 7:2, 3). Similarly, Paul says, we have died to the law, through the body of Christ, so that we can belong to Christ (Rom. 7:4). Remarriage, according to this passage, is not equated with the sin of adultery if someone has died–the spouse or the person him/herself.

Remarriage is equated with adultery, according to Paul, if someone remarries while his/her spouse is still living. There is no exception here that allows remarriage for any reason other than death, even remarriage for the "innocent" spouse who experienced a divorce because of the adultery of the previous spouse. In fact, I have found no clear unambiguous statement that equates remarriage after divorce with anything less than adultery.

Why? Why is it so wrong to remarry if the previous spouse is still alive? Why does Paul equate remarriage in this context with adultery? I think that the context in Romans 7 answers this question. In Romans 7:7-25, Paul gives a powerful example of what spiritual adultery looks like. Paul writes in these verses of the struggle he experienced while his mind and body were divided–while his mind wanted to live to God and his body wanted to live to sin. This illustrates the division that occurs when someone tries to live in a new marriage (a marriage to God's law in this context) while the previous spouse is still alive (Paul's sinful nature that was very much alive within him at this point). Paul parallels adultery in this context with trying to be married to the righteousness of God's law while allowing the law of sin within us to still live. It does not work. This kind of remarriage only results in struggle, division, and frustration.

God knows this, and so He, in His mercy, has provided a way of escape for us. God wants us to belong to Him, but He knows that this cannot happen as long as we remain married to our sinful natures. So God, in the body of Christ, put our old selves to death (Rom. 7:4 & 8:3-
4). God is both just and merciful in doing this. He is just in putting us to death. He is merciful because he puts us to death in Himself–He died so that we could live. I am amazed at how God always lives up to His own counsel in scripture. According to the most plain interpretation of scripture, the only "right" context for remarriage is if one of the spouses has died. God opened a way up for us to remarry Christ by putting our old marriage/self to death, but He was only able to accomplish this by dying Himself. This is the gospel in the issue of remarriage. God wanted us so badly that He died so that we may experience freedom, not division, in a new marriage to Himself. The way for us to experience this new life/marriage is through belief. Paul writes that we must "count [ourselves] dead to sin" (Rom. 6:11). This faith activity frees us from our old dead-end marriage (that only results in death [Rom. 6:21]) so that we may join ourselves in a new marriage to Christ–a marriage that is full of life and fruitfulness.

In this context, it makes sense that remarriage would be equated with adultery as long as the previous spouse was alive. God is wise and merciful. He does not want us to be divided in our loyalties. He wants us to experience true freedom and joy in Him. I think that, just as any other physical model given by God (such as the Old Testament sanctuary) marriage is primarily supposed to teach us something about God's character. Marriage and remarriage, seen in this light, do just that.

So how do we take this spiritual message and apply it to the very real issue of remarriage in a concrete, physical sense? Honestly, I am not totally sure. I am definitely uncomfortable with a legalistic application that is focused on mere externals. I think that such application misses the point or the principles that remarriage is designed to teach.

The inconsistency of a legalistic application is clearly seen in the following example. Imagine that an older man remarries after his spouse of forty years dies. According to a legalistic interpretation of remarriage, this man has not sinned. But what if that same man after getting remarried never lets his previous wife "die." Imagine he hangs unto her by keeping all her old things–her clothes remain in the dresser, her dishes remain in the cupboard, etc. This man has made no space for his new wife. Because he is hanging on to the old, like Paul's example of hanging onto the sinful nature, this man is divided. He is unable to be truly married to his new wife, because he is not free of the old marriage. A legalist would say that this man has kept the law. Unfortunately, this man, though outwardly correct, has missed the point that Paul was making in this passage. This man has kept the letter of the law but missed the spirit of the law. As we saw above in Mt. 5, Christ makes it clear that keeping the letter of the law does us no good if we have missed the spirit of the law.

My struggle in applying remarriage is in taking this example to the opposite extreme. Is remarriage justified if a person can honestly claim that they have said a final "goodbye" to their old spouse, if they claim that their old spouse is as good as dead in their minds? Would this make such a person free to remarry without experiencing the division of Paul in Romans 7? Would such a marriage be free of adultery? What about a divorced person who has truly repented of the sin that contributed to the failure of his/her previous marriage, has accepted the death of Christ, and claims Galatians 3:20-21 personally? Is that person free to remarry another person physically just as he/she is free now to experience a new union with Christ? I am not sure. How could I, a sinful frail human being, judge whether a person was truly free of the previous marriage or not? If I started judging, I would never be able to stop. There is no way I can make up enough rules for the immense variety of situations that people experience. For me to begin such a process would be to become like the Pharisees.

I think it would be better for me, instead of thinking up all sorts of rules for every kind of exception to divorce and remarriage, to spend my time considering how serious of a commitment marriage is. Through the concrete model of marriage, God is trying to teach me how serious He is about having a lifelong and righteous relationship with me. He is so serious about this relationship that He would rather die than lose me. He is so serious about protecting me from harm that He chooses at times to cut part of His body off to spare the rest. He is so serious about having a fruitful and healthy relationship with me that He puts my old self to death so that I can experience undivided freedom and joy in my new life with Him. In light of this kind of love the question–"Is divorce and/or remarriage right or wrong or permissible?"–seems so trivial. Off course they are wrong. It is wrong for God to have to cut off/divorce part of His body to have to gain the rest. It is wrong for God to have to die in order to marry me. Death is wrong. Sin is wrong. But God, because He is God, is able to teach us something powerful about His mercy and His justice with both the issue of divorce and the issue of remarriage.

In conclusion, I believe that both the letter and the spirit of the law are important. Christ kept both the spirit and the letter of the law, and so should we. I think that the letter of the law protects us physically/externally while the spirit of the law protects us spiritually/internally. The letter of the law guards me from being murdered or from murdering someone else, from stealing or from having things stolen from me, etc. The spirit of the law guards my heart from feeling anger and covetousness and other evil desires that hurt me, even though others may never know those feelings exist. In the case of remarriage, I think that there are both physical and spiritual reason to avoid getting remarried. I have already noted some of the spiritual reasons above. There are also many physical, concrete reasons why remarriage is not a good idea, especially if the previous spouse is still living. As long as the previous spouse is alive, there will be divided loyalties, as much as a person may try to be single-minded and loyal in the new marriage. Often, children are involved, and the old and new marriages get all mixed together in trying to raise the children. This juggling of the old and new is hard on children just as it is hard on the parents. Often the old marriage is brought into the new marriage through the spouse's thoughts and habits. Much of relationship occurs in the mind. And when people remarry they take their minds with them. They bring into the new marriage all the bad habits, all the controlling behaviors, all the selfish desires that contributed to the misery of the previous marriage. Because of this, the previous marriage is still very much alive in the new marriage. This results in struggle and frustration in the new marriage. For such reasons, remarriage is often not a good idea.

Whether this means that remarriage is never a good idea, I cannot tell. There may be some cases, where like divorce, remarriage is the better of two bad options. I think of single poverty-stricken women trying to raise their children alone. Many of them get remarried solely for the sake of their children. Much of my reading on this issue notes the serious effects that economic poverty has on children as well as the need for father figures in children's lives. Is remarriage under such conditions advisable? Perhaps. In any case, remarriage, like divorce, should not be viewed out of black and white lenses. These issues, like sin, are bigger, more complicated, and go deeper than we are often aware of.

I think that, rather than focus on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of divorce and/or remarriage, we should first focus on what they can teach us about the character of God. These issues should remind us of the seriousness of our sin problem. They should convict us of the folly of thinking we can avoid sin simply by following external rules. And as these issues convict us of our great need, they should also reveal to us the great goodness, the great mercy and grace, as well as the great justice and righteousness of the God we serve.

CONCLUSION

–To remarry while the previous spouse is still living is to commit adultery.

–In saying that it is adultery to remarry while a spouse is still alive, God makes it clear that marriage is a commitment that is intended to last until death. God intends to communicate through the model of marriage how serious He is about the commitment He has made with us. Calvary is the clearest picture of how serious God is about His commitments. God's commitment is our model for commitment within marriage.

–Spiritual adultery, in the context of Romans 7, is when someone tries to unite the righteousness of God's law with the sinful nature. This results in struggle and division. This division in loyalties is similar to the division that occurs when someone remarries while the previous spouse is still alive. Remarriage, thus, serves as a model for how to better understand the spiritual life.

–Both the letter and the spirit of the law protect us. To be consistent and healthy, we need to abide by both. How to apply both to remarriage is not an easy task. Because remarriage is never a "good" option (remarriage is only possible if someone has died or been divorced–neither case is "good" or "right"), the "better" option for some may be to remarry. We need to remember when applying this issue, that where sin exists, there is often no "right" or "good" answers.