Nesher Articles
Divorce and Remarriage - The Biblical Way
Introduction
The subject of divorce and remarriage is always a very emotive
one, especially as people who take sides on the issue are usually
themselves personally involved in some way, with their feelings
or emotions completely clouding their view so that they cannot
make a rational judgment. It is significant that all the Biblical
instruction we have to go by on this matter comes from single
men, i.e. Christ and Paul, who could proclaim the truth clearly,
without any accusation of being biased or involved in any way.
We need to instil into people their
responsibilities before God with regards their marriages. Marriage
is never to be entered into lightly, and it is the duty of the church
to instruct young people properly. All too easily today
the church just sits back and allows two people to get married
who "feel" like doing so, with no instruction whatsoever.
It is a terrible indictment on all the churches when they are
seen to follow the masses and believe that feelings are what true
religion is all about. Their leaders will be answerable to God
for this behaviour.
Church traditions
Although divorce is not referred to a
great deal in the early church fathers, it appears that almost
all of them rejected even the idea of divorce, let alone remarriage.
It is argued that because this is the view of the early church,
then this must therefore be the true interpretation of biblical
thought on the matter. However, it is well known that the early
church fathers were clearly wrong on other issues, such as their
asceticism for example, and so other factors could have influenced
them in their views on this subject. It is certainly not
true to say (as we have heard it said) that the "orthodox" view for
1400 years
has been to ban remarriage after divorce, as some people would
argue. Even if this was the case, since when has the majority
always been right? Ask Athanasius or Martin Luther.
Some of the early church fathers did indeed
question this position. Origen allowed divorce and remarriage
to avoid worse sin, and Jerome defended a woman who divorced her
husband because of his adultery, and married another. Augustine,
on the other hand, believed that marriage was indissoluble, and
that there was at least a moral obligation that it should not
be dissolved. It appears, however, that the Eastern Orthodox churches
began to allow divorce and remarriage for a variety of reasons
from the sixth century onwards.
The Roman Catholic church turned the institution of marriage
into a sacrament. This put it on a par
with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is clearly not biblical
to think of marriage in this way as it is not merely for the church
(as the other two sacraments are), but a Creation ordinance binding
on all men. The Roman church sees marriage as a union between
two people for life, which no man can put asunder. To them, even
divorce or separation cannot break this bond, and hence they do
not sanction the remarriage of anyone whilst their spouse is still
alive. Under canon law, however, a judicial annulment might be
obtained. This does not mean that the marriage bond is broken,
but it is rather a declaration that the marriage never existed.
This is their "get-out clause," if you like. Other cases have shown
that people could obtain separation from "bed and board"
but, again, the separated parties were not allowed to remarry.
This idea that separation and divorce
can never break the marriage bond is also the view of the Anglican
church (at least officially), some of the stricter Anabaptist
groups and the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRC) (although,
interestingly, the PRC only adopted this view as their leader
Herman Hoeksema embraced it himself in the 1930s1). Of course
none of these groups would see marriage as a sacrament as the
Roman church would, and most would see divorce (which they would
equate with legalised separation) as legitimate, but only for
adultery - neither party being eligible to remarry, as they would
still be considered by the church as being "married"
to their original partner until that original partner dies. There
has however been plenty of opposition to this, in the Anglican
church particularly. For example, Archbishop Cranmer proposed
a revision of the canon law (which was never carried out) that
would have included divorce for adultery, malicious desertion,
prolonged absence without news, attempts against the partner's
life and cruelty.2
This was in line with the Reformers generally,
who allowed divorce and remarriage under various circumstances.
However, how much of this was due to an over-reaction against
the Romanist idea of marriage being a sacrament is very difficult
to determine. Not that much literature was actually written on
this subject by the Reformers, presumably because there were far more
important things to write about and defend in the heat of the
situation that existed at the time.
We know that the early Reformed confessions
of Saxony (1551) and Wirtemburg (1552) both mention the subject
of divorce and remarriage, and both agree on remarriage after
divorce for the "innocent party."3 John Calvin
was also
of this mind. In criticising the abuses of the Roman church he
says, "Moreover, they frame degrees of kindred contrary to
the laws of all nations, and even the polity of Moses, and enact
that a husband who has repudiated an adulteress may not marry
again."4
Note here that he saw Moses as teaching divorce
and remarriage in such circumstances.
In 1560 in Scotland (the year of John Knox's
reformation there), kirk sessions began to grant divorces, but
in 1563 the Commissary Court was established in Edinburgh with
jurisdiction over all Scotland in questions of marriage and divorce.
From this court there was an appeal to the Court of Session, both
these courts being civil courts. In 1573 an act was passed declaring
that if either husband or wife deserted the other for four years
without reasonable cause, and refused to return to co-habitation,
this should be grounds for divorce. After that, divorce in Scotland
was granted on proof of adultery or desertion of either spouse.5
The last hundred years particularly has
seen a great increase in the number of divorces. It is now thought
of as a fact of life that divorce must be allowed for any and
every cause, otherwise we are limiting people's personal freedom
too much, which, according to modern psychology, is the greatest
evil. No longer is principle an issue, just as no longer do people
believe in an objective truth, or an objective morality, i.e.
an absolute right and wrong. The world needs to know once more
that God is in the heavens, that there is
an absolute right and wrong and that we shall all be
accountable for every
word we speak and every thought we think. Feelings will mean nothing
in that day, rather, absolute truth and absolute righteousness
will be the sole criteria God will use for judging every one of
us, so we had better get it correct now, before it is too late.
1Prof.
Herman Hanko,
"For Thy Truth's Sake" (Reformed Free Publishing
Association,
2000) pp.382ff.
2 ed. Walter Elwell, "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology"
(Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1984)
3 ed. Peter Hall, "The Harmony of the Protestant Confessions"
(Still Waters Revival Books, Edmonton, 1992) pp. 461, 468.
4 John Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion"
Book IV, Ch.19, para. 37.
5 ed. N. Cameron, "Dictionary of Scottish Church History
and Theology" (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1993).
Westminster Confession of Faith
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
is a distillation of the most important doctrines of Scripture
made by the best conference of Christian men that have ever existed
together in one era, and, although only a human document, it can
still be used to help formulate the biblical position
on the subject. The two articles in question in the Westminster
Confession, together with their proof texts, are as follows (Chapter
24):
V. Adultery or fornication committed
after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just
occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.a
In the case of adultery after marriage,
it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorceb:
and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending
party were dead.c
VI. 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 marriaged:
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.e
aMatthew
1:18-20
bMatthew 5:31,32
cMatthew 19:9; Romans 7:2,3
dMatthew 19:8,9; 1 Corinthians 7:15; Matthew 19:6
eDeuteronomy 24:1-4
It is interesting to note at this point
that neither the Savoy Declaration of 1658 nor the Baptist Confession
of Faith of 1689 have these two paragraphs in them, even though
they have the other four paragraphs on marriage from the Westminster
Confession word for word. This seems to indicate that there was
some kind of dispute over these paragraphs at that time. This
might have been over the content of the paragraphs themselves,
some people may have been wanting to tighten up a seemingly liberal
view. However, it could also be possible that the dispute was
simply about whether the subject of divorce and remarriage was
a suitable subject for inclusion in a Confession of Faith at all,
or whether it is more a case for inclusion in the Church Order
instead, or indeed even left to the civil courts to legislate
over.
Now, let us have a look at the teaching itself.
From these two paragraphs we see, firstly,
that an actual act of adultery or fornication in and of itself
does not break the marriage bond. All the Confession states is
that it allows the innocent party to dissolve that contract, if
they so wish. If they wish reconciliation instead, that's fine.
However, it is assumed by holders of
the PRC/Anglican position that if the contract is dissolved, then
both parties would be free to marry again. Hence, this is consequently
seen by them as an easy route to take for anyone who is simply
bored with their
spouse. All they have to do is commit adultery, then the innocent
party can sue out a divorce and the guilty party can go off and
marry someone else anyway. Contrary to such an opinion, this is
not the Westminster position at all. The Confession does not explicitly
state the position of the guilty party in any of this. However,
it does state the position of the innocent party, i.e. that they
are free "to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to
marry another, as if the offending party were dead." Now
if both parties were allowed to remarry after the contract had
been dissolved, why on earth does the Confession only mention
the innocent party? Why not mention that both are free to remarry?
I suggest that it is because the guilty party is
not free to do so. The proponents of the
PRC/Anglican
view are quick to assume that the guilty party is free to remarry
because the contract has been dissolved, but nowhere does the
Confession
teach that they are. Rather the guilty party is under the ban
of the church from remarriage.
This is the position of the Free Presbyterian
Church of Scotland. There is nothing in their Church Order about
this; maybe when this was written they thought the Confession
to be clear enough. However, their magazine has addressed the
issue. In the February 1996 issue of the F.P. Magazine, for example,
referring to the divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales,
we read: "Given the confessed adultery of both parties, we
do not object to the divorce, though it would be unscriptural
for either of them to remarry." (of course this was written
before the death of the Princess of Wales). Now, if the PRC/Anglican
criticism about the Westminster position is true, this divorce
would free them both
up to
remarry, hence we can only conclude that they would both be under the
ban of the church
(and the state in an ideal world) to remarry, by reason of them both
being guilty parties. This is, after all, no different from the
PRC/Anglican view, except for the fact that the PRC/Anglican view
would extend the ban on remarriage to the innocent party as well.
Remarriage of the guilty party is not an option in either view.
Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32
The scriptural ground for the Westminster position is based
(amongst other scriptures) on Matthew 19:9:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever
shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which
is put away doth commit adultery."
The first half of this verse tells us:
(1) Anyone putting away his wife for anything other than "fornication,"
i.e. NOT for a valid reason (i.e. she is NOT a guilty party),
commits adultery if he marries another, because technically he
is still married to his first wife as the divorce is for an invalid
reason, and therefore should not be recognised.
(2) The presence of the exception clause then clearly infers by
good and necessary consequence that anyone putting away his wife
FOR "fornication," i.e. FOR a valid reason (i.e.
she
IS a guilty party), does NOT commit adultery if he marries again,
as he is the innocent party.
The second half of the verse tells us
that anyone marrying her that is put away commits adultery because:
(1) If it was NOT for a valid reason (i.e. "fornication"),
she would
still technically be married to her first husband.
(2) If it was FOR a valid reason, she is the guilty party and
therefore under a ban from remarrying, so if she does marry again
it would be classed as adultery.
With regards Matthew 5:32, the first
half of the verse is different:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever
shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery.".
In this case:
(1) If the putting away was NOT for a valid reason, it would cause
the wife to commit adultery (if she married again) because she
would still technically be married to her first husband.
(2) If the putting away was FOR a valid reason, using the same
logic as above, we conclude that this does NOT cause her to commit
adultery - which it doesn't of course as such, as the putting
away does not cause the adultery because adultery has already
occurred. The adultery causes the putting away. This shows that
there is no blame attached to the man if he was to put her away
for a valid reason (and indeed remarry, although remarriage isn't
really the issue here). He is not causing
her to commit adultery (if she should marry again) as he would be if
the divorce was on invalid grounds; it would be her own sin alone
if she remarried, and he would not be culpable in this case, as
he would have been in the case of divorce for an invalid reason.
It has been pointed out that other similar
verses appear without the exception clause, i.e. in Mark 10:11,12
and Luke 16:18. However, we must ask the question: How many times
must something appear in Scripture to be authoritative? Answer: Once.
(In fact the exception clause appears twice actually). The
other two instances in Mark and Luke without the exception clause
are simply giving the "norm," i.e. no divorce "for
every cause," as the Pharisees had wanted to be the case.
"Fornication" is the exception rather than the
rule.
Some people argue that because the exception clause is where
it is in the sentence, then it must only apply to the divorce
and not the remarriage. However, to believe that changing the
sentence order around would make a difference is not true. Any
other way would make the passage grammatically awkward to say
the least. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall
marry another, except it be for fornication, committeth adultery"
is very bad grammar. The exception clause applies primarily to
the divorce, and the "committeth adultery" clause
applies
primarily to the remarriage, hence the sentence is naturally structured
to reflect this.
Now, how long does a guilty party remain
under this ban of remarriage? There are three possibilities:
(1) Until the death of the individual guilty party themselves.
(2) Until the death of the divorced spouse (e.g. Diana, in the
case of Prince Charles)
(3) Until a credible profession of repentance on the part of the
guilty party (if ever).
Position (3) is the most common one taken in a vast majority
of churches today. The argument goes that
as we are indeed to forgive others upon a credible profession
of repentance in our everyday lives, then this should be the case
here. However, one can easily see the large loophole that this
position opens up, in that the more liberal ministers and churches
could just ignore the ban on the guilty party completely and allow
remarriage anyway (which, alas, most of them do these days). Many
such people are following John Murray in this. It is this
interpretation that people are reacting against when they criticise the
position of the Westminster Confession.
Position (2) is the correct one (this would agree with the
PRC/Anglican view in fact). An article in the F.P. Magazine for
March 2005 states: "Mrs Parker-Bowles is now divorced but
her former husband is still alive. Obviously Prince Charles is
now free to remarry as his wife is dead, but his fiancée
is not free to do so, and so the proposed marriage will not be
scriptural." (This assumes of course that Mrs Parker-Bowles
was not an innocent party in her divorce). So this is a very simple
rule of thumb we have. The Confession states that the innocent
party is to be treated "as if the offending party were dead;"
so we can at least strongly imply (although technically it is
not a necessary implication) that the guilty party is to be
treated as if they were still married,
in which case the guilty
party may not remarry until their original spouse dies - even
if that spouse has lawfully divorced and remarried someone else
in the meantime.
It might be objected that God would never
allow anyone to be in a position whereby they have to live "as
if" something, when that something is not the case in
reality.
However, we do have Biblical precedent for this, albeit in a slightly
different context, in 2 Samuel 20:3:
"And David came to his house
at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines,
whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and
fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto
the day of their death, living in widowhood."
Here we have David putting away ten of
his concubines. Although this refers to divorce after polygamy,
the thing to note here is that Scripture describes them after
having been put away as "living in widowhood," in
other
words "as if" their husband was dead (which David
was
not). So we cannot dismiss this idea as readily as some people
would like us to do.
Deuteronomy
22:13-29
In Deuteronomy 22, we have a series of
situations with regards various related subjects and how to deal
with them practically:
(1.) vv. 13-21 - a man whose new wife cannot prove her virginity.
(2.) v.22 - adultery with a married person (see also Leviticus
20:10)
(3.) vv. 23-27 - adultery with a betrothed person.
(4.) vv. 28-29 - fornication before marriage.
In the first three cases the penalty
if found guilty is stoning to death. The promoters of the PRC/Anglican
view are quick to insist that this was the penalty in the Old
Testament for adultery, so divorce was not an issue, but (a) why
then is it that Moses allows divorce in Deuteronomy 24? And (b)
why then is it that Joseph, spoken of as a "just"
man, sought to
divorce Mary after he found Mary with child in Matthew 1:19? Surely,
if he was a "just" man, as the text says, he would
have
sought to get her stoned to death. We see here in fact that Joseph
had a choice, either to "make her a publick example"
(which was stoning to death, after a fair trial by the public
authorities), or to "put her away privily," in
other
words, divorce. The Old Testament law always allowed the choice.
Note, in the fourth case above (4.), that the penalty for
fornication where no married person is involved is not
stoning. The greater penalty of stoning for crimes involving at least
one married party, shows the seriousness with which a crime against
the ordinance of marriage should be held.
In case (1.), the
penalty for the man if found wrong about questioning
his wife's virginity, is that he may "not put her away all
his days" (v.19). Note he is guilty of a crime, but not of
adultery, rather the crime of giving a virgin in Israel a bad
name. So stoning is not a suitable penalty for him, rather he
is fined an hundred shekels of silver (payable to the father of
his bride) and never allowed to divorce her as long as he lives.
In case (4.), the penalty for the fornicator who lies with a virgin
not betrothed is similar. He has technically not committed adultery
as such (i.e. no married person is involved in the crime) and
so is not stoned, but is fined 50 shekels of silver, and not allowed
to divorce her as long as she lives. It seems here that he is
forced to marry her, and on the face of it, it looks like a rapist
is being forced to marry his victim, which seems rather unfair
to say the least. However, comparing this passage with Exodus
22;16, 17, we see that there was a way out of forcing the poor
woman to marry if she did not want to, in that "If her father
utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according
to the dowry of virgins." So a fine (payable to the father)
could be imposed instead. The main point here is that in these
two cases we have a specific statement that divorce would not
be allowed all the man's days, i.e. this is a
ban placed on a guilty party. So the idea of
the church
being able to place a ban of some kind on one party and not the other
has
a scriptural precedent. In this case it is a ban on divorce, in
our case in question it is a ban on remarriage for a divorced
guilty party.
Note also, in cases (2.) and (3.) above, that the penalty for
adultery is the same as the penalty for betrothal, i.e. stoning
to death. Also, the parties in a betrothal are referred to with
words such as "husband," "wife"
and "married"
(see also Matthew 1:19). Hence we see that betrothal is treated
in exactly the same way as marriage, the only difference between
the two being that the parties have not yet officially signed
a legal, public document or come into sexual union. This is interesting
because some people argue (and many Strict Baptists argue this
way) that the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 deliberately
use the word "fornication" not "adultery"
because, they say, it only applies to betrothal, and betrothal
is the only state, in their view, from which one can get a legitimate
divorce. But we see that the Bible makes no such distinction between
betrothal and marriage with regards these things. Betrothal is
not a "halfway house," it is marriage in everything
but the final contract being signed and the sexual union. In fact,
in cases (1.) and (4.), not having divorce available to the guilty
party after marriage is a penalty, not the norm. The word "fornication"
is used, not to provide a special case to refer to betrothal only,
but to include many more sinful practices than just adultery,
including sodomy (Jude 7), incest (1 Corinthians 5:1), and uncleanness
with single or married people (1 Corinthians 10:8). Does this include
something "minor" (in the world's eyes), like finding
a pornographic magazine in one's spouse's possession? Yes, indeed
it does. "Anyone who looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"
(Matthew
5:28). But, as with any sin, we cannot legislate against thoughts
alone; only when hard evidence comes to light can we go ahead
and do something about it. Possession of a magazine of this nature
could be used as that evidence, the only problem being that it
might be difficult to prove this in a divorce court, as it would
be difficult to produce witnesses, or proof that it hadn't been
planted on the person without their knowledge and so on, but
technically, yes, it is hard evidence of fornication and therefore
could be used as just grounds for a lawful divorce.
Sexual union is the final stage in a
marriage union, but it is not the whole of the marriage. Betrothal
was equally as important, being everything else to do with marriage
except for the final contract being signed and this union - i.e.
it was a public, witnessed statement of intent to marry (and stay
together), and public declaration of consent between both parties
(Genesis 24:5-8; Genesis 24:57-58) and their parents (Genesis 34:4-6).
All of these are necessary for a marriage to be declared valid.
A marriage is not just sexual union alone, as can be witnessed
by the woman of Samaria in John 4 who had five husbands, and the
one she now had was not her husband (John 4:18). To have someone
who is not her husband implies there is more to marriage than
just sexual union, i.e. a public, official, recorded declaration
of some kind must be entered into for the marriage to be valid.
Wilful Desertion
"Wilful desertion," according to the
Westminster Confession,
is also legitimate grounds for
divorce. Again, proponents of the PRC/Anglican view think this
also makes the Westminster view a very "low" view of
marriage, but the Confession is very careful. Firstly the main
proof text is 1 Corinthians 7:15, so it would only ever apply
to an unbeliever "wilfully deserting" - believers
would not
have this option. Then the divorce is not in the hands of the
couple to just "decide" to do it. Only "such wilful
desertion as can no way be remedied
by the
Church or civil magistrate, is
cause
sufficient of dissolving
the bond of marriage" and "the persons concerned in it are not
left to their own wills and discretion, in
their own case." Of course, if found guilty, the deserter
would be
under the same
ban of remarriage as if he had committed adultery, so again we
have a suitable deterrent from doing such a thing. All this is
a far cry from the easy divorce that the PRC/Anglicans would have
us believe the Westminster view entails.
1 Corinthians 7:15 states:
"But if the unbelieving depart,let him depart. A
brother or a sister is not under bondage in
such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
In this scenario of marriage between a believer and an
unbeliever,
the believer is not to try to get out of the marriage, as it is
still a legitimate one, bringing forth "holy seed"
indeed (v.14).
So if the unbeliever is pleased to dwell with the believer then
they should do so. However, if the unbeliever departs (v.15) then
he or she should be permitted to leave. The word for "depart"
here and in vv.10-11 is the Greek word chorizo,
which literally means "separate." Divorce is a completely different
word, apoluo. This is used by some people to
suggest that this passage is not talking about divorce at all. This is
not the
case
however, as the word chorizo is the same word
used for "put
asunder" in Matthew19:6 and Mark.10:9 - verses clearly
talking
of divorce.
This is also implied purely from vv.
12 and 13 alone:
"But to the rest speak I, not
the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she
be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the
woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased
to dwell with her, let her not leave him."
These verses state that if the unbeliever
be pleased to dwell with the believer then let them not
be put away. This clearly at least implies
that if the unbeliever is not
pleased to dwell with the
believer, then this would be a valid reason to put him/her away
(i.e. divorce).
A person whose unbelieving spouse has
wilfully deserted them, can therefore legitimately sue out a divorce,
but this can only be done after the church has officially declared
the deserter an unbeliever, i.e. "as an heathen man and a
publican" according to Matthew 18:17:
"And if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church,
let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
This would need to be done, because the
duty of the believer otherwise would be to stay single or be reconciled
to the husband as described in vv. 10-11. An unbeliever outwardly
proves himself to be an unbeliever by refusing to listen to the church
and the state warning him, and his subsequent excommunication
- the church and state have no way of knowing or declaring him
an unbeliever otherwise.
It is never up to either party's will
that the divorce goes ahead, it needs to be granted by the authorities.
This is totally different to the divorce-on-demand mentality of
today. The "wilful desertion" clause in the
Westminster
Confession gives church and state the power to divorce people,
without it having to be for adultery, in exceptional cases, when
an unbeliever insists on leaving. The deserted party would then
of course be treated as a divorced innocent party and allowed
to marry again, and the unbeliever who has departed as a divorced
guilty party, under the ban of the church (and ideally the state
as well) from remarriage.
What happens if the unbeliever, upon departure,
insists on applying for a divorce themselves? They cannot have
one, as the innocent party has done nothing wrong to warrant it!
Highest View of Marriage
It seems that the holders of the PRC/Anglican view tend to think of Westminster Confession people as having a very "low" view of marriage and they a very "high" one, whereas we would suggest it is the other way around. In the PRC/Anglican view, a man can commit adultery a thousand times, and his wife could do nothing about it and would be duty bound to have the cad back (the only other alternative being some kind of separation with no possibility of remarriage until the death of one of them, but even then they would still believe it is their duty to have them back if at all possible). The Westminster position on the other hand is that if one of the parties commits adultery once, the innocent spouse can (if they so wish) sue out a divorce straight away, kick the wicked adulterer out of the house, and put them under the ban of church and state from ever marrying again. That is a high view of marriage. That would make anyone think twice about adultery.
Objections Considered
1. Does this not make adultery the unforgivable sin? No. All
it does is force on someone a ban on remarriage. This is not lifted
even on a credible profession of repentance. The person
has to live with this ban upon them until the death of the original
spouse. We all have consequences of sin to live with. Maybe we
used to be a bank robber and trapped our hand in a safe door,
maiming it for life whilst in the process of robbing a bank. We
could subsequently be truly converted and become a member of a
church, but we still have to live with a maimed hand, gained as
the result of our sin, for the rest of our lives. The same applies
if in our unregenerate state we may have covered ourselves with
tattoos etc.. The same also applies if we were a guilty party in a
divorce. We could truly repent, and be accepted (back) into church
membership, but we would still be under a ban of remarriage until
the death of the original spouse. Being a "divorced guilty
party" is a declared state,
like being "single," or being "married"
or being a "divorced innocent
party." It is not a sin as
such, so repentance is not able to extricate anyone from such a state
(albeit it is
the consequence of sin).
2. What happens if a "divorced guilty
party" remarries whilst the original spouse is still alive,
either in a state ceremony, or in a ceremony in another church
with laxer views than that expounded here? The church should not
recognise any marriage unless it is in keeping with its own laws.
So, in the above example, the new partnership is unlawful in the
eyes of the church, and the parties would not be recognised by
the church as being married, but rather as living in adultery.
The Church can only recognise Biblically valid
marriages, divorces and remarriages, not invalid
ones entered into via the state or other laxer body which allows such
things. So long
as a certificate of marriage is signed and records are lodged
after a public declaration, any valid marriage is deemed lawful
by the church, even if it took place outside of the church itself.
But unbiblical (i.e. invalid) marriages are not to be recognised
by the church, e.g. in cases of polygamy, same sex couples, remarriages
after invalid divorce etc. We are quite happy to say "No!"
to sodomite marriages, so why are we not as forthright in condemning
marriages of divorced guilty parties?
This again is the position of the Free
Presbyterian Church of Scotland, as stated in a "Protest
re Family Law (Scotland) Bill 2005" sent to the Scottish
Parliament, which includes the following: "The Synod further
protests the right and privilege of the Church to consider those
aspects of this law which are at variance with Scripture teaching
on marriage and divorce, as defined in the 24th chapter of the
Westminster Confession of Faith, as unlawful for the purposes
of ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction."
3. What if the spouse is no longer traceable?
How do we know when they are dead, and so when the guilty party
is eligible to remarry? It is not likely that this would occur
in this modern age of record keeping. However, if the person admits
to being a guilty party, we must try to trace the spouse by whatever
means possible. If we fail to do this, they must, on their own
admission, not be allowed to remarry until the death of the spouse
can be proved. The death of the spouse must be proved before the
ban can be lifted. If they lie, and do not admit
to being a guilty party when in reality they are, and no record is
available
to say that they are, the church must treat them as it would an
unknown polygamist. If a polygamist comes forward for marriage
in the church, and the church is unaware of their being married
to another person, the church must accept a credible profession,
and admit them not only to church membership, but indeed to marriage.
Banns are read in church, and records investigated, but if nothing
comes to light they should be allowed to marry with the church's
blessing. If, subsequently, the church finds out that they were
a polygamist, or a divorced guilty party, (i.e. already had a
spouse, or was "as if" they had a spouse), then
the
remarriage would have to be immediately declared unlawful, the church
must then insist that the partners cease living together
(otherwise it would be adultery), and the guilty party disciplined
accordingly.
Conclusion
The correct position on divorce and remarriage
therefore is that a guilty party after divorce is put under a church
ban of remarriage for the rest of the lifetime of the original
spouse, "as if" they were still married, even
though
the marriage contract has been dissolved by the divorce, and maybe
the innocent party has married someone else.
Any other position than this, either
on the one hand brings undue suffering to the innocent party by
not allowing them to remarry when they have done nothing wrong;
or on the other hand allows marriage of the guilty party in through
the back door, and creates all kinds of difficult situations in
the church, as indeed does every case of not disciplining sin
after the biblical manner.