Recently, a tract on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage came into my possession with a request for comments to be given. It was written by Brother Ken Butterworth from Oxford, Alabama, whom I do not recall having met. Despite some truths that are taught in it, it was disjointed, repetitive, and demeaning to anyone who holds a contrary view. The author is not shy about setting forth his own view but does not seriously consider any alternatives in his 19 pages of text.
It begins with a letter written to the son of a mother who is a member of the church. He was about to marry again without the proper authority of the Lord. Butter-worth does correctly state that only three individuals are qualified (from God’s perspective) to be married: 1) one who has never been married; 2) one whose mate has died; and 3) one whose mate committed fornication (5). The author of the tract did not explain in his personal letter why the man was not eligible to marry again, but he covered certain principles that would apply to several situations. Having introduced the topic of the tract, he never returned to this particular instance, indicating what the man did.
Page 5 begins his analysis of Matthew 19:1-9. All faithful brethren must be in agreement with the idea that Jesus said there was but one reason for divorce—namely fornication. The author does not go into the definition of the Greek word, porneia, from which comes the English word, porn, often associated with pornography (“writing about sexual immorality,” and now pictures as well). This Greek word is defined by Thayer as referring to “illicit sexual intercourse in general” (532). The word includes lascivious, sexual behavior with someone of the opposite or the same sex.
Some brethren have tried to argue that it is not possible to live in fornication or adultery; the author rightly cites Colossians 3:5-7, which shows that some of the Colossians had lived in fornication (5).
Marrying an Unqualified Person
Usually a person will field questions after he has set forth the Biblical teaching on divorce, but the author here rather strangely introduces a case that rarely occurs. What happens if a person who is authorized to be married marries someone who is not? Butterworth’s answer is that they must separate, and neither one may marry again. He asserts that neither is an innocent party. However, such an assessment is false. First of all, one must be aware that every culture from the first century to now is not like 21st-century America. Second, one ought to consider that even here people lie.
Jane tells Dick that she has never been married before, and he has no reason to doubt her, but in Other City she was married for six months. Her husband was dealing drugs, and her life was in danger. After her divorce, she fled to Big City and went back to her maid-en name. In an effort to blot out this sad and painful part of her life, she told everyone, including Dick, that she had never been married. Jane did not have a right to marry. She had never studied the Scriptures, or she would have known that she could have separated and either remained single or reconciled to her husband.
Some time passes, and Dick somehow finds out about Jane’s first marriage and unscriptural divorce. He never intended to do anything wrong but was lied to, just as Jacob’s sons lied to him about Joseph. He believed what was not true and had in all innocence acted upon the deception. He immediately separates from Jane, since he is not entitled to have her. After his heartache has lessened, he wonders if it will ever be possible to marry again. He runs into Brother Butterworth and is told, “No, of course not. There are no innocent parties in this case. You must remain unmarried.” Of course, Dick, being a conscientious Christian, knows that he never acted with wrong motives, and he corrected the situation as soon as he knew about it.
Incredible Rationale
Butterworth, in his “one size fits all” wisdom says that if Dick marries again at this point in his life, he commits adultery. Furthermore, the author mocks all who would disagree with him, saying that they have “a feeble and unscriptural argument” (6). That argument is: 1) Jane had no right to marry. 2) Therefore, Dick and Jane were never married (so far as God is concerned). 3) Conclusion: Since he has never married, Dick is free to marry now. How does the author of the tract reply to this reasoning? He answers:
(1) God said they were married (Matt. 19:9)! God never approved or sanctioned the marriage, but recognized it as a marriage. (2) If he was not really married to her, then why get a divorce? You cannot divorce someone you are not married to (6).
Seriously? The author has already shown that an individual can live in adultery or fornication (Col. 3:5-7). But he insists that Dick is actually “married” to Jane, yet he is living in adultery with her (which presumes that Jane is still married to her first husband)! How can both be true? The fact is that Dick and Jane are living in adultery because they are not married because she is still married to her first husband! All of the rhetoric about not divorcing someone to whom you are not married is nonsense, and Butterworth ought to know better because he already introduced the subject of Herod’s marriage. He wrote: “Herod was told he could not have/keep his brother’s wife (Matt. 14:4)” (5).
Using the author’s logic, one ought to ask, “How can Herodias be Philip’s wife and Herod’s at the same time?” It is interesting that, in mentioning this “royal” situation, Butterworth quoted from the account in Matthew rather than the one in Mark, which also refers to Herodias as “his brother Philip’s wife,” but adds, “For he had married her” (Herod had married Herodias). How do you marry someone else’s wife? Is this one of those marriages that is not approved or sanctioned but still recognized as a marriage anyway? Apparently, Herodias was somewhat of a magician in order to be Philip’s wife and Herod’s at the same time.
Butterworth and many others fail to recognize accommodative language when they see it. Herodias was indeed Philip’s wife, as God views it. She was not free to leave him Scripturally. When the text says that Herod married her, Mark does not mean their marriage was Scriptural. They had satisfied civil law but had violated God’s law. Likewise, when Jesus says in Matthew 19:9 that a man “marries” another, it is obvious that he means according to some standard other than God’s. Men may do many things that would harmonize with civil law but not God’s law. For example, civil law allows a doctor to perform abortions, but God’s law does not. People, therefore, may divorce and marry as many times as they want and for just about any reason they want, but that does not mean they have God’s blessing to do so.
How does a person divorce someone he is not married to? In Dick’s case, when he discovered he was not Scripturally married to Jane, he put her away civilly. Of course, if man’s laws were identical with God’s, that would not have been necessary, since it was not lawful for Dick to have Jane. If it was not lawful, then God did not authorize it, period. It is impossible for God to recognize as a marriage one that is not lawful.
An example not related to the subject of marriage might prove helpful. In Matthew 22:17, Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” The word translated “lawful” is the same word used in Matthew 14:4 and 19:3. When they ask about paying taxes, they cannot be asking if it is lawful according to the laws of the land. Obviously, it was not only lawful, but required; it would be unlawful if they did not obey the civil government. So what are they asking? They are asking if it is lawful in God’s eyes to pay taxes to Caesar, or should they resist doing so.
Again, the civil law and God’s laws do not always coincide. It is the same for the question Jesus was asked about marriage in Matthew 19:3, when the Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” They are not asking if it was the law of the land concerning the putting away of their wives. They could, and they did. Their question was, “Is it lawful so far as God is concerned?”
In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife….” He obviously means here “divorces her in a civil sense,” since they were free to do that. “…and marries another….” Again, He means in a civil sense in using marry. “…commits adultery….” (so far as God is concerned). “…and whoever marries her (with the permission of the civil government) who is divorced” (with the permission of the civil government but not according to God’s law). “commits adultery” (so far as God is concerned).
Every student of the Word must make an effort to determine whether lawful (or unlawful) means in God’s eyes or in man’s eyes because marry, divorce, wife, and husband can be used in both ways. Such distinctions are not difficult to determine; the context makes it clear. Dick does have the right to marry again because he married and divorced Jane under civil law. So far as God was concerned, he never was married to her and is thus free to marry another eligible person.
Butterworth makes a third argument. If a man could marry one unauthorized woman, then why could he not “marry” two such women, ten, or more? Technically, he could—just as a man might live with two, ten, or more women without “marrying” any of them. Would that disqualify him from actually marrying a woman somewhere down the road? In the song, “We’ll Sing in the Sunshine,” Gale Garnett promised to live with a man one year before leaving him. She could do that 30 times before finally deciding to marry someone when she was 60. Would she not still be eligible for marriage? This argument has no merit.
The Waiting Game
In between the last scenario and the next one, Butterworth throws in a few Biblical truths (which do not relate directly to either situation). He cites Ezra 10 to prove that a person cannot sometimes keep his present mate with God’s approval (6). True. He says that God’s forgiveness of an adulterer does not mean he can marry again (7). True, but these do not affect the previous or the next example, which involves a couple he names Dan and Judy.
According to the details he provides, they filed for a divorce on irreconcilable differences. Butterworth then claims that a brother told Dan to wait until Judy remarried or started living with another man, and then he could be free to marry his sweetheart. Such would be wrong—not for the reason Butterworth says—but because they both agreed to the divorce. Neither had the authority to divorce the other, and neither has the right to remarry; if either or both of them do, adultery would be committed. As already stated in the tract, there is only one reason for divorce—a spouse’s commission of adultery. Therefore, both are condemned by Matthew 19:9.
Had Butterworth left it at that, he would have been fine (on this point—not the one already objected to). We would all agree that two people cannot just agree to get a divorce for reasons other than adultery and go on their merry ways. Both share equally in the guilt of getting the divorce, and both have no authority from God for remarriage—no matter who commits immorality first after the decree is finalized.
But the author of this tract determined to lump the innocent with the guilty. He further claims:
If a man decides to put away his wife for whatever/any reason except adultery and she opposes it, then when he does divorce her and she later remarries, she can claim freedom to remarry without sin (10).
In other words, Sue and Jim are married. Whether they are both Christians or not is irrelevant. The key element here is that Sue does not want a divorce. She is not in agreement at all that they should have a divorce and protests before the judge, but he grants the divorce anyway. Sue remains hopeful that Jim will change his mind, but to no avail; he marries someone else. Sue has done nothing wrong and has been completely honorable, but Butterworth tells her: “So, you thought you could play The Waiting Game and get away with it. Hah! Such ‘foolishness is as foreign to the Bible as is a defense for homosexuality’” (10).
The fact is that the civil divorce is not valid (a principle that Butterworth appears to agree with on page 15). Jim and Sue are still married in God’s eyes, and she does have a right to divorce Him Scripturally and remarry. One wonders how anyone can fail to see the truth of this situation.
Some of those who hold Butterworth’s view are like the Baptists of the 19th century. When someone would try to set forth the truth about baptism for the forgiveness of sins, they would all croak, like frogs in unison, “Campbellite! Campbellite!” They would not examine the Scriptures or the merit of the presentation; they were only interested in insulting and shouting down their opponents. Likewise, these Christian counterparts cannot fairly examine the Scriptures, and when some makes a logical argument, they all repeat, like parrots, “The Waiting Game! Awwwk! The Waiting Game!”
Desertion
The author is correct when he states that desertion is not a reason for remarriage. The only thing necessary here is to add a clarification. If a mate deserts a spouse, then the spouse is not automatically free to remarry. Several things could occur under this category. A man’s wife could just leave him because she does not want to be married to him or anyone. Is this wrong? Yes. She is failing to live up to her marriage vows and her responsibility as a wife (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Her husband cannot divorce her, however, because she is not committing adultery and is living a celibate life.
However, in another instance, a man just leaves his wife, and she does not know where he is for, say, two years. She does not know if he is alive or dead, but she does not violate her vows. Finally, she discovers that he is in a nearby town and living with another woman (or another man). He makes it clear that he has no interest in returning to her. Now she knows that she has a Biblical reason to obtain a divorce and files for a civil divorce. Will Butterworth and those who agree with him call this the Waiting Game, too?
Marriage is God’s institution and is not to be trifled with. God’s laws must be respected. Strange things occur, however, and people need to have Bible answers for particular problems. It does no good to accuse people of playing The Waiting Game when such is not the case. Undoubtedly, some have tried to manipulate things to their own advantage, but that does not mean that everyone is trying to circumvent God’s principles.
Those who commit adultery may well lose the marriage they are in and, if so, be precluded from any further marriage. The guilty party has no authority to marry again. Those who agree to a civil divorce in the absence of any adultery forfeit their right to marry again with God’s approval. These tenets do not allow for any wiggle room.
But those who are innocent ought not to be told they have lost their right to marry again, also. They should not be assigned evil motives and wrongfully accused for conditions that were beyond their control. The just should not be condemned any more than the wicked should be justified (Pr. 17:15). Brother Butterworth includes some valuable information in his tract, but his zeal for upholding God’s marriage law has caused him to insist on a narrower view than the Bible presents.
. e does not aut