On August 17, 2014, Spiritual Perspectives published a review of a tract on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, which dealt with the alleged “waiting game,” which is a misnomer relating to a Biblical teaching. A friend wrote to see what answer could be made to three arguments he offered against the position in that article. He did not defend the “waiting game” ideology, but rather questioned if the defense set forth did not bring with it certain problems. They are legitimate inquiries, deserving of answers.
Argument #1 – Two Exceptions?
The friend pointed out that we all agree that “Jesus presented one, and only one exception for divorce and remarriage.” He also agreed that it is important, in Matthew 19:9, to understand that Jesus was referring to the obtaining of a civil divorce and a civil remarriage. That is the reason that adultery is committed—because the original pair remain married, so far as God is concerned, and on that basis a new marriage, though the civil government recognizes it, nevertheless constitutes living in adultery.
So, we all agree that a civil divorce is not valid—unless one spouse committed adultery. The focus of attention now becomes the woman who was put away. The questioner claims, and he is correct, that the position set forth in the original article distinguishes between two types of women that are put away unscripturally by a civil divorce. That claim was made because it is undeniably true.
Dick has no legitimate reason to put Jane away; he is just tired of her and wants to move on. He files for divorce (or in some cultures just declares himself free). It should be obvious to all that Jane can have one of two responses. Either she agrees with the civil divorce because she is ready to move on, also, or she opposes the notion because she respects her wedding vows.
If the woman in the first category remarries, she is guilty of adultery, along with her new spouse because the basis of her divorce was not adultery on the part of her mate. The woman in the second category is a different matter. She was not in agreement with the civil divorce, does not have a new boyfriend waiting around, and actually is praying for a reconciliation with her husband. When he does marry someone else civilly, she actually has a Biblical reason for divorce and can put him away in God’s eyes. Why does Jesus not mention this alternative? It is presumed that if she had a Scriptural cause for divorce, all would know it and recognize it. Therefore Jesus is describing what happens if a wife is complicit in the unauthorized civil divorce.
The statement, then, might be made: “The result is that there are actually two exceptions to the entire scenario presented by the Lord. One exception has to do with the one doing the putting away [“except for fornication”], the second having to do with the one put away [“except she be the innocent part in the putting away”]. As per what was presented above, it is not a second exception; it reverts to the initial case of putting someone away for a Scriptural reason.
Besides, if Jesus intended to include the woman who agrees with a civil divorce and the woman who disagrees as well, then both the guilty and the innocent are included in the same category. All agree that the guilty (the one who agreed to a civil divorce without any fornication being committed) cannot marry again without committing adultery. But should the one who did not agree be equally condemned? If she fought the divorce at every opportunity and did everything within her power to get her mate to repent and reconsider, why is she put into the same category as the guilty? She cannot put him away before the civil divorce because she has no evidence of him committing fornication. But then she cannot Scripturally put him away after his adulterous civil marriage, either. Why not?
Argument #2 – Jesus referred to the Innocent
This is a continuation of the first argument. The questioner thinks that the position set forth in the previous article and reaffirmed here makes “the Lord actually say, ‘…he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery, except where she that is put away was innocent in the matter.’” Of course, that would be one way of expressing it—somewhat of a prejudicial way. And it overlooks two important facts. First, it seems to ignore that a civil divorce is not an actual divorce, as God regards it. God does not uphold civil law when it violates His law. For that reason, a civil divorce (without the Scriptural reason of fornication) is regarded as invalid. The only way a “divorced” couple can commit adultery against the original mate is if God does not count as valid what they did before the civil authorities. That “civil divorce” did not mean anything. The two are still married, and if the husband marries another, he becomes an adulterer.
Some civilly “put away” women would accept that court ruling and would find another man and marry him, which would be wrong and under the condemnation of Jesus. But the Lord did not deal with every possible scenario; nevertheless we can make right decisions with the principles that are set forth. And that brings us back to the woman who was “civilly” put away without her co-operation or participation. After her husband “marries” another and is living in adultery, where does that leave her? She cannot obtain a civil divorce; her husband already did. Yet her circumstance is that, while she has remained true to her wedding vows, her husband is living in adultery. Has she no recourse? She has a Scriptural reason for a Scriptural divorce, but some want to deny her that right! She is not a second exception. She falls under the category of a person who has the only legitimate reason for divorce—fornication on the part of her husband. But some brethren want to refuse her that right because her husband obtained an invalid civil divorce without her approval.
The one who posed the three questions also wrote: “Actually, the words of the Lord appear to suggest that ‘she that was put away’ was innocent in the matter, but she could still not remarry.” There are at least two different kinds of innocent: 1) One may be innocent of an action when it is initiated (the filing for divorce) but then go along with it, or 2) One may be innocent of the action taken and oppose it altogether. Jesus was surely speaking of the first category and not the one in the second category, trying to preserve her marriage.
Some may blithely say, “Oh, well, sometimes the innocent must suffer because of the actions of the guilty.” Those who utter such comments, however, are not usually the ones in those awkward positions. It is a fact that, because of free will, many innocent souls suffer (Rev. 6:9-10), but this situation is not comparable to those. Probably, the put away woman has already suffered much; but the question here involves determining marriage availability.
Argument #3:
The third argument has to do with avoiding generalizations. The questioner points out incidents where a person might fight against a divorce for reasons other than the Scriptural one. He phrased it this way.
Dick and Jane get married. After some years, Dick puts Jane away for an unscriptural reason. She was opposed to the divorce, not for any Biblical reason, but because it was not financially good for her. Perhaps she felt it best to keep the marriage for the children’s sake, or because she does not want to get kicked out of their huge house, or she might lose her luxury automobile, et al. The reasons are endless. The point is, she did not initiate the divorce, and may have actually opposed it.
“Does she qualify as an innocent party who has the right to remarry?” The question is good but problematic. Human beings are complex creatures whose motivations may involve several factors. In some instances it would be difficult to determine whether the main reason was financial or Scriptural. Some women choose to remain married even when everyone knows her hus-band is a philanderer, hoping that he will repent and change his ways at some future time. Others might remain faithful only for the children’s sake. We may never know an individual’s true motivation, but we can look at the facts. Did she commit fornication, as her husband did? No. Does she have a legitimate reason to put him away (since he civilly divorced and married another)? Yes. Sometimes, people do not even know their own motives until years later. We cannot operate on what cannot be known—but upon what can be known.
A Further Comment
One of the more thought-proving lines from the arguments that were made was the one that stated, in essence, the following. If the innocent “put away” wife can marry again, then there are two exceptions to divorce and remarriage—adultery and an innocent party being wronged civilly. This has already been answered previously by showing that it is not an exception but rather complies with the fornication principle.
This concept can also be turned around. If those who argue that the innocent, protesting mate cannot remarry, then a second exception exists that is also not stated in Matthew 19:9. A person commits adultery: 1) if he, without his mate having committed fornication, divorces and remarries, and 2) if she who has never committed adultery and tried to preserve her marriage puts away her husband Scripturally (though not in a civil court) and marries again. In either instance, there is a second category not explicitly stated. However, in the latter instance the woman has conformed to other Biblical principles; the man in the first category violates them. The three arguments made actually serve to strengthen the position taught in the original article.
The following report of a telephone conversation that occurred on Monday is not intended in any way to demean the woman who called. She was pleasant and not really argumentative; undoubtedly, she believes herself to be a sincere person, yet she would not consider the evidence of the Scriptures.
A married woman, who shall be called Melinda (not her real name) called with two Bible questions. First, however, she asked if I knew about a certain website. I did not, but a quick perusal of it showed that it belonged to the Mormons although they did not so identify themselves, preferring to use only Church of Christ and omitting “of the Latter-Day Saints.” Nothing she had read on that site pertained to us.
Melinda’s first question had to do with instruments of music and why we do not use them. I told her she would never understand us unless she understood Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” I explained that whatever we teach or practice in worship and service must be authorized by Jesus. She said, “Oh, I totally agree with that.” Then I asked, “Have you ever read in the New Testament where instruments of music were used by Jesus, the apostles, or any of the churches?”
She seemed to already know that fact, and without a moment’s hesitation she said, “But all churches do things the Bible doesn’t say. When I was younger, we were taught that women couldn’t wear pants, and that wasn’t in the Bible. All churches teach things that are not in the Bible.” I pointed out that the teaching about pants was not authorized. She had entirely abandoned Colossians 3:17 and her agreement with it—and did not even realize it.
When she brought up an idea concerning the use of instruments that seemed logical to her, I said that I was glad she had introduced logic because she had used the tu quoque fallacy, which is saying, “OK, this is bad” (using instruments of music), “but you’re just as bad” (teaching against women wearing pants). I called attention to the meaning of Colossians 3:17 again.
“But I love to sing with instruments. I feel closest to God during these moments.” I agreed that music can be very powerful and affect us emotionally but then added that the question is, “What does God want—not what do we want, or what makes us happy?” I cited Cain and Abel and the fact that God rejected Cain’s offering because it was what he wanted rather than what God commanded (Gen. 4).
She had no comment about that but immediately went to another point. “I have discovered that your church (as she referred to the church of Christ) used to be with the Christian Church, but you guys took out the instruments.” “No,” I answered. “In the 1800s, when many of these congregations originated in America, they did not use instruments. They were not removed; they were added. They were never part of the worship until some began using them in the latter part of the 19th century. And when they were introduced, it caused division among Christians. We have debated their use for over 100 years, and they have not presented one valid argument to justify its use. All they can say is, ‘We like it, and we’re going to use it.’”
All she could do was respond, “I just can’t think that God would condemn me to hell for using instruments of music—especially when they make me feel so close to Him.” My final comment on that subject was, “There are two ways to discover that He will condemn you: The first is through the Word” (applying properly Colossians 3:17); The second is through experience” (actually being lost); “I hope you find out the first way.”
The second question, which was discussed somewhere in the middle of the previous subject, concerned modern-day miracles. I pointed her to Mark 6:54-56 and asked why no one today did what Jesus did—walk into an area where sick people are (such as a local hospital) and walk out with all the patients cured. She immediately fell into the old dodge that sometimes people don’t have enough faith. I told her I knew of a lady who believed so much that she threw away her medicine and died two days later.
“I meant that the person doing the healing didn’t have enough faith.” “Really?” I responded. “Then why are they on television all the time talking about what they can do?” That discussion got nowhere; so finally I asked her, “Do you believe God is still revealing truth today?” “Oh, yes,” she answered. “Then you’re going to have to decide whether you believe that doctrine or you believe the Scriptures because 2 Peter 1:3 says that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.”
“Well, sometimes people take verses out of context.” “It’s only the third verse of Peter’s letter,” I replied, “It would be pretty difficult to take it out of context.” Then I added, “Do you not see that you have the same problem as others? The Mormons claim to have more revelation from God. So does the pope. Pentecostals are always getting fresh revelations, and none of these agree with each other. Do you not sense that something is wrong? Trinitarian Pentecostals disagree with ‘Jesus only’ Pentecostals, yet they both claim to do miracles. Genuine miracles bore witness to the truth (John 20:30-31).”
What Melinda did not see is that she is not open-minded. Like so many people, she actually had her mind already made up before she telephoned to ask her questions. No amount of evidence would change her mind on those topics. She did not want to know what the Bible teaches. How many are like her—confident that their alleged sincerity will save them though they deny the truth?