On this date (November 18th), twenty-six years
ago, I exchanged vows with a woman who divorced her husband. The witnesses, the
wedding party, and the parents of the bride and groom believed that God
consecrated the wedding ceremony. Both the bride and the groom (me) believed
that God consecrated the wedding ceremony. The pastor who officiated the wedding ceremony
believed that God consecrated the marriage. The state of Pennsylvania believed
that the pastor’s signature was sufficient to establish the union of marriage. The government of the United States of America
believed that the pastor’s signature was sufficient to establish the union of
marriage. However, God did not consecrate the wedding ceremony, nor did He
honor the vows. He called this union adulterous. (Mt 5:32, 19:9; Mk 10:11,12;
Romans 7:2,3; 1 Cor 7:10,11, 39; Heb 13:4) Was this "remarriage" a marriage? Could I marry a divorced woman and it not be adultery?
Many evangelicals believe that the United States Supreme Court Obergefell v Hodges decision to redefine marriage was the worst thing to happen to the definition of marriage.
These evangelicals also believe that this marriage redefinition will put a
great strain on those who believe in traditional marriage (one man and one
woman), and that this decision brings a serious threat to religious freedom. I
tend to agree that the SCOTUS decision will challenge the definition of
marriage as the world understands marriage, but what evangelicals fail to understand
is that believing the government can define marriage is like believing the
government has authority over God.
I for one, tend to believe that the SCOTUS decision was one
of the best things to ever happen to the evangelical church. There are a few reasons
for this, for one, this decision made people open their bibles to really see
what God says about marriage. Secondly, this decision exposed a very delicate
area of marriage that has divided many…divorce and remarriage. In particular,
it has really exposed the truth on no-fault divorce, and opened eyes to the
evils surrounding unilateral divorce laws. Thirdly, maybe it is time for the body of Christ to experience persecution so that many would repent of believing marriage is anything other than one man and one woman for life.
I think it is fair to say that he evangelicals do defend marriage as one man and one woman. That is not the
point. The point is there seems to be
hypocrisy when it comes to defending marriage from the same-sex crowd, but
ignoring the very real concerns surrounding divorce and remarriage. The recent case with Kim Davis was a prime
example of evangelicals ignoring the elephant in the room (divorce and
remarriage). Evangelicals defending marriage of one man and one woman believe
that just because the government validates same-sex unions, God would call
these unions’ sinful (homosexuality), and not marriages in the Lord. I would never
argue with that. I would simply point
out that those who believe scripture points for the permanence of marriage
would say that just because the government validates “remarriages” after a
divorce of a living estranged covenant spouse, God would call these unions
sinful (adulterous), and not marriages in the Lord.
The evangelicals seem to come to the defense of divorce and remarriage "claiming" God gave certain provisions (exception clauses) for certain situations. I, and many others will argue that some of these certain situations can always be rectified through reconciliation by way of repentance and forgiveness of sin. If reconciliation of a marriage is a real possibility in the case of adultery
within marriage, then why do not evangelicals fight for the idea that
“reconciling” in these adultery cases is a direct affront to God‘s word? If
there are exceptions to divorcing, would that mean reconciliation should be
excluded for these “exception” verses?
Here is a scenario to illustrate my point:
Joe and Mary enter into a one-flesh covenant marriage. They both
exchanged marriage vows in front of witnesses and the wedding was officiated by
an ordained minister named Pastor Randy. Ten years into the marriage, Mary has
an adulterous affair with Tom. According to this particular “exception clause”,
(Matthew 19:9) Pastor Randy says that Joe has the “option” to divorce Mary
because she committed adultery against him. Pastor Randy uses the NIV bible in
his church. The verse reads:
Matthew 19:9 (NIV) I tell you that anyone
who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman
commits adultery.”
Pastor Randy tells Joe that reconciliation is also a
possibility if Mary repents of her adultery. He states that Jesus would have us
forgive the sins of others as Christ forgave us. Joe immediately files for a divorce of Mary
because of her adultery with Tom. Joe is convinced that Matthew 19:9 permits
him to divorce and remarry another. Mary does in fact plead with Joe to forgive
her, as she repents and breaks off all associations with Tom. Joe remains
indignant to Mary’s repentance and divorces her through a unilateral divorce
law. What must be done here from a pastoral perspective? Does Pastor Randy slowly bow out and let everything to the hands of the state? How should he minister to the repentant Mary?
Is Joe required to forgive Mary, or “must” he divorce her
due to her sexual immorality? According to the “exception clause” in the NIV, Joe is permitted divorce Mary, and if he forgives Mary and remains married, he
would be contradicting the “exception clause”. The exception clause does not
say:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his
wife, except for sexual immorality, or if the wife repents of sexual immorality
and the husband chooses not forgive her, and marries another woman commits
adultery.”
If the scripture permits a husband to divorce his wife because
of “sexual immorality”, why would he ever forgive her if she repents? It’s as
if this scripture is the only unforgiveable sin. Is that really the case?
Some will say: This scripture (Matthew 19:9) applies to
unrepentant and repeated sexual immorality.
Ok…then why is the husband free to remarry after a divorce?
If she is an unrepentant adulterous woman, would not a divorce exclude her from
getting married to her adulterous partner?
If Joe divorces Mary and marries another, why would she
commit adultery if she marries another? Also, if Mary remarries and commits adultery against Joe, would not Joe commit adultery against Mary if he remarries?
The problematic verse for men like Pastor Randy is the
Matthew 5:32(NIV)…But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who
marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
How is it that it is the sin of “adultery”
if a man marries a “divorced” woman? If she is divorced, would not she be “single”
again? No, if she was “single’, she would be free to marry. According to this
scripture, a man who divorces his wife “causes” her to commit adultery. It is simple to understand that the divorce
only permits a wife to remain unmarried because a divorce does not end the
marriage covenant.When scripture says that a remarriage is not a marriage, it is saying that "remarriage" is adultery, and adultery can never be a marriage.
Paul understood this when he writes : To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. (1Cor 7:10,11)
Paul understood this when he writes : To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. (1Cor 7:10,11)
The command from the LORD for the husband to not divorce his wife would make it much more desirable to eradicate the sin that can lead to divorce. The idea that divorce ends the marriage is completely contrary to the whole story of the Bible. This idea that grace and mercy be extended within the confines of the marriage makes the definition of marriage much more powerful, if not more believable. It is no wonder that the world calls evangelicals hypocrites on how they freely divorce and remarry...Divorce can only take away from marriage definition, and never would divorce do anything other than take away from the definition of marriage. One man and one woman for life. (Genesis 2:24)
If divorce was a means in which to end a marriage, why have marriage in the first place? If divorce was a means to force reconciliation of the marriage becasue of hard hearts, then marriage is not only meaningful, it is a true reflection of the power of the Gospel. This is the point that the Lord is making for divorce. If divorce is your option, then, remain unmarried the rest of your days on earth. Death is the only way to end a marriage, and to believe otherwise will have eternal consequences.
In conclusion, my personal experience with marrying a divorced woman was not a wise decision. I believed the majority and ignored clear scripture (Luke 16:18) telling me that I was not to date a married woman, let alone move in with her and then marry her after she filed for a divorce. I have no one to blame but my self for the pain and humility that is associated with divorce. However, God works for the good for those who love Him, for those who are called according to His purpose. I love God and I thank him everyday for what He did for me through the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank Him for what He continues to do for me on a daily basis. I know that He is not done with me.
I do know that he has given me words for those who deviated from the permanence of marriage.
I know that this work is for eternal purposes by eternal love, and my prayers are that many will open their eyes to the truth of marriage. I only wish the road wasn't so sad sometimes, I wish the pain wasn't so hard sometimes, but I must hold on, hold on to His promises and trust Him when all seems beyond control. That is why on days like these, when I look back and see my own faults and those who hurt me and deceived me,.. I must keep all things in perspective. I think of His word and what Joseph endured, knowing that some things happen for reasons beyond my control, and for His glory.
Genesis 50:20 But
as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to
bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
In Christ's love,
Neil
No comments:
Post a Comment