Jerry C. Brewer
Who May Marry?
There are only three classes of persons who may marry, according to the Scriptures. They are 1) those who have never been married (Heb. 13:4; 1 Cor. 7:28), 2) those who have been married but whose spouses have died (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39) and 3) those who have been married but are divorced because of their spouses’ fornication (Matt. 19:9). Though all persons in these classes are permitted to marry, they are only permitted to do so within the parameters of God’s law.
Marriage and Divorce
So important is the home of one woman, one man and their children to an orderly society that God intends for that relationship to continue for the lives of all involved. Marriage is “until death do us part,” and neither man nor legislative fiat has a right to allow a man and woman to divorce for every cause. In tandem with the neglect of children by working mothers who are married, the epidemic of divorce is also destroying the moral fabric of our states. Not only is divorce routinely permitted for any cause under the sun, but it is celebrated and extolled in popular culture.
Once upon a time, in a world that no longer exists, children in Longfellow Grade School in Elk City, Okla. read stories of a family consisting of a father, mother, and three children named Dick, Jane, and Sally. Those stories not only taught me, and others, to read, but imparted the ancient verities of a family structured after God’s pattern, familial love, honesty, truthfulness, and fidelity to each other. But somewhere along the path we have traveled in the past seven decades, Dick and Jane were slowly put to death.
God’s family structure that they confirmed in our young minds eroded into single-parent entities of popular culture like My Three Sons as social engineers in the 1960s began telling us to “do your own thing.” The selflessness of Dick and Jane and Sally’s family was replaced with self-obsession as we began a cultural and moral descent through Eddie’s Father of the 70s which culminated in Murphy Brown’s child born of fornication in the 90s. What killed Dick and Jane? The answer is found in the rejection of God’s order for the home which was, and continues to be, fueled by parents who want to “find themselves” by sacrificing their families on the altar of divorce for any cause.
There is only one God-ordained reason for divorce
Divorce for every cause has caused misery untold in our society and continues unabated at an accelerated pace. Statistically, the highest divorce rates in the nation are in the South where we have always been known as “The Bible Belt.” That is now a misnomer for our region. Our states have sown the wind of easy divorce and now reap the whirlwind of a crumbling society. Oklahoma is among the worst with the second highest divorce rate among the 50 states. That prompted Governor Frank Keating to say in 2001 that it was “easier for Oklahomans to get out of a marriage than a Tupperware contract”.1
Citing federal figures in 1999, the Associated Press reported that “there were about 4.2 divorces for every thousand people in 1998. That rate was 8.5 per thousand in Nevada, 6.4 in Tennessee, 6.1 in Arkansas, 6.0 in Alabama and Oklahoma.”2
God joins a man and a woman together as husband and wife when they marry according to the law of the land, and no human law can dissolve that bond. Only God can do so and He declares that fornication is the only reason He allows for one to divorce and marry another.
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered them and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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 (Mat. 19:3-9).
The Pharisees weren’t interested in the truth concerning marriage. They only sought to entrap Jesus, placing Him in opposition to one of two schools of thought, then extant, concerning divorce.
The school of Hillel taught that a man might divorce his wife for any reason, for any slight offense, or merely for his dislike of her person or manners; they based their opinions on Deut. 24:1, which says, ‘If she find no favor in his eyes,’ then he may ‘write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.’ The opposite school of Shammai allowed divorce only for adultery; this school based its decision on the same scripture (Deut. 24:1) which says, ‘Because he hath found some unseemly thing in her,’ which they interpreted as the sin of adultery.
If Jesus answered this question in the negative, He opposed the school of Hillel and would incur their enmity; but if He answered in the affirmative, He would incur the enmity of the school of Shammai.3
In His reply, Jesus aligned Himself with neither school but directed their attention to the creation of man and reaffirmed God’s law of marriage which has never been abrogated. God made man as male and female “at the beginning” and intends that husband and wife remain married for the duration of their earthly lives. He further emphasized that no divorce is allowed, except for the sin of fornication, and to divorce and remarry for any other cause is to enter into a state of adultery. Despite the legal maneuvering of modern Pharisees, any divorce and subsequent remarriage by either party, for a cause other than fornication, constitutes an adulterous union. One who divorces his wife, “except it be for fornication,” and marries another becomes an adulterer. He who marries her thus put away also becomes an adulterer because, in God’s sight, he is living with another man’s wife. The woman also becomes an adulteress because she is living with a man who isn’t her husband under God’s law. That means there may be four people living in adultery from one divorce, because of the laws and license of a secular/humanist civil government.
Only fornication can break the marriage bond and give the guiltless party the right to remarry in the sight of God. That’s what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 and He does not allow for the remarriage of the guilty party. Hence, when a man divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication and marries another he and the woman he marries enter into a state of adultery.
Easy divorce laws springing from the secular humanism of our present age have created a nation of adulterers and wreaked havoc upon American homes where multitudes now live in such unions. God’s law of marriage was made for man’s good—a fact that should be obvious considering the misery that broken homes have brought to our communities. Children today have a mother in one place, a father in another, step-parents, step-grandparents, half and step-siblings, and bickering, selfish relatives who add to the confusion. Then one wonders what is wrong with the younger generation! What is wrong is the abdication of parental responsibility by self-seeking, pseudo-adults who are more concerned with “finding themselves” and sating their own lusts than caring for the children they bring into the world. Adherence to God’s law of marriage by repudiating legalized adultery would remedy much of the misery suffered by children today.
I am no prophet, nor the son of one, but there is another grave consequence that I can foresee resulting from the practice of serial polygamy by a series of cohabitation by the unmarried and divorce and remarriage by others. Many of these unions result in the production of children—children who are of differing lineages. A woman may shack up with five or six different men and have children by them all. A person who is divorced and remarried multiple times may have children in the same way. It may not occur in my lifetime, but in the future these dysfunctional families, with disjointed offspring having no knowledge of their lineage, can easily form incestuous unions. The result will be a generation of mentally and physically infirm humans—the fruit and consequence of today’s “if-it-feels-good-do-it” generation. God’s order of one man and one woman who are married for life is not only for the good of the present generation, but for all future generations.
Errors Concerning Divorce and Remarriage
The “Pauline Exception” of First Corinthians chapter seven
It is postulated by some that when one who is in an adulterous union obeys the gospel, he is forgiven of his sins and may remain in that union. This doctrine has led, and will continue to lead, souls to eternal loss. One who is in such a union and becomes a Christian must leave that union. To remain in it indicates he has not repented, for repentance demands a cessation of sin. Repentance is a change of the will (Matt. 21:28-29) which is prompted by godly sorrow (2 Cor. 5:7) and is manifested in a changed manner of living (Matt. 3:8). Repentance also involves restitution—making right the wrongs one has committed to the extent that one is able to do so. One cannot embezzle money from his employer, obey the gospel, continue to embezzle and fail to pay back money previously stolen. One who so conducts himself has not repented, and neither has the man who is in an adulterous marriage and remains in it after being baptized.
The idea that one does not have to leave an adulterous union upon his obedience to the gospel is based on what some have called “The Pauline Exception”, derived from a false construction of Paul’s teaching on marriage in First Corinthians, chapter seven. But those who claim Paul made an exception to Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage are guilty of arraying Scripture against Scripture and Paul against Jesus. No such “exception” exists. In First Corinthians 7:1-7, Paul deals with the relationship of married persons to one another. He then goes on to deal with other marriage-related matters, including his advice for the unmarried (1 Cor. 7:8-9). He then directs his attention to those who are married and reiterates the Lord’s teaching concerning marriage (1 Cor. 7:10-11).
Then, Paul says in verse 12, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” It is this statement from which many have conjured up the “Pauline Exception.” But Paul is not offering his own advice or opinion. He affirms that the things he writes in this epistle are “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul is not arraying himself against Christ, but is revealing something which Christ did not personally teach while He was on earth. That’s the exact import of Jesus’ statement to the apostles in John 14:26 and 16:13. He told them that when the Holy Spirit came, He would not only remind them of all things Christ had taught them, but would guide them “into all truth” which at that time they were “not able to bear.” It is not possible that Jesus taught one thing about marriage and divorce and Paul taught another. Neither is it possible that the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to contradict the teaching of Jesus. The further truth into which the apostles were guided would never contradict truth which Jesus taught while He was among them. That such a “Pauline Exception” does not exist is evident from the subsequent instructions Paul delineates for those in verses 12 through 16. The subject under consideration in these verses is one on which the Lord had not spoken while He was on earth—marriage between a believer and an unbeliever.
Then in verses17-24, Paul applies the general principles he has just set forth concerning marriage to other relationships, saying, “as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk,” and ends that section saying, “Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” These two statements are also used by those who believe they see a “Pauline Exception” to Jesus’ law of marriage in Matthew 19. But the key to understanding these statements is found in the phrase, “therein abide with God.” None of the conditions which Paul treats in this section are sinful or unlawful. He says if one is called being a Gentile, he does not have to be circumcised, nor does one who is called as a Jew have to become a Gentile (v. 18). He applies that same principle to bond-servants and free men in verses 21 through 23, saying in verse 20, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” Note carefully, that none of these relationships—servant, free, Jew or Gentile—are in themselves unlawful or sinful. But adultery is sinful and unlawful (Matt. 19:9; cf. Matt. 14:4) and Paul, who exploded the false doctrine that one may “continue in sin that grace may abound” (Rom. 6:1-2), would certainly not urge Christians to continue living in adultery. He simply applied the inspired principles he had given to Christians who are married to unbelievers to those in other civil relations. There is no such thing as a “Pauline Exception” to the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:9.
Jesus’ teaching on marriage is “not part of the New Testament”
Another error that is extant concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage is that the four gospel accounts, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not part of the New Testament, but actually belong to the Mosaic covenant. The conclusion from that false premise is that what Jesus said during His earthly ministry—including His statement in Matthew 19 concerning marriage—is not part of the new covenant. That is a blatantly false teaching derived from a false premise. Mark wrote,
The beginning (emph. JCB) of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight” (Mark 1:1-3).
The Gospel of Christ began with John’s work and every word which Jesus spoke, and which the four gospel writers penned, constitute a part of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.
It would be strange, indeed, if Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 constitutes a part of the law of Moses, for God said in Exodus 34:27, “for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.” The statement here is in the past tense—“…I have made.” If Matthew 19 belongs to the law of Moses, then God delayed the completion of His covenant with Israel for about 1,500 years and lied when He said, “I have made…” This position is not only false, it is blasphemous.
Moreover, Jesus explained that God’s law of marriage was established “at the beginning” and has never been repealed. God’s law of marriage antedated the Law of Moses and continues in force today as surely as His law of capital punishment for murderers (Gen. 2:23-24; Mat. 19:8-9; Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:3-4).
God’s marriage law does not apply to “non-members”
This was the position of E. C. Fuqua in his debate with Thomas Warren in 1955. Fuqua said that those outside of the church are amenable to civil law, but not to Christ’s law on marriage, divorce and remarriage.4 His proposition, stated in the negative, was the same as that of James Bales.5 Fuqua said non-Christians are not amenable to the law of Christ, and Bales said that Jesus’ teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage applies only to members of the church. If those outside of Christ are not amenable to God’s law of marriage, then who is to say they are amenable to any of God’s laws? What of polygamists who obey the gospel? Will they be allowed to keep all of their wives? If they are not amenable to Christ’s law, then even sodomites may continue in their sinful state after obeying the gospel! That ridiculous doctrine is similar to the one which holds that those who have never heard the gospel will be saved. That doctrine says that because they have never known the gospel, they are not required to believe it and obey it—that God will save them in their ignorance. But it is not ignorance or a failure to hear the gospel that makes men lost. It is sin (Rom. 3:23; 6:23) and one in sin is lost despite his failure to hear the gospel. The same is true with those in unlawful marriages who are outside of Christ, as John clearly pointed out to Herod. It was not lawful for him to have his brother Philip’s wife (Mat. 14:3-4), even though neither he nor Herodias were children of God. Again, God’s marriage law is universal and has been in force “from the beginning.”
Redefining “adultery”
Others, like Rubel Shelly, have redefined the word “adultery” to mean something other than illicit sexual relations. They say the word simply means “covenant breaking.”6 According to this definition, adultery is simply the act of divorcing, thus one may divorce for any cause and remarry without being in a continuing state of adultery. That this is not the Biblical definition of adultery is clearly seen in the case of the woman who was taken in the act of adultery and brought to Jesus.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? (John 8:4-5).
According to Shelly’s definition, this woman was taken in the “very act” of filing for a divorce! Who can believe it? She was taken in the act of unlawful sexual intercourse and Jesus’ enemies wanted Him to condemn her to death, based upon the law’s injunction in Leviticus 20:10.
In John 8:3-4, the word “adultery” occurs twice. The first occurrence is in noun form and the second is in verb form. Moicheia is the Greek noun translated “adultery” in verse 3, and the charge against the woman is stated in verb form—“taken in adultery”—in verse 4. Thayer says this word means, “adultery…to commit adultery…to commit adultery with, have unlawful sexual intercourse with another’s wife.”7 The Pharisees knew what the word “adultery” meant in their law and they knew the penalty for it. Had they thought it meant “the act of divorce,” they certainly would not have insisted that the woman be put to death, for they were also guilty of divorce “for every cause” (Mat. 19:3, 7-8). Like the Pharisees, men in our day pervert and redefine the Scriptures to suit their peculiar desires and doctrines. Adultery is an illicit sexual act and man’s redefinition of it does not change God’s Word.
How to Prepare for a Long and Happy Marriage
Marriage is the solemn union of a man and woman for life—a life that will always be filled with highest joys, deepest sorrow, and toilsome burdens. Job said, “Man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble” (Job 14:1) but if a man and woman love each other as Christ loved us (Eph. 5:22-25) and if they love God above all (Deut. 6:4-5) the trials of life can be endured together. True marital happiness can be achieved only by following in the selfless footsteps of Jesus who gave Himself for us (Rom. 5:6-8). Husbands must love their wives more than self and above all others but God, and wives must love their husbands in like manner.
Like the Christian life, marriage is a lifelong journey which wives and husbands must travel together. It is not a “happily-ever-after”affair in the fashion of fairy tales, but an arduous trek in which a husband and wife must ever guard against sins that not only separate them from God, but from each other. The way will sometimes be dark and treacherous, but the light of God’s word will never fail those who trust it (Psa. 119:105). Though their path may descend into darkest canyons or climb the sun-washed peaks of life’s highest hills, the journey of those who love God and each other will lead at last to the land that is fairer than day, across which no shadows shall ever fall and where God is the Light Eternal.
When brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., whom I knew and loved, performed his grand daughter’s wedding ceremony in 1975, he described true marriage. His words ought to resonate through the minds of all who contemplate this sacred state and ever be remembered on their journey.
And now that you have both chosen to fly from the shelter of your paternal roof, to embark on your own, let me impress upon you something you must always remember—that true marriage is not a mere outward physical attraction, it is a union of minds, and affinity of hearts. In the toils of time, beauty will one day fade from the cheek, and the gleam of luster from the eye, but if your hearts have been wedded, and your minds are united, every wrinkle will become a beauty spot and every furrow an ornament. And you will travel the path of life together into the glow of its golden day.8
Works Cited
1. Harden, http://www.hvk.org/articles/0501/86.html.
2. David Crary, “Bible Belt Leads U.S. in Divorces,” Associated Press, Nov. 12, 1999 http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd111999g.html.
3. H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on The Gospel According To Matthew, (Nashville, Gospel Advocate Co., 1936), 385-386.
4. Jim Waldron, Tract, Marriage and Divorce (Crossville, TN, J. Waldron, 2004) 6.
5. James D. Bales, Not Under Bondage (Searcy, AR, James D. Bales, 1979).
6. Rubel Shelly, “The Sermon on The Mount,” Tape, April 3, 1988, cited by Jim Waldron in his tract, Marriage and Divorce (J. Waldron, Crossville, TN, 2004) 7.
7. Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament, (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 5th Printing, 2002) 417.
8. “Remarks In Wedding Ceremony by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Uniting Tommy McCormack and Julia Wallace May 24, 1975,” Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Soldier of The Cross, eds. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Garner ( Ft. Worth, Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999) 243.
