Expert: Marvin Howard - 10/6/2007

Question
QUESTION: Greetings Brother in Christ,

I am member of the Church of Christ and I often come to this site to review and research answers given by experts such as yourself to build my own knowledge in the word.  I recently came across an a question directed to another expert on this site concerning marriage and remarriage.  His answer was elegantly delivered, supported by Scripture and to best of my knowledge used in the proper context, but I can honestly say I was shocked by his answer.  I did my best to follow his answer in my Bible and in doing so it appears that he is correct in say that saying if a person is married, gets divorced and remarried he/she is not committing adultery.  At one point in the answer a reference was made to Paul speaking to the Saints in Corinth where he is addressing the unmarried and widows "But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.  But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (I Corinthians 7: 8-9).  

I have read many of your answers, online sermons and viewed your research and I must say that I truly have been impressed with the depth and thoroughness in all of your works.  With that being said I will posse the question to you. If a person is married, gets divorced and then remarried is he/she then committing adultery in the second marriage?  Please help me to clearly understand this topic, thank you in advance.

In Christ,

Hassan

ANSWER: Hi!

Brother Hasan, thank you for the opportunity to answer this for you. I deeply appreciate the confidence you place in me, but I must caution you that I am a mere man. I will do my best, but do not accept what I say without making absolutely sure of the answer for yourself. This is a difficult question. Even the Apostles made that acknowledgment in Matthew 19:10.

I know the Expert Brother to whom you refer. He is one of my closest friends on the web. It is in this point that we disagree. To make sure there is no misrepresentation by me (or misunderstanding by others) of his position, please allow me to state it succinctly. My friend believes that if a person divorces and remarries, then he/she DOES commit adultery, save with TWO exceptions; fornication AND the departure of an unbeliever. He does not condone or support divorce and remarriage in every case. In fact, it is still in rather few cases; especially today, in light of more people being aware of Christianity than were so aware in the days of Paul. I said it before, and I’ll say it again before someone reads this and accuses me of heresy, such is not my position.

The problem, as I see it, is one of translation and desire. It is an attempt (and a seemingly plausible one at that) to make Scripture fit an extant idea, rather than allowing it to interpret itself. For a while, I actually thought I could see his reasoning as valid just as you did. We have debated the issue before. Perhaps a new study of the Word for your benefit will provide me with a fresh insight for use in our discussions. Let us begin with the Scripture you reference, which he uses to substantiate his position, albeit in deeper context.

1st Corinthians 7:10-20, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 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 a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 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. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.”

In this passage the word, “depart,” is being misrepresented as if it speaks of divorce. Such is not the case, and I hope to prove it in this study; both by definition and context.

χωρίζω
chōrizō
kho-rid'-zo
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate.

Though Strong and Thayer both include it, this word has no reference to divorce. Context must decide. This speaks of giving distance; not complete severance. This concept is amplified by the idea of future reconciliation. Any children remain “clean” (a reference most likely pertaining to inheritances since the Jewish laws of cleanliness had been repealed), not as one born out of wedlock, under these circumstances, while such is not true in divorces. This is simply a separation.

Divorce has a different word, “ἀφίημι.” As with the translation (put away), this is actually a compound word. It comes from the primary particle, “ἀπό,” (apo' - which has cessation as part of its meaning), and “ἵημι,” (hee'-ay-mee – to leave, forsake, lay aside, and yield up are some of its meanings).

Contextually, please notice that the word, “depart,” is actually contrasted against “putting away” (χωρίζω vs. ἀφίημι). Basically, the text states clearly that if the unbeliever departs, the believer is not to divorce him/her. How is it possible, if the couple is already divorced, that the believer could then divorce the unbeliever yet a second time? Quite simply, it is not possible. These are two entirely different verbs, denoting two entirely different actions.

The other word that gives some a problem within this passage is the word, “bondage.” It is believed that this is a reference to God’s marriage law. It is not. The Greek has the word, “δουλόω” (doo-lo'-o). This is not the obligatory bondage to God and His Laws (δουλεύω - dool-yoo'-o), but rather one that is self-imposed. In other words, if an unbelieving spouse leaves, and that because of the belief of the believer, the believer is not to be disheartened. The believer is not to use it as an excuse to cease his service to the Lord by seeking reunification by compromise with the unbeliever. The believer is not to chase after the unbeliever to the point where his/her service to God suffers in any way. The believer is not to become side-tracked with such a personal matter. Context proves this by continuing and referencing serving under whatever circumstances are present (i.e., circumcision/uncircumcision and slave/freeman). Jesus used another idiom to express this thought; “Follow me: and let the dead bury their dead.” (Matthew 8:22)

The Lord gave ONE exception to the creation law regarding marriage; fornication. No other is given elsewhere. Trying to place 1st Corinthians 7 10-20 in the same category as Matthew 5:27-28 and 19:3-12 is the equivalent of a comparison of apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but that is where the similarity stops.

This is a serious matter. For the benefit of others who may read this answer, I would close with a short study of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:3-12.

Matthew 19:3-12, “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 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 did Moses then 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. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

In this passage, Jesus circumvented the Law of Moses by appealing back to God’s marriage laws as intended from creation. Jesus gave one exception to the rule; fornication (which by definition includes adultery but is not limited to that definition). Oftentimes people want to say that it is the divorce that is the sin. If such is the case, then subsequent salvation to that divorce would allow for remarriage. I submit that such is not true. It is the remarriage that is a sin if the divorce was not for fornication.

How can one tell which is referenced? Quite simply, Greek verb conjugation shows the answer. “Μοιχάω” (moy-khah'-o), has a parsing code given as V-PNI-3S. This means that the verb is Present Tense, Infinitive Mood, and Augmented. The augmentation is Third Person and Singular. Basically, this means that each, applicable person is committing the adultery, it happens immediately upon the beginning of the action, and it keeps happening so long as the action continues. Therefore, whichever action is referenced is one that continues. A divorce is a one time event. It is excluded from application. A “marriage” is a continuous action. Since committing adultery is continuous in this conjugation, being unlawfully “married” is that which is called committing adultery.

The only way to be forgiven of a sin is to repent. This means to give up the sin. Since it is the unlawful “marriage” that is a sin, to remain “married” is to remain unrepentant and therefore unforgiven. This explains Jesus’ statement about eunuchs at the end of this passage. Some people are born eunuchs. Some people become eunuchs at the hands of men. Then those who are divorced for unscriptural reasons are to voluntarily remain eunuchs to remain in the kingdom of God. If a divorce happens for other than Scriptural reasons (fornication), then that person is to never have intercourse (remain a eunuch) for as long as his/her spouse (and in God’s eyes it is still that person’s spouse) remains alive.

Brother Hasan, I believe I have succeeded in both of my goals with this answer. I thank you for making me look into this more deeply. I commend you for your search for truth. Please do not hesitate to ask further questions if needed. Just make sure the counsel you receive is correct, regardless of its source.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Your answer is greatly appreciated and for the most what mine own study has led me to believe.  However, I do have a follow-up two part questions.  In the case that a husband and wife divorce for a non-spiritual reason (fornication/adultery).  Since it is fornication if either one of them marries someone else, at this point (or even in the case where there is spiritual divorce) is the other or both of them allowed to remarry.  Also, if one or both of them fornicate after they divorce, but before they marry someone else is that still considered adultery.  

I hope that my questions are presented in a clear manner.  I sometime tend to be unclear when it make perfect sense to me.  My quest is to come to a better and more clear understand around this topic.  Your previous response has already tremendously helped my understanding, thank you.

In Christ,

Hassan

Answer
Hi!

Brother Hasan, I am more than happy to help you finish in addressing this issue. Your points are quite clear. Before we begin, I want to ask you a hypothetical question. In its answer, you will find the answer to both parts of this latest inquiry.

Let's say that a couple is married. There has been no talk of divorce. However, lurking in the back of the man's mind is the thought that he is unhappy. He wants a divorce, but is afraid of asking. Additionally, he does not want to be forced to remain a eunuch. Short of murder, the only way out is for his wife to commit adultery. Nevertheless, the wife loves her husband, and is quite happy with him. She will never cheat on him, and he knows it. So, the husband drugs the wife, ties her to the bed, and has another man come to rape her. His rationale is that she had sex with another man, so he is free. Is he correct?

By now, I am sure that you are appalled at this man's unmitigated gall. What man in his right mind would think that he could free himself by causing his wife to commit adultery, or vice versa?

2nd John 9-11, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds."

While this passage is normally not involved in cases of divorce, in our hypothetical, it does fit. This person would be sending a spouse on his/her way; wishing them well (the meaning of χαίρω - Godspeed). You are the one guilty of the adultery. If you are the party guilty of adultery (even if both parties are guilty), you are not free to marry.

Why does this pertain to your question?

Matthew 5:32, "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, CAUSETH her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Emphasis mine, MRH)

"Putting away," in our modern vernacular, is having the courts finalize the divorce, as it comes after the "Writing of Divorcement" (Matthew 5:31). "Putting away" is not the first step, but the last. The "Writing of Divorcement" is the first step; equivalent to notification of divorce proceedings through an attorney.

Our hypothetical showed a spouse causing adultery in the other. To divorce a spouse for other than fornication is the equivalent of being a participant in our hypothetical; one spouse causes the adultery of the other as surely as forcing rape by another.

Brother Hasan, I have heard it preached, by Brother Charles Atnip (at Saint Mary's GA in 1988), that the adultery that allows a spouse to be free can only occur during the marriage. Anything subsequent to a divorce does not count. This is why. Any such subsequent adultery (including remarriage) is actually caused by the divorce and the first spouse. I pray that I have demonstrated the seriousness of the situation, and made your stance on the issue as solid as a rock.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962