Divorce and Remarriage
John Ruskin Gill
Table of Contents
Divorce and Remarriage
To survey intelligently the teachings of Scripture ' concerning the subject of divorce and remarriage, it is, 'one judges, -helpful to remember the character of the day in which they were delivered, and of the people to whom they were delivered.
Under the Law, as given by Moses, marriage did not bear the assured and honorable character it now possesses in civilized lands. The tie was frail and uncertain. It could be terminated at any time, at the option of the husband, and for practically any cause. All that he had to do to rid himself of the wife who had incurred his displeasure was to, write out a bill of divorcement, and hand it to her (Deut. 24:1,2). Thus, summarily, she was dismissed.
It is true that the Jews were not fully agreed as to, the interpretation to be put upon this provision of the Law (some putting upon it a more rigid construction than others), yet in the main among them the institution of marriage had sunk to a level which in our day we would deem incredible. On this point the writings of the scholarly William Kelly may be quoted: -
"It is only the facts recorded by historians, or the research of men of learning into the Rabbinical remains' which betray the excessive levity of the Jews as to marriage. The true obligations of the tie were unknown, and a wife’s place had no more stability than a servant's—if so much, indeed...
"It was so much the custom then to dismiss the wife because of petty dislike, etc., that it shocked them to hear the Lord insisting on the indissolubility of marriage tie. -
Thus, a new picture rises before us. It is that of an apostate people, zealous indeed for the outward forms of the Law, but degenerate in their home relationships; and particularly in that of marriage, The husband in a sudden gust of ill-temper sends his wife away with a bill of divorcement. Presently, he-marries again, perhaps only to retain the new wife for a shorter period. And this process might be repeated indefinitely. The whole marriage relationship was uncertain, fickle, frivolous, The whim of the husband (and perhaps in certain cases that of the wife) dominated the situation.
It was this state of things that confronted the Lord, and doubtless it was in view, of it that in the Gospels. He affirmed and' reaffirmed the sanctity of the marriage tie, and its enduring character: See Matt. 5:32; Matt: 19:3-10; Mark 10:2-13 Luke 16:18,
Yet the Lord's statement as to this is not unqualified, for in, the two scriptures first mentioned we, learn that the wife may in a certain case be put away, while in One of them, we learn that the innocent partner may marry again.." That this is the plain teaching of the Lord here. We unprejudiced -person can, doubt. That the, hearers would have inferred as much, without this explicit statement, is- quite certain,—for national custom, as we have remarked, and the provisions of the Law, allowed divorced persons to=re-marry without question, save for the solitary restriction of Deut. 24:4-the latter a case that would seldom come up.
But we may be asked if the teachings of Matthew are not superseded, or contradicted, bi those of Mark 10 and Luke 16? One admits an apparent difficulty here. ' Divorce and, remarriage alike seem to be ruled, out in the latter scriptures.
How are we to understand this? Is, the Lord inconsistent in His teachings? Does He forgets what He said? -Does He contradicts Himself at times? What true Christian would advance such a thought?—And which of us would entertain it?
Some whose views are extreme on this subject to avoid charging the Lord with inconsistency, take, refuge in the assumption that the teachings of Mark 10 and Luke 16 were given later than those of Matt. 19, and that the unfolding of truth on this point is therefore progressive. Belt such persons assume too much. There is nothing to prove this theory. Careful investigation will show that the teachings of, Matt. 19 and Mark 10 were given about the same, time, and in the same locality. Luke 16 may have been a little earlier. The Lord's utterances recorded in Matt. 19 may have been His last. We have, no proof that those in Mark were later. Again, it is possible that we have here one' discourse, recorded in part by each evangelist.
Is not the explanation, after all, quite simple?—Is it not that, the Lord in Mark 10 and Luke 16 has before him, the prevailing custom of the Jews concerning marriage? He is riot occupied with exceptional cases. The putting away of the wife, so strictly- forbidden there, is the putting of her away without 'worthy cause, in the usual frivolous, manner, simply on the whim of the husband. 19 the utterances recorded in Matthew, however, the Lord sees it good to bring in the exceptional case.
All is divine. All is in, harmony. To the subject mind there need be no difficulty. Indeed, how else can Scripture be reconciled? And how else can we avoid charging `the Lord with inconsistency? The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.- Psa. 1:2: 6.
Is it not apparent that to put an interpretation on Mark 10 that nullifies the plain teaching of Matt. 19 is, in effect, to cast a slut upon the Lord Himself, and to go counter to the principles which govern us elsewhere-in the interpretation of His word?
We are aware, that by some great importance is attached to the fact that in Mark's version part of the discourse was delivered in public, and part "in the house.” It is suggested here that -the house" typifies the house of God,- and-that ' therefore the eleventh and twelfth verses give us select teaching, reserved for the members of Christ-In other words, that we have here church truth, as compared with kingdom truth.
We are compelled to say that to us this seems too slender a foundation to build on. In Mark's Gospel (as in the other Gospels), the Lord is frequently found -in the house," or "in an house." There are nine or ten such examples in Mark.` The most of these could, by no stretch of the imagination, be given church significance. To insist upon it in this cast as, the basis of an important point of doctrine, gets us upon ground too mystical to be convincing.
Rom. 7:3, sometimes appealed to by extremists, is misleading' in out King James Version. In correct translations, nothing in it, will be found to be at variance with 'Matt. 19:9. The apostle here speaks Of a woman being "to another man" while her husband lives. That is, while married, she is maintaining an improper intimacy, with another. It does not bear on the subject before us nor do we find anything in any other scripture to nullify the teaching of the Lord- in Matt. 19:9. How could there be?
There we have an absolute abrogation of the. Law of Moses. "The law and the prophets were until John,"' but here was a greater than Moses and a greater than John., It is true that the church had not yet appeared upon the scene, and that the period was transitional, yet, both believer and unbeliever were gathered before Him, and the "I say unto you",, was directed at both, Here is teaching of general application. It is for mankind everywhere. It is for—us.
To sum up our findings, we may say that marriage, viewed the abstract, is indissoluble-figure indeed of the eternal relationship between 'Christ and the church. Eph. 5:25. The original purpose of God in ordaining it was that it should be dissolved by nothing short of death. But sin has soiled this institution, as many another-alas! The sin twice specified by the Lord breaks the marriage tie, and in recognition of it the guilty partner may be put away. Then the innocent one may marry again.
If it were otherwise the innocent would have to, suffer with the guilty, perhaps more than the guilty, who May be diverting himself with his unlawful intimacies. Does not such a thought savor of injustice? Would it be fair, even from a human standpoint, to attach a life-long penalty to the innocent person? To ask this question is to answer it. God is not unrighteous (Heb. 6:10).
In actual practice today a woman (for instance)—if divorced by her husband on such grounds as are common in the world—incompatibility of temperament, etc.—must, scripturally, remain Unmarried UNLESS the husband either before or after the divorce is guilty of fornication.
If he, after securing such a divorce, flurries again, he enters without divine title into the new alliance and becomes an adulterer. And thus the tie with his former wife, which up to this point had subsisted in God's account, is, broken. She (assuming her to be innocent); is then at liberty to marry again, scripturally.
In this connection it is not amiss, perhaps, to point out that the term 'fornication' in Scripture is not limited to the misdemeanors of single persons, but is of wide application, and covers moral lapses on the part of married persons, too. Thus at Corinth (I Cor. 5), fornication was adultery. See definition in Webster's Dictionary.
It may further be stated that irregularities in the past lives of persons since converted cannot now be charged against them. This applies to questions of divorce and remarriage, as well as to sin in every form. All that is blotted out through the efficacy of the precious 'blood, which has fully answered to God for both our guilty deed and our guilty state. Hence unscriptural divorce and remarriage in unsaved days is not a barrier to souls being received at the Lord's table.
The views suggested herein are not new, or peculiar to the writer. They are the old-time views of godly and gifted leaders among us. They have generally been accepted by brethren since the days of, Mr. Darby and evidence of this is to be found in, the history of many of our gatherings.
Mr. Kelly, in his Lectures on Matthew, interprets the 9th verse of the 19th Chapter as of present application, and remarks...Out the marriage tie is dissolved, under the circumstances there spoken of. If he fails to touch explicitly upon the remarriage of the injured partner it is doubtless because he thought it beyond controversy, in, view of the Lord's, own statement concerning it. Anyhow it is obvious that when the restraining tie is removed the innocent person is free in the full sense of the word. He has returned to his single status, and may do what any other single person may do.
That the views now advanced were held by Mr. Darby is as plain as his writings can make it. We quote from his published "Letters:”
"My Meaning in saying the tie was broken was this, that God never allowed the Christian to break the tie, but when adultery was committed the one doing so had broken the tie, and the Lord allowed the other party to hold it to be broken, and act on it by formal divorce-did not, require it, but allowed it. The legalization of it is submission to the powers that be for common order just as the, divorce was in Jewish jaw,"-Vol. 2, page 154.
"Mark 10 does not annul Matt. 19: A man putting away his wife is looked at as his act or will. If he puts away, he has broken a tie God formed, by his own will; then marrying another is adultery. By act of sin the tie was broken already, and judicial divorce allowed"... Let them obtain a divorce, and then they are free to marry."-Vol. 2, page 154.
"The passage in Rom. 7:2-3 does not exactly apply. The word 'married' is not in the Greek-at all. The woman is supposed to be in full connection with, and under the authority of the husband, and then is `to another man'-that is, faithless to the existing bond."(As unconverted I recognize nothing before except sin: say a heathen, he may as such have—had and left twenty wives. I ignore it call when he is converted."—Vol 2, page 227.
"The church must take persons as it finds them when converted."-Vol. 1, page 422.. -
The wisdom of a divorced Christian marrying again, or of one marrying him, is, of course another question. It is freely admitted that the whole subject of divorce is an unsavory one, and that even in better worldly circles a certain, odium is attached to it, and to those involved in its proceedings.
People at large; Whether they make Christian profession or not, are not able to distinguish between cases, nor between the innocent and the guilty. The whisper of the word "divorced" suffices among many to put its subject in a bad light, and to arouse prejudice against him and if such an one marries again this feeling may (whether intelligently or not) become intensified.
In this connection one may profitably consider 1 Cor. 10:32—"Giving none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God."
Some will be offended by such a union, irrespective of the circumstances connected with it. Scripture, as we have shown, in a certain case allows it yet the question of its wisdom remains. A thing may be lawful, yet not expedient. See 1 Cor. 10:23. As to this, Let each be persuaded in his own mind. Bute of course this principle applies to every phase of the Christian life, and to all our activities, of whatever sort they be. May the Lord give us to walk more in the sense' of it.
J. R. GILL