|
May the Guilty Party Remarry?
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword
David R. Pharr
There is a caution in Hebrews 12:16-17 that seems
especially relevant to our subject:
|
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane
person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat
sold his birthright. For ye know how that
afterward, when he would have inherited the
blessing, he was rejected: for he found no
place for repentance, though he sought it
carefully with tears. |
Our attention in this text is not on whether Esau
is charged with being a fornicator as well as
being profane. Rather it is on the emphasis that
is given to the fact that once he had sold his
birthright there was no way for him to get it
back. Though he sought it with bitter tears, there
was no way he could undo what had already been
done. It is possible for sin to create some
circumstances for which there is no remedy. Some
things done can never be undone. "All the king's
horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty
Dumpty back together again." The person whose
marriage is destroyed because of his own guilt of
fornication has forfeited his right to martial
happiness. Like Esau, he may cry bitter tears and
wish that he had never committed the sin, but what
he has done cannot be undone.
The lectureship assignments are designed to cover
all aspects of marriage, divorce, and remarriage
issues. My assignment is on the specific question
of whether the guilty party may remarry in a
divorce situation which was caused by his or her
fornication. This question presupposes that there
is an innocent party in the divorce and that he or
she initiated the divorce because of the other's
immorality. This discussion does not address
whether the innocent one can remarry, though we
certainly believe such is permitted. That will be
discussed in other lectures. Our attention at this
time is only on the question: "May the Guilty
Party Remarry?"
For example, suppose John is married to Jane. John
commits fornication. Jane divorces John because of
his fornication. Jane is free to marry someone
else. She has the right to remarry, whether she
chooses to do so or not. Her obligations as the
wife of John no longer exist. But now that his
marriage is dissolved, is John also permitted to
marry someone else? Some reason that inasmuch as
the previous marriage no longer exists John could
enter into a God-approved marriage with another
woman. Some who hold this view readily agree that
neither party could Scripturally remarry if the
divorce is for any reason other than fornication.
They argue, though, that the fact of fornication
has permitted the marriage to be dissolved and
that as it has been dissolved neither party is
restricted from marrying another. Our examination
of the Scriptures, however, will show that such is
not the case.
The Guilty Party
The term "guilty party" is not found in the Bible.
It is necessarily inferred, however, from the fact
that if there is a divorce on grounds of
fornication, there must have been someone guilty
of fornication. We are speaking of the one guilty
of fornication in a situation wherein the spouse
is not guilty of fornication and exercises the
right to terminate the marriage.
Several years ago we heard a brother argue
vehemently that there was no such thing as an
innocent party in any divorce. Apparently his
contention was that while the one might have been
involved in immoral behavior, the other was guilty
of other things. He seemed to think that as this had
to be the case, the right to divorce for the cause
of fornication could not be claimed. It could only
be claimed, so he seemed to reason, if the one not
guilty of fornication had never committed any kind
of infraction against the marriage. In other words,
unless the wife could rightly claim that she had
been a perfect wife, she could not divorce her
husband because of his sin, even if it were
fornication. The obvious problem with this position,
however, is that it makes Jesus' inclusion of the
fornication exception meaningless. Why would the
Lord have named such a possibility if no such
possibility could ever exist? Clearly sexual
unfaithfulness is a crime of such magnitude against
a marriage that it stands in a special class as a
sin that may do irreparable damage to the marriage.
Other failures as regards the obligations of
marriage are not in the same class.
Having said this, however, attention should be given
to a situation in which one party deliberately
contributes to the other's becoming guilty of
fornication. For example, there have been cases in
which a wife has withheld herself from her husband
in the expectation that he would eventually commit
fornication. Likewise there have been men who would
so psychologically abuse their wives as to drive
them into the arms of other men. There have even
been cases in which a spouse arranged to have the
other seduced. In any case falling into the sin of
fornication is inexcusable. At the same time,
though, we surely recognize that the spouse who
pushed the mate into sin is not truly an innocent
party. He (or she) could not claim the right to
divorce and remarry, even though the mate was guilty
of fornication. The reason should be obvious. If
such were allowed it would mean he could gain an
advantage by his own sinful actions in deliberately
pushing his mate toward immorality. It would be a
case of doing evil that good may come (Rom. 3:8).
The very real possibility, therefore, that the one
viewed by others as being innocent might be guilty
of pushing "the guilty party" into fornication
should make us very cautious about giving advice.
The fornication cannot be justified, the other
spouse may not be at all to blame. In many cases,
however, only the Lord and the persons actually
involved will really know.
The Right to Marry
Who gives men and women the right to marry? Clearly
marriage is ordained by God. People have a right to
marry because God gives them that right. Jesus
reminded that God's law concerning marriage was
"from the beginning" in order to emphasize that any
departure from the original plan was because of
hardness of heart (Matt. 19:8). Simply stated, God's
law regarding marriage is for one man and one woman
to be married only to each other for as long as they
both are alive. Generally the right to marry is a
right which is extended to every person (assuming
physical and mental ability and allowable
circumstances). It must be emphasized, however, that
this is a right granted by God, it is not an
inherent right. Since, therefore, God alone grants
the right to marry, He can also restrict or remove
that right.
This is demonstrated in Romans 7:3, where Paul shows
that a woman in a certain circumstance does not have
an inherent right to marry as she chooses.
|
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is
free from that law; so that she is no
adulteress, though she be married to another
man. |
A woman in the circumstance of being already married
does not have the right to marry another. When she
married her husband she surrendered the right to
marry another for as long as her husband lives.
Consider also the instructions in I Corinthians
7:10-11. Here again we will see that the right to
marry is restricted.
|
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... |
Notice that the wife who departs from her husband is
to remain unmarried. The right to marry (another) is
a right she does not have. The right to marry is
contingent upon certain conditions. Stated
conversely, the right to marry is withheld in
certain circumstances.
In Matthew 19:9 Jesus teaches that there is only one
exception to the law that no one, not any person,
has the right to divorce and marry another. That one
exception is the person who puts away his spouse
because of the spouse's fornication. This is the
only person allowed to divorce and marry another.
Since this is the only person (the one who has
divorced a mate because of fornication) allowed to
remarry after a divorce, it is obvious that the
guilty party is not allowed to remarry. If the
guilty party is allowed to remarry, it would have to
follow that the one exception Jesus named is not the
one exception!
In an effort to evade the force of this conclusion,
some have argued that the exception phrase should be
understood as applying in the last part of the
Matthew texts, as well as in the first. They argue
that this can be assumed. According to this
assumption, the last of text should read: "... he
that marrieth her which is put away, except for
fornication, doth commit adultery." By assuming
that the phrase should be repeated, it might be
interpreted that the guilty party can remarry. Hugo
McCord's response to this position is worthy of
careful consideration.
|
They know that in no Greek manuscript does the
exceptive phrase appear in the second clause,
and that without its being there, their cause
is lost. Therefore they say the phrase must be
inferred in the second clause. They ought to
be afraid to risk people's souls on an
unnecessary inference. And in their case the
inference is not only unnecessary, but it
makes Jesus contradict himself. In the first
clause Jesus allowed only offended divorcees
to remarry, but if the exceptive phrase is
inferred in the second clause, then Jesus
allowed offending divorcees to remarry. It is
not complementary to an interpreter so to add
to Jesus' words as to make him contradict
himself in one sentence.... |
Brother McCord continues with observations relative
to the original text:
|
Actually, however, the omission of the
definite Greek article from the second
clause forbids grammatically (besides the
contradiction) carrying over the exceptive
phrase to the second clause. This is true
because the second clause in omitting the
definite article cannot refer to any
specific woman, but to any put-away woman. A
marriage with any put-away woman, Jesus
asserted, is adultery. To make Jesus say
that he was only eliminating non-adulterous
wives from remarriage, not adulterous ones,
is slander against the beauty of the Lord's
teaching.
The AV and the ASV both are faithful to the
text in omitting the article from the second
clause. The RSV and the NASV are clear,
setting forth precisely what the Lord
said... But the NEB ("a woman thus
divorced") and the NIV ("a woman so
divorced") bring the exceptive phrase of the
first clause into the second, and so do not
faithfully translate Jesus' words.i.
|
Who has the right to marry, therefore, is
the issue relative to the guilty party in a
Scriptural divorce. The issue is not whether the
marriage is broken. Neither is the issue whether the
man and woman become free from each other. The issue
is whether God grants to the guilty party the right
to marry.
It is sometimes argued that once the marriage is
broken there is no obligation of fidelity toward one
another, and that therefore to enter into marriage
with another could not constitute a violation of the
marriage contract. But there is more involved than
the end of obligations between the parties. There is
also obligation to honor Divine restrictions. God
gives the innocent party the right to remarry. He
does not give the same right to the one whose
fornication caused the break of a union which God
had ordained should last for a lifetime.
J.D. Thomas summarized this aspect of the issue
clearly:
|
The original marriage called for a union until
death, which each spouse was obligated to
uphold. The only thing that can ever
break the marriage bond while both parties are
alive is fornication, and that only for the
innocent party! "Except for fornication"
is the one justifying ground for remarriage to
another;, but the guilty party does not
have this justifying ground. It is
possible only for the innocent spouse. The
guilty one is therefore still under all
obligations toward the first marriage that he
ever was, in the sense of being "bound to it"
by God's law. Nothing has happened to give
him freedom!... He still has an obligation
that remains. If he should later repent, this
will remove his guilt, but not his status.ii |
Is Sin Profitable?
A comparison of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 shows
three possibilities of adultery. (1) Adultery is
committed by the man who divorces his wife and
marries another (unless he divorced her because of
her fornication). (2) Adultery is committed by the
divorced wife (assuming that she entered into a
relationship with another man). This is the meaning
of "causeth her to commit adultery" (Matt. 5:32).
(3) Adultery is committed by the man who marries the
wife who was divorced. Of course there is also the
necessary inference that adultery is committed by
the one who marries the one named in (1), because
one could hardly be married to one who is in an
adulterous marriage without being also guilty of
adultery.
Consider the case of the wife who is put away. By
divorcing her, her husband puts her into a position
wherein she will commit adultery if she marries
another. She does not have a right to marry another.
Keep in mind that Jesus does not attribute any blame
on her part for the break up of the marriage. That
she was not guilty of fornication is clear because
Jesus said she would be caused to commit adultery,
and if she were already guilty of adultery, her
husband would not be causing her to commit adultery
by putting her away. Perhaps she burned the food.
Perhaps she became unattractive. Regardless of the
purpose of the husband, Jesus does not indicate that
she was at fault. Still she does not have a right to
marry another. This point is reinforced by the fact
that the man who marries her also commits adultery.
He has no right to marry her because she has no
right to marry anybody.
If the wife who is divorced for reasons less than
fornication does not have a right to remarry, by
what token of logic and fairness can it be assumed
that one who is divorced because he has been guilty
of fornication does have a right to remarry? This
would make sin profitable. There would be less
hardship for the person who commits fornication and
as a result is divorced than it would be for the
person who does right and is divorced for it.
To emphasize the point, consider these scenarios.
First, there is the case of John who divorces Jane
because Jane was guilty of fornication. Jane then
marries Bill. Jane and Bill are not guilty of
adultery because her first marriage was dissolved on
the grounds that she was guilty of fornication. This
would be the case if the guilty party has the
right to marry another.
In the second scenario, Mary is divorced by Sam
because she is a Christian and Sam does not like
being married to a Christian. Mary subsequently
marries Ed. According to Jesus' explicit statement,
both Mary and Ed are guilty of adultery. "But I say
unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife...
causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"
(Matt. 5:32).
The notion that the guilty party may remarry puts a
premium on sin. Jane, in the first case, is given
the right to remarry because her divorce was because
of her immorality. Mary, in the second case, is not
permitted to remarry because she chose to be a
Christian wife. Surely no thinking person can
swallow such conclusions and it is a slander to
accuse Jesus of teaching such (see Rom. 3:8).
The Enormity of Fornication
It is evident that Jesus intends that fornication
must be viewed as a sin of exceptional consequence.
He did not, of course, single it out arbitrarily.
When committed by one who is married it is a sin
against the marriage that is exceptionally
intolerable. No one is expected to tolerate the
sexual infidelity of his or her mate. A husband and
wife become one flesh in marriage. For one of them
to become "one flesh" (I Cor. 6:16) with a third
person is to have committed a crime of such
magnitude against the marriage that the marriage may
be dissolved and the innocent spouse is allowed to
remarry. The one who commits fornication, however,
has thereby forfeited his or her right to insist on
the continuance of the marriage, and, if divorced
for it, also the right to be married to another.
Though the world may treat immorality with
tolerance, the Lord showed it to be a crime of
enormous consequences.
It is argued that if the guilty party cannot remarry
he/she is thereby sentenced to a life of celibacy
and that this would be too harsh a sentence. It is
thought that if there is true repentance, the person
should not be required to forfeit martial bliss for
the rest of life. Such, however, is indeed the awful
consequence. Truly "the way of transgressors is
hard" (Pro. 13:15). Some actions have irreparable
consequences.
That we might be impressed with the enormity of this
kind of sin, it will help to recall penalties
provided under the law of Moses.
|
And the man that committeth adultery with
another man's wife, even he that committeth
adultery with his neighbor's wife, the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be
put to death (Lev. 20:10). |
The rite of bitter waters described in Numbers 5
shows the Lord's curse upon a wife that was defiled
in fornication. By way of comparison, we find that
sexual activity which does not involve a married
woman does not require as severe punishment.
|
And if a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely
endow her to be his wife (Ex. 22:16). |
Our point is not to trace all the variations of the
Mosaic law regarding sexual sins, but only to call
attention to the severity with which God has always
viewed martial infidelity. The person who argues
that it is too harsh to require celibacy of one who
lost his marriage because of fornication should give
some thought to what would have been his punishment
under the law of Moses.
Moral Government
All of God's laws are intended for the welfare of
the human race. This should be especially evident in
regard to laws pertaining to the sanctity of
marriage. No society has ever prospered while in
disregard for His rules about marriage, divorce, and
remarriage. The tragedy of the current AIDS epidemic
is evidence enough. The folly of the world is that
they think this curse can be removed by politics and
medicine. Whether we want to call it a Divine curse
or not, one thing is certain: it would have never
occurred if God's rules of sexual morality were
being followed. Divine ordinances are not
arbitrarily given. They are given for our
protection. Ruin is the natural consequence of
rebellion.
How does this point relate to the issue of whether
the guilty party can remarry? The human inclination
would be to look at the individual case and have
pity. We might feel that surely no harm will be done
if this truly penitent person is given another
chance and allowed to marry another. Our problem in
this, however, would be that we do not see the whole
picture. The Lord knows the awful consequences. If
remarriage of one guilty party is permitted, it
should be allowed for all. If it is allowed for all,
where will it stop? It is sufficient to say that God
knows best. Because He knows what is best, He does
not permit the guilty party to remarry.
It can hardly be disputed that the stringency of
God's laws regarding marriage and divorce is a
strong imperative for working to solve marriage
problems. If the guilty party were allowed to
remarry there would be a temptation for persons
unhappy in marriage to commit the sin in order to
break the union. Such would be, of course, sin
compounded by presumption, but the temptation would
be there. One who knows and believes the Bible will
surely think soberly before he commits that which
may result in either perpetual celibacy or hell.
Is There Forgiveness?
Can the guilty party be forgiven? Certainly! The
person who complies with God's requirements can be
forgiven of all sins, even the sin of fornication,
even the fornication that resulted in the
destruction of his marriage. We would urge all such
persons to seek forgiveness, and we would not
hesitate to assure them of God's mercy and to
receive them into fellowship. We have not been
discussing whether the guilty party can get into
heaven, but whether he can get into another
marriage.
What guidance should be given to the person whose
marriage has been forfeited because of his sin, but
who has repented of his sin? Jesus said: "...there be
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matt.
19:12). This describes those who for the sake of doing
right and for the sake of serving the Lord keep their
sexual desires under control, even, as necessary,
foregoing marriage. The only advice regarding marriage
we can give the penitent "guilty party" is that he
remain celibate, and that he give himself so
completely to the Lord's service that marriage, being
thereby of secondary importance, is not a burning
desire. We must advise him that being lost is not
worth "the pleasures of sin for a season" and that
heaven will surely be worth it all. We must advise him
that God has a high standard and that it is his duty
to abide by it. We must advise him that his example
may make a difference both in the church and the
world—that others may be warned of the consequence of
sin and that others who need to repent may be shown
that a life of purity is possible.
Endnotes:
i. Hugo McCord, "The Guilty Party is not Free to Remarry," SS
Lectureship, 1979, Volume Two: Fifty Years of Lectures.
ii. J.D. Thomas, "Divorce and Remarriage (9)," Firm Foundation,
April 4, 1978, p.7.
Back to
Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword
|