Marriage Divorce and Remarriage

 

Part 6.

 

Rex Banks.

 

 

In Conclusion.

 

Ominously there are striking similarities and parallels between modern western civilization and the Roman Empire in her years of decline, and no where are the similarities more apparent than in the sphere of family life. The Roman statesman Seneca (born about 4 BC) wrote of those who “divorce in order to remarry (and) … marry in order to divorce,” while Martial (born about 40 AD) lamented that marriage had become legalized adultery. Jerome Carcopino tells us that from about the first century “we witness an epidemic of divorces, at least among the aristocracy whose matrimonial adventures are documented” (Daily Life in Ancient Rome) and according to Edward Gibbon “the most tender of human connections (marriage – Rex) was degraded to a transient society of profit or pleasure" (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).

 

As in the case of Rome, the rapid disintegration of the family unit in our own nation signals that we are in a state of moral, social and spiritual decay, and sadly many today come to the Lord suffering the consequences of having grown up in such a culture. Having failed to recognize the divine origin and permanency of marriage, some are in a second (or even third) marital relationship when they first hear the gospel, and all too often these unions are unscriptural. Often these unscriptural unions have brought real happiness for the first time, frequently children are involved and naturally in such situations everyone concerned desperately desires to maintain the status quo. In such cases it is not easy to tell such individuals that given the scriptural teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage and the demands of repentance, their unions are not acceptable to God.

 

Since only the spouse who puts away a husband or wife for sexual immorality has divine permission to enter into a second marriage, any other divorced individual in a second marriage is involved in an unscriptural union. As such this individual is involved in ongoing adultery, or sexual activity in violation of the marriage bond, and this has important implications with respect to repentance. Paul tells us that the “repentance (metanoia) without regret leading to salvation” is produced by “sorrow which is according to the will of God” (2 Cor 7:10). So Godly sorrow is essential to repentance and leads to repentance but it is not identical to repentance. A comparison of Jesus words in Matt 12 with the account of Jonah’s mission to the Ninevites graphically illustrates the nature of repentance. In speaking of the Ninevites who humbled themselves before God and “turned from their wicked ways” (Jonah 3:2-10) Jesus says that they “repented” (Matt 12:41). They repented of their “wicked ways” by turning away from them.   

 

On another occasion Jesus tells a story which illustrates the nature of Biblical repentance.  Lewis Sperry Chafer points out that “The son cited by Christ as reported in Mt. 21:28-29 who first said "I will not go," and afterward repented and went, is a true example of the precise meaning of the word” (Systematic Theology). (This is a good example of repentance in action despite the fact that the word translated “repented” in the KJV is not metanoeo but metamellomai. The two words do need to be distinguished). Chafer adds the following good comment: 

 

“The New Testament call to repentance is not an urge to self-condemnation, but is a call to a change of mind which promotes a change in the course being pursued. This definition of this word as it is used in the New Testament is fundamental. Little or no progress can be made in a right induction of the Word of God on this theme, unless the true and accurate meaning of the word is discovered and defended throughout.”

 

There is no doubt that Biblical repentance involves “a change of mind” (Thayer) and it’s “a change of mind leading to change of behaviour” (Friberg Greek Lexicon). 

Too

 

“This change is always for the better, and denotes a change of moral thought and reflection; not merely to repent of, nor to forsake sin, but to change one's mind and apprehensions regarding it. Metanoeo denotes to reform, to have a genuine change of heart and life from worse to better” (Bullinger).

 

 Thus the very least that is required of the repentant prostitute is that she give up illicit sexual activity, the very least that is required of the repentant thief is that he discontinue his dishonest trade and the very least that is required of the wife beater is that he stop abusing his spouse. And the very least that is required of the individual involved in adultery (illicit sexual activity in violation of the marriage covenant) is that he or she call a halt to this grievous sin against God. If that adultery is the consequence of an unscriptural marriage union, then sadly that unauthorized relationship cannot continue. This is a difficult and painful inference to draw from the Biblical data, but unless we are prepared to abandon the scriptural teaching on repentance, or to assign an arbitrary meaning to “adultery” it is the only conclusion possible.

 

In Ezra chapters 9 and 10, Ezra is informed that the “people” and the “priests” had taken Canaanite women in marriage (Ezra 9:1, 2) in disobedience to the Mosaic Law (e.g. Deut 7:1-5; Ex 34:10-16). In deep sorrow Ezra acknowledges that the nation had thereby “forsaken (God’s) commandments,” (9:10) and encouraged by pious leaders (Ezra 10:2-4) he commands the Israelite men to “separate (themselves) from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives" (Ezra 10:11). With few exceptions the men agree that this action is required of them in order to turn away the “fierce anger of God” (10:14) and they “pledge to put away their wives” (10:19) offering sacrifices to God on account of their guilt. Some unions had produced children (10:3, 44) and in such cases separations must have been especially painful, but the lesson here is that man is never justified in modifying divine law. Knowing the provisions of the Mosaic Law and the nature of true repentance, Ezra offered the only possible counsel to those involved in unauthorized unions, and knowing the law of Christ and the nature of true repentance we must do the same. We may sorrow as the returned exiles sorrowed, but the bottom line is that it is never right to modify God’s law regardless of the circumstances. True, there is no New Testament example of unscripturally divorced individuals leaving a second marriage, but the same reasoning which would require a polygamist to do so applies in this situation.

 

Sometimes in an attempt to avoid the conclusion that repentance involves the termination of unscriptural unions, an appeal is made to the case of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 11, 12). We recall that David commits adultery with Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and as a result Bathsheba becomes pregnant. Unable to deceive Uriah into thinking that he is the father of the child, David has this faithful warrior killed. In due course David takes Bathsheba as his wife and subsequently she gives birth to a son. However “the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Sam 11:27) and through Nathan the prophet He rebukes David and warns that his action will have painful consequences (2 Sam 12:7-12). Upon repentance (2 Sam 12:13 c.f. Psa 32; 51) David is told by Nathan “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.” It is argued by some that since the Lord accepted David’s repentance without requiring him to separate from Bathsheba, this proves that an individual who enters an adulterous union may repent of having committed this sin and may remain in the new marriage with divine approval. This is not a sound argument for various reasons including the following:

 

§         David was forgiven of the sins of adultery and murder, but since Uriah was dead when Bathsheba “became his wife” (2 Sam 11:21) he was not committing adultery against his faithful servant. Bathsheba was not married to Uriah when David took her in marriage. David’s sin was despicable, but he and Bathsheba were not guilty of ongoing adultery against Uriah. Who will argue from this text that if David had simply married Bathsheba while Uriah was alive, Nathan would have permitted the king to keep her?

 

§         Kings were expressly forbidden to “multiply wives” (Deut 17:17) and the Lord did not approve of David’s marriage to Bathsheba any more than he approved of David’s marriage to the six other women in addition to his first wife (1 Sam. 18:27; 25:42-43; 1 Chron. 3:2-5). As we have seen, (Creation Law) toleration of polygamy did not imply condonation.

 

§         It is significant that in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus we read that “to David was born Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah” (Matt 1:6 NASB). The italicized words are not in the Greek text, which says “her of Uriah” (ek tes tou Ouriou) and the RSV has “And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah.”

This is not the place to elaborate upon the tragic consequences of David’s sin or upon the negative effects of polygamy upon his family life, but it is important to understand that the case of David and Bathsheba does not conflict in any way with the Biblical teaching that true repentance requires the cessation of sinful activity.

Finally since repentance must precede baptism, given the nature of repentance it is clearly nonsensical to argue that baptism somehow legitimizes an unscriptural union. At the point of baptism, sins are indeed washed away, but only in the case of those who have repented (turned way from) of these sins. Polygamous unions, homosexual and group “marriages” are not “sanctified” by baptism and neither are unscriptural second marriages.

Brother Foy Wallace spoke scathingly of “marriage counselling preachers who are so readily disposed to break up marriage relationships that are not in conformity with their own immature human opinions” (Sermon and the Mount and the Civil State). Unfortunately brother Wallace taught that the Christian deserted by a non-Christian spouse was free to remarry, but his error in this matter does not mean that his cautionary words carry no truth. On the other hand scripture is full of admonitions to teach the entire word of God and warnings about the serious consequences of immorality. It may be difficult, it may arouse the ire of brethren and it may result in tears, but the truth must be taught on marriage divorce and remarriage as the truth must be taught on every subject.       

The words of John Murray are a fitting conclusion to this discussion:

“Marriage is grounded in (the) male and female constitution. As to its nature it implies that the man and the woman are united in one flesh; as to its sanction, it is divine; as to its continuance it is permanent. The import of all this is that marriage from its very nature and from the divine institution by which it is constituted is ideally indissoluble. It is not a contract of temporary convenience and not a union that may be dissolved at will.” (Divorce).