“But if she does leave him, she must remain unmarried …”
(1 Cor 7:11, ISV)
There exists an immense range of different viewpoints on divorce and re-marriage, even among evangelical believers who profess the Bible as directive text for their lives. Someone like prof Danie du Toit, in his book Answers to contemporary questions, states that the general consensus among Reformed believers is that divorce and re-marriage are indeed allowed. On the other side of the spectrum someone like Craig Hill, from Family Foundations is adamant about the fact that it is in no way acceptable, especially based on the Scripture quoted above.
In our discussion thus far about marriage and divorce two points appear salient. The first is that marriage often stands on an unstable God-founded foundation and thus cannot handle the pressure of modern society, and crumbles. Spurgeon aptly noted that It is easier to crush the egg than it is to slay the serpent. Secondly, the New Testament guidelines can never become laws, and can merely serve as a moral compass to point out the better way – the letter kills, the spirit brings life (2 Cor 3:6).
In this light even 1 Cor 7:11 is a guideline, and not a law. God had for instance presented Israel with a letter of divorce (Jer 8:9). On account of the fallen world in which we function and the subsequent wrong decisions that are made, divorce is at times the best way to follow, although God did not institutionalise it. The story of how the Israelites mistakenly married ungodly women and then had to get divorced, which is noted in Ezra 10, is a good example of how God does in some instances sanction divorce and re-marriage. BUT this can only happen in a personal covenant relationship with Yahweh, where He has directed the move, and does not become a generic law which all can follow.
Widows are encouraged to re-marry (Rom 7:3, I Cor 7:8-9 & 39 and 1 Tim 5:14). The problem however lies in the exegesis of the Scripture which was quoted at the beginning of this teaching – does this mean that a woman cannot re-marry after divorce?
It is important to note that in 1 Cor 7 Paul differentiates between two distinct groups. He firstly deals with marriages where both partners are believers, and secondly with a different group (where one party is a believer, or both are unbelievers). The general principle where both partners are believers, remains – do not divorce one another (adultery is the only clear exception to the rule). And if one party wants to divorce at all costs, he/she may not re-marry, as it would make any reconciliation between the two parties impossible. Jay E. Adams, in his Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible notes the following – “What Paul is after is reconciliation; he wants these two believers to put the marriage back together in a new and more biblical way. Since all believers have the Word and the Spirit, they have all that they need to bring about not only reconciliation, but – in the future – a marriage that sings!”
But is this not what happens with the passing of time? Many people with a thought framework which is bent around the law tend to misread the nature of Paul’s literary style in this passage, with devastating results for the lives of people. Many researchers have shown that Paul’s writing style is often dialogic and polemic, and that he uses various literary stylistic devices which people alas ignorantly misread. Additionally Paul’s writing style functions to hint at the nature of God, who always invites one to discuss contentious matters with Him (Isa 1:8; 41:21; 43:26; Mic 6:2; Job 23:4). If you follow the wider argument, it will be clear that it almost takes the shape of a street language argument, despite the fact that Paul was schooled in the Hellenistic rhetoric of argumentation, and we often find it used in great lengths in his passages (for instance in the book of Romans). But here we rather find what, as Blass & Debrunner, in their Greek Grammar of the New Testament, terms “an elegant style of vulgar Greek” J
If Paul’s style is polemic and dialogical, he is constantly busy figuring out the various aspects of divorce and re-marriage, and one should clearly note that each statement is not meant as a law. Paul is constantly oscillating between “I say this” and “this the Lord says”, whilst the ENTIRE Scriptures are inspired by God, even the parts where Paul states that these are his recommendations, and not the Lord’s!
The polemical statement in 1 Cor 7:11 is thus clearly not an absolute law when it comes to women who are divorced and who wish to re-marry. In fact – God is not fooled by mere outward displays – most people are married in name, but already divorced in their hearts.
This is best illustrated in the light of Jesus’ statement in Matt 5:27-28 – “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his heart.” Where does this then leave the marriage, if the man is caught up in “the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides” (as CS Lewis had suggested in such an unforgettable manner)? (Obviously the same goes for the woman.) If adultery is a legitimate reason for divorce (Matt 19:9), this is clearly also a free pass when it comes to divorce, although it is clearly not in God’s heart. Please then see the point we’re trying to establish here – it is not about laws and rules and regulations, but about an attitude of the heart.
In conclusion to this matter. In 2 Sam 11 we learn how King David commits adultery with Bathsheba. (In fact, from a typological viewpoint her name is also significant – daughter of covenant.) Through his unrighteous behaviour (he had her husband killed), he breaks with all the taboos concerning marriage and respect for the holy covenant between husband and wife. Then we read in verse 27 – “And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.”
We are familiar with this history and know how God eventually had things play out for David and Bathsheba, we also have Ps 51 as part of David’s atonement before God. The link we want to make with the subject currently under discussion? God was clearly not happy with David and Bathsheba’s choices about fidelity, adultery and re-marriage, but they atoned before God in brokenness. And from this “wrong” and broken relationship God allowed Jesus, the Saviour of the world, to be born. The New Testament in no way tries to hide this disgrace – in the genealogy of Jesus in Matt 1 it is explicitly stated in verse 6 that “Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah …”
I strongly agree with Leanne Payne in The Broken Image, where she states that “Evil is, in actual fact, seperation.” But we then also know that Eph 2:13-14 is true – “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation …”
- Sela: Praise God for the truth of the last Scripture.
- Read: Deut 19-24
- Examine how this has been fulfilled: Deut 21:17 (see God’s heart with regards to divorce therein)
- For a deeper understanding: Read John Murray’s Divorce. It is a thoughtful and quite uncontaminated text on the matter.
