Divorce -- A Growing Menace To The Church
Divorce is one of the growing menaces to the society in which we live. In some states divorces have outnumbered the marriages, and in other states the number of marriages and divorces are very close. There is a very unhealthy tendency in the church to divorce without Bible grounds. And the saddest part of this tendency is that the churches are recognizing these unscriptural divorces. There is just one major reason for the invasion of this sin into the church: that is the failure of the elders to know the truth as taught in God's word, and then to recognize their God given responsibility to inquire into these cases of divorce and remarriage, and follow their inquiry with the necessary action.
Many people object to sermons on divorce and remarriage. Often this objection comes from people who themselves are involved in a questionable relationship, and often from those who have relatives or friends living in a relationship which they admit to be adulterous. In considering this question we must keep in mind that God made His laws for man, and that our loved ones are as subject to those laws as anyone. If those we love violate the law of God, they are in sin. It is better to recognize their sin and try to save them from it than to deny their sins, and pervert the teaching of Christ in an effort to justify them.
The Bible teaches us that when two are joined together in marriage they are joined together by God. (Matt. 19:6.) Since the union formed in marriage is the work of God, divorce is the destruction of God's work. Thus, even though a person might make an unwise choice or secure a party that is incompatible, the union is still the work of God, and the Lord has not given man a Bible right to divorce, simply as a means of convenience to himself. Let man learn this and seriously consider marriage before he rushes into it.
Since marriage is the work of God based upon a solemn covenant between the contracting parties, the one who breaks this bond is a covenant breaker. The Lord places covenant-breakers in a list with such sins as deceit, hatred, and murder. (Rom. 1:21.) People who break their covenants because of inconveniences and disappointments which they did not foresee are not worthy of confidence. Sometimes divorce seems to be the easy way out of marital difficulties, but usually it is the path that leads into a maze of other problems and more embarrassing situations out of which few people have the knowledge and courage to bring themselves. Once the Lord informed the men of Israel that he would not accept their worship, they asked him why. He replied, "Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of 'thy youth against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." (Mal. 2:14.) Under the Old Testament God would not accept the worship of a man who broke his marriage covenant.
Divorce is one of the things God hates. In writing to the children of Israel God said, "Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away." (Mal. 2:15, 16.) This scripture emphasized the fact that God looks upon the marriage vow as a solemn covenant which is not to be taken lightly.
In Matthew 19:3-9 there is recorded a passage of scripture which contains fundamentally the entire law of Christ on the subject of marriage and divorce. There are several other details of the law spread out through the New Testament, but all such are founded on the rules taught by our Lord in this passage.
The Pharisees, habitually critical of Jesus, asked him if it was "lawful for man to put away his wife for every cause." Before answering the hypocritical question, he made these points: that marriage was of Divine origin; that in marriage the two become one flesh; that when people are united in marriage according to God's law, the contracting parties are not to break that bond.
The Pharisees then replied that Moses allowed divorce, and, by implication, for any cause. Jesus explained that Moses did allow that, presumably with God's permission, but that God only tolerated that for that age. Then Christ said in verse 9: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery." Here the Lord plainly taught that fornication furnished the justification for divorce. Thus he taught that if one divorces without that justification and marries again, such a person is living in adultery. And adultery, persisted in, will bar heaven to the guilty. In writing to the Christians at Corinth the apostle Paul said, "Let not the wife depart from her husband: But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (1 Cor. 7:10, 11.) In Matthew 19:9 Christ taught that when a divorce is granted to the innocent party because of fornication committed by the other party, the innocent may then remarry. But if the divorce is brought about for any reason except fornication, and either party remarries, that party and the one he marries commit adultery. So if you have divorced your partner, or have been put away by your partner, for any reason other than fornication, and you have remarried, you are now living in adultery.
To some the teaching of Christ about divorce and remarriage is unacceptable and they offer various dodges and explanations to try to set it aside. Some argue that when Jesus gave the teaching in Matthew 19:9, he was just explaining the law of Moses. It is hard to see how any thinking individual can be serious in making this explanation. The very form of the statement makes this explanation impossible. Jesus said that Moses allowed the people to put away their wives, and then he added the thought, "And I say unto you." How can one statement be an explanation of another when the one is put in contrast to the other?
The Lord's disciples understood the teaching of Christ in this matter to differ from that of Moses, for they said, "If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not good to marry." (Matt. 19:10.) They were accustomed to the freedom of the law of Moses, and when Jesus denied them the right to divorce for any cause except fornication, they said it would be better not to marry. Thus the response of the disciples of Christ to his teaching proves that he was not explaining the law of Moses.
But others try to explain away the teaching of Christ in Matthew 19:9 by suggesting that since it was spoken before the death of Christ, it is not binding upon us. If this teaching of Jesus is not binding now, it never has been binding on anybody. Jesus did not make laws contrary to the law of Moses and demand that people obey them while the law of Moses was still in force. The law of Moses was in force, and Jesus taught people to obey that law, in the very last week of his life. (Matt. 23:1-4.) Clearly the teaching of Christ in Matthew 19:9 is not binding in the next age, for in that age they neither marry nor are given in marriage. (Mark 12:25.)
Many say that the one reason for divorce and remarriage mentioned in Matthew 19:9 is not allowed now because it is not repeated by any apostle after the cross. Their rule is this: Any teaching of Jesus uttered before his death must be repeated by an inspired apostle after his death before it is binding upon us. The rule is of human origin, and without any foundation. What proves too much proves nothing at all. In Matthew 18:15-17 Christ said, "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." This statement of Christ is nowhere repeated by an apostle, or other inspired writer, and yet all are forced to allow that the rule given is binding on the Lord's people today. If what Jesus said in Matthew 18:15-17 applies now in spite of the fact no inspired writer mentions it this side of the cross, why does not the exception of Matthew 19:9 apply now even though no inspired writer mentions it after Christ's death?
In an effort to explain Matthew 19:9 some deny remarriage on any ground except that which took place before marriage. This view is based on the technical difference between the meaning of fornication and adultery. Fornication, according to this reasoning, means "Illicit carnal relations on the part of unmarried persons." And adultery means, "Illicit carnal relations on the part of married persons." It is true that the words are sometimes so defined, but the writers of the Bible did not so use them. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of a young man who committed fornication with a married woman. (1 Cor. 5:1.) Fornication is a broader term than adultery, and it includes adultery as well as other forms of uncleanness. For this reason the two words are sometimes used interchangeably.
In the sermon on the mount Christ said, "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her committeth adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt. 6:28.) In this passage Christ teaches that if any man, married or unmarried, looks on a woman to lust after her, he hath committed adultery with her. The word "whosoever" in this Scripture includes single or married men and Christ made it plain that even the lust is adultery, regardless of the marital status of those who commit it.
Another attempt to evade the force of Christ's teaching in Matthew 19:9 is the idea that God does not join alien sinners in marriage. The position of people who hold this idea is that it is binding on none but the children of God. Whatever the law of the land says is marriage for non-Christians is marriage according to this view. Those who embrace this belief contend that people may marry, divorce and remarry as many times as they like before they become Christians; but when they obey the gospel they must live with the partner they have at that time.
Those who hold this view say that God's law does not apply outside the church; that is, a person does not become subject to God's law until he becomes a Christian. Now there are some requirements that God makes of Christians that he does not make of non-Christians, such as observing the Lord's Supper, assembling for worship on the Lord's day, etc. But to say that a person is subject to no law of God until he becomes a child of God is a dangerous thing. Have you ever thought of the implications of such an idea? If the non-Christian is subject to no law of God; then he is no sinner against God, and does not need the gospel. But the Lord says "Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4.) The Lord gave the gospel to sinners because they were lost, and he requires obedience on their part before he will save them.
God's marriage law is universal; it applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. Under the law of Moses God allowed divorce and remarriage for numerous reasons, but Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so; that is, from the beginning God intended only one man for one woman. Jesus was not merely laying down a law of marriage for his church but was putting the universal institution of marriage back on its original basis. Of course members of the church have to abide by this law but it is not a law restricted to them.
Another view of divorce and remarriage held by some is, that alien sinners, may marry, divorce and remarry several times without any scriptural basis, and then obey the gospel, and the past is all forgiven. A couple may then continue to live together. There is no question about God forgiving the past sins of those who obey the gospel, but the question is, may such people continue to live together? It is granted that their union was sinful from the time it was formed until they repented and obeyed the gospel. Is it now a holy union? Does obedience to the gospel change an unholy union into a holy one?
Suppose a man is living in polygamy and he desires to obey the gospel. May he continue to live with a dozen wives after his repentance and baptism? Does his obedience to these commandments of the gospel change his polygamy from unholy relations to holy relations? Repentance means that one ceases to live in sin. The thief quits stealing when he repents; the drunkard quits his drunkenness when he repents; and the one living in adultery with a divorcee must dissolve his adulterous union.
But someone says this will entail hardship upon innocent children. We know that is true, and we are not unmindful of their sad pitiable condition; but it has ever been true that sin brings suffering, not only on the sinner, but upon those who are involved on account of various relationships to the sinner. Shall we declare sin is no longer sin if any innocent party is about to suffer? And does this solve our problem? This law was made for the happiness of man, and if all would obey the law, all would find happiness. Peace and happiness cannot be found by changing God's law to accommodate wayward man.
There are two other false ideas concerning Matthew 19:9 that we want to consider together at this time. They are that people may divorce for any cause if they do not intend to remarry, and after such a divorce has been arranged the first party to marry "frees" the other party and thus gives the other party a scriptural right to remarry. To make Matthew 19:9 teach that people may divorce for any reason provided they do not remarry is to make the passage defeat the very purpose of the law and the aim of God; to prevent separation. People overlook that point, as well as the point that Matthew 19:9 answers the question of Matthew 19:3, and Christ gave only ONE reason for a man to put away his wife.
In view of these facts, for a couple to agree to divorce simply because they "cannot get along," or for any other unscriptural reason, is to defy Christ and his law. According to Paul one who has been guilty of this has only two alternatives: he may repent and seek to restore the original relation, or; if that is impossible, he must remain single and live the life of a Christian. (1 Cor. 7:10, 11.) Jesus does not say that it is a matter of who marries first, he says that when fornication is not the cause for divorce both parties are guilty of adultery. (Luke 16:18.)
That brings us to the often-heard objection: "The elders have no right to ask me about my divorce. My divorce is a private matter between me and my God." Such an argument is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the New Testament. It is the business of the church, and especially of the elders, to know that each divorced person in the church has a Bible ground for that divorce. And if there be any question at all about the divorced person's spiritual welfare, God fearing elders will not rest until every effort has been made to clarify that person's relationship to God and to the church.
The Lord has ordained that each congregation of the church be overseen by a group of brethren called elders, bishops, overseers, pastors, shepherds, the presbytery. (Acts 20:17-28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 4:17.) They are obligated to be teachers. (1 Tim. 3:2.) But the obligation for the elder to teach carries with it the obligation of the congregation to accept that teaching, as they teach the truth. The New Testament teaches on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Since the Bible teaches upon this subject, and since elders, teachers, and all preachers are to teach "the whole counsel of God," (Acts 20:27) they are to teach the truth on marriage and divorce. When a person has violated the law of God in the matter of divorce he only adds stubbornness to his rebellion against Christ when he says, "my divorce is no one's business."
But some elders have gone along with this reasoning and they say that to inquire into divorce is not their business. Such an attitude is false. The elders of a church are to "watch for your souls." (Heb. 13:17.) They are responsible for the character of the individual member and of the congregation as a whole. The church in Corinth was rebuked for not withdrawing from a man who was a fornicator. (1 Cor. 5.) Could he have said that "it is not their business"? The church in Pergamum was condemned for tolerating in its membership some who were corrupt. (Rev. 2:1246.) So was the church in Thyatira. (Rev. 2:18-20.) The elders have a right to know how each member lives — granted that they are Bible elders. When anyone in the church divorces, therefore, the elders have the Bible right and duty to inquire into the matter, and prevent the divorce, if possible. People living in adultery cannot enter heaven. (1 Cor. 6:940.)
We need to teach our children the truth and warn them about the folly of divorce so they will be on guard. To forewarn them is to forearm them against this growing menace.