BACK TO MENU

THE MECHANICS OF A SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGE

Have you ever wondered how God's heart must ache for the married couples, who go their separate ways after He had joined them together. What causes a man and a woman to gaze into one another's eyes on their wedding day with all the devotion their hearts can hold and then, one year, five years, or even twenty five years later, decide to walk away from that commitment

Our society's definition for "love" has impacted God's institution of marriage. "Love" has come to mean a feeling instead of an action. When Christ speaks of love , He speaks of a chosen action. "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). When I was in Bible School one of our Professors gave us the following definition for love: "Love is a strong emotion which causes one to delight in and crave the presence of another and to look out for the welfare and protection of that person." The point here is that love causes a chosen action.

For a man and a woman to make a marriage richer as the years pass, active love (agape) is: "Charity (LOVE) suffereth long, and is kind; charity (LOVE) envieth not; charity (LOVE) vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity (LOVE) never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." One of the vows we make to our spouse is "love until death do we part." We promise to be kind and longsuffering with one another in good times and bad times. How easily we pledge our love unconditionally only to start inserting "if's" once the ceremony is finished.

"I will love you "if" you make me feel happy." Have you ever thought about how Christ must have felt when He left the Father to come to earth to be the sacrifice for our sins? Happy is not the word that comes to mind. Agape (LOVE) will prefer the spouse's happiness over one's own. (You have got to be kidding me!") No, that is what Agape (LOVE) does. You chose to sacrifice your own happiness for the happiness of your spouse. Agape (LOVE) will not happen in the flesh; it will happen only through our allowing the Holy Spirit to execute God's will in our lives.

God gives us a blueprint for marriage through the writings of Paul. The wife is instructed to: "... submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22). Submit has become a repulsive, detestable and abhorrent word to people living in a free world, because it carries the perception of being in slavery. When we remember that Christ submitted unto the will of the Father so that all mankind could be redeemed from sin, we have a better understanding of how submission relates to love.

Wives are given the freedom to submit to their husbands out of love, just as Christ submitted to God's plan to redeem us out of love. As the wife is subject unto the husband, a sense of protection and safety should invade her spirit and mind. Instead of resentment, peace should envelope the relationship.

Paul instructed the husband to: "...love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Ephesians 5:25) T his kind of love requires much sacrifice on Christ's part. He loved the church enough to leave His Father and the glory of Heaven to come to a sin-infested world and live in the confinement of a human body for over 33 years, and eventually die the death of crucifixion for you and me.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Do you see it? For God so loved the world that He....GAVE...His only begotten Son... God loved us and the course of action caused by His love for us was to give His only begotten Son to die for us.

Wow, what LOVE! If men loved their wives with this degree of love, When we compare the mechanics to many of the marriages we witness in our churches and society, it is questionable if we have studied the pattern satisfactorily.

When a man begins to romance a woman, he makes her feel beautiful, feminine and smart. Likewise, the woman reciprocates by making the man feel handsome, masculine and intelligent. Time, money, and energy are spent in pursuit of winning the other's heart. Every hour spent together is full of joy. As we exchange our vows we can imagine no feeling but happiness for the rest of our lives.

But when we go back to work, the bills accumulate, and the children enter the union with additional work, and that feeling of happiness is often hard to remember. Many times we are advised to pray about "it," and "it" should get better. We then put on our fake smiles and pretend, because good Christians are not suppose to have bad marriages

The really "spiritual' Christians should have abundant and enduing marriages. However, this kind of marriage is indeed rare. Just as we search the Scripture for a better understanding of God and His will for our lives, we need to search for an understanding of marriage.

Good marriages do not just happen any more than spiritual maturity just happens. To grow spiritually, we practice the spiritual disciplines. To have a rich and empowering marriage we must study to learn more about God's Mechanics of a Successful Marriage.

About 85 percent of the marriages that end in divorce do so because of immaturity or lack of commitment. Commitment is the action of Love and will cause us to invest time, money, and energy in our marriage as much as we do in anything else that is important to us.

If we want to master a sport, we must invest in it and then we must practice and practice and practice. If we want to improve our marriage, we must invest in it. God's plan is for us to find great joy and happiness in our marriages; but, more importantly, He wants us to remain committed to the vows we made before Him on our wedding day. "A good marriage requires the determination to be married for good."

The following lesson is in depth and will not be understood by just reading through it once. It will take a special effort and you will need to study it by reading it and digesting it one section, one paragraph at a time.  I believe  a great deal of what the Bible says about Marriage Divorce and remarriage has been covered in this lesson. It is not exactly what most churchs teache nor is it exactly what many pastors teach. However, if you study it carefully you will find it is what the BIBLE says...

DIVORCE
What does the Bible say?

The Bible has a lot to say about the subject of marriage and divorce, but it is generally agreed that it is a most difficult topic. And it is made even more difficult by the emotions and conflicts of real-life situations. Therefore, the purpose of this lesson is to simply share information that may further help others in their own personal study of the issue. Please consider these thoughts with much prayer and diligent Bible study.

Introduction:

The Bible teaches that God Himself instituted and approves of marriage. "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:18, 24, 25)

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

And then Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. "

The Bible also teaches that God hates divorce; Malachi 2:14-16 (context is Israel's apostasy) says, "Yet ye say, Wherefore? 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. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. 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: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously."

Marriage and Divorce in the 1st Century

To better understand the teachings of the New Testament on the subject, it is helpful to understand the historical context of that time (a correct information is always necessary for a accurate interpretation and application). The grossly immoral conditions of life in the first century are well-stated in Romans 1:18-32.

Crimes were multiplied; vice made no attempt to hide; a monstrous contest of lust and wickedness was carried on. Marriage came to be a commercial transaction easily inspired and as easily dissolved. There were women who counted their years not by the number of consuls but by the number of their husbands. Marriage was held in such contempt that laws against celibacy had to be passed.

About a generation before the time of Jesus, there were two main parties of rabbis: the Shammaites and the Hillelites. Those who followed Shammai were perhaps the conservatives of their day, while those of Hillel were perhaps more liberal. These two groups would meet regularly to engage in great discussions over matters of the Law. One issue that was continually debated was that of marriage and the proper grounds for divorce.

In Deuteronomy 24:1, it says that a man is to give his wife a certificate of divorce if "...it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her:..." The debate of these two groups focused on the meaning of the phrase "some uncleanness in her."

Shammai and his followers argued that it meant that one could divorce his wife only on the grounds of "fornication/adultery." On the other extreme, Hillel and his followers argued the words allow a divorce for either something "indecent" or for any "matter." They therefore allowed a man to divorce his wife for almost any reason: being a poor cook, speaking too loud, or even because someone else was prettier.

The different interpretations by these two Rabies and their followers would have resulted in two types of divorce. A Hillelite rabbi would validate a divorce on any grounds, but a Shammaite rabbi would require proof of sexual immorality.

The minimum procedure for a divorce was for a man to write out a certificate and give it to his wife. However, a divorce certificate was an important legal document, because it established the woman's right to her dowry. Her dowry, which usually consisted of a large proportion of their combined resources, had to be returned to her when she was divorced, unless she had been unfaithful.

The husband had to decide which rabbi to go to for his divorce - a Hillelite rabbi or a Shammaite rabbi. He could go to a Hillelite who would validate a divorce certificate without requiring a trial or any real grounds for the divorce, or he could submit himself and his wife to a Shammaite trial.

If the husband had proof of immorality, he may decide to divorce her on the grounds of adultery. This brought him considerable advantages because his wife could be dismissed without the dowry which was normally returned to her when she was divorced. However, this course of action was very difficult and it carried a risk.

One example of the quiet Hillelite divorce is found in the New Testament, when Joseph decided it was necessary to divorce his betrothed bride Mary. Although they were not yet married, a betrothal could only be broken by a divorce. Even though he assumed that adultery had occurred, he preferred to avoid the public trial and humiliation involved in proving infidelity.

Joseph could probably have proved the supposed sexual immorality, simply by waiting for the birth, and by providing alibis for himself. But this would have meant public humiliation for Mary and a lengthy legal procedure for himself, with the possibility that he would be accused of being the father.

"Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (Matthew 1:19) The words public example suggests that Joseph did not want to take Mary before a Shammaite rabbi and put her through a lengthy and embarrassing trial. "Put her away privily" suggests that Joseph had decided to take Mary before a Hillelite rabbi and give her a divorce certificate without a trial.

Matthew records that Joseph did not want to put Mary to public disgrace, so he decided to divorce her quietly (Matt.1.19). This suggests that he decided to use a Hillelite divorce on the grounds of "any matter" rather than try to prove Mary's apparent sexual immorality. It is significant that Joseph was called "righteous" for this action, showing that this form of divorce was not only acceptable but was considered morally superior in this kind of situation.

Jesus on Marriage and Divorce

In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus said, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Mark 10:11-12 says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Mark's account (10:2-12) is quite similar to Matthew 19:3-12 However, it can be noted that, while Matthew was written primarily to a Jewish audience, Mark was written primarily to a Gentile audience. This likely explains why Mark's account includes a comment about women divorcing their husbands, something not generally done among the Jews.

Luke 16:18 says, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."  The Book of Luke has only this one single verse on this subject. It is unique in at least two ways: first, because it seems to be inserted into the midst of a section that has nothing to do with marriage or divorce; and second, because the latter part of the verse is worded in a way quite different from all other accounts on this issue.

As already mentioned, the latter part of Matthew 5:32 has a similar statement, but it is actually in the passive tense. Jesus' statement in Luke, however, is in the active tense, thus saying something quite different, seemingly the opposite of what is recorded elsewhere.

The statement can best be understood in the overall context of Jesus' responding to the Pharisees who were condemning Him for associating with sinners (Luke 15:2). Perhaps Jesus, in the midst of the rest of His teachings, points out that they too are sinners in the blatant way they divorce and marry and divorce again and again.

In other words, if this interpretation be true, then Jesus is not so much giving instruction here as He is noting their adulterous attitudes towards marriage covenants (one who marries one who is divorced commits adultery because the one who is divorced likewise has no concern for faithfulness).

Perhaps the most comprehensive teaching by Jesus on this issue is found in Matthew chapter 19. In verse 3, "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

It seems likely they were referring to the teaching of Hillel (divorce for any matter) as opposed to that of Shammai (only for uncleanness). This was the oft-debated question of their day; it appears they wanted to test Jesus to see if He sided with the more-common Hillelite view.

Before specifically answering their question, Jesus began by making it clear that God never intended for divorce to occur; marriage is to be a lifelong commitment. Jesus quoted from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to show that God has always wanted and will always want two people to be married and stay married to each other for life. That was His intent "from the beginning" and it has not changed.

The Pharisees persisted and asked further in verse 7, "...Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" In other words, why did God (through Moses in Deuteronomy 24) give a command regarding divorce if He is really opposed to divorce? This gave Jesus an opportunity to clarify another aspect of the Law.

The Jews had determined that divorce was a completely acceptable thing; after all, Moses had even made a law concerning such. But Jesus pointed out that the law was not given because God approved of divorce, but rather because of their "hardness of heart."

(It is speculated that the practice of divorce was something they picked up in Egypt; the Egyptians were said to change wives often.) The Israelites had become hard-hearted and were apparently determined to divorce, regardless of God's desire. Therefore a law was given to somewhat control and hopefully hinder their actions, as well as to protect the rights of those women who were put away.

The only reason stated where a man could initiate divorce and marry another and it would not result in adultery, was a situation where the wife had violated the marriage covenant by committing sexual immorality. Under the Mosaic Law, in earlier times, when Israel was not under the control of the Roman government, the immorality should normally have resulted in the woman being stoned to death. The death would have freed a husband from the marriage covenant.

While I cannot support this next statement by any Scripture, I believe there were two elements in the "Hardness of heart" was first, the desire to divorce and second, the putting away or stoning the wife for her immoral action.

If a man wanted to divorce his wife and marry another he could accuse her of committing adultery and have her stoned to death thus leaving him free to marry another. The writing of divorcement allowed by Moses may have been to protect the life of women who were being stoned to death based on the accusations of her husband.

Only One Acceptable Reason to Instigate Divorce

Jesus gave His response in Matthew 19:9: "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The Hebrew word "ervah" translated uncleanness in Deut. 24:1 literally means "shameful exposure improper sexual behavior or nakedness," and therefore it relates to the Greek "porneias," translated fornication in Matt. 19:9 meaning "illicit sexual behavior. illicit sexual intercourse adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc."

Thus it appears that Jesus used a very similar phrase to that which is found in Deuteronomy 24:1. He did not, as Hillel did, divide the phrase into two parts in order to allow divorce for any matter, and thus His position was actually much closer to the Shammai view.

Jesus gave only one allowable reason for divorce: fornication. He said that if a man divorces his wife for a reason other than fornication, and then marries another woman, he commits adultery. It is a sin to instigate a divorce for any other reason, and it is a further sin to then marry someone else after such a divorce.

Fornication (the only allowable reason given by Jesus that one may instigate a divorce) has generally been interpreted to mean adultery in marriage, but it should be noted that Jesus actually used the word "porneia", which is a broader word for all types of sexual immorality. While it would include adultery, it can also refer to sexual sin committed before marriage (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21). It includes all manner of perversions. It may even refer to the sinful habit of sexual lusting; remember Jesus referred to such as "adultery" in Matthew 5:28.

But no known version translates it as fornication or adultery. Since many sexual sins were generally punishable by death, "uncleanness" would seem to refer to some other shameful act that did not require death, but was still serious enough to be grounds for divorce.)

Finally, in Matthew 19:10, the disciples were apparently astonished and said, "...If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." The Hillelite position and the Hillelite divorce proceeding had become the norm, and the Jews had become quite used to the practice of divorce.

Jewish marriages were generally arranged by the parents. If the selection of a wife was not pleasing to the man, he would typically divorce later and then select a wife of his own choosing. Jesus gave no opposition to arranged marriages, but He forbade the practice of divorcing in order to find a more suitable mate.

Thus the disciples determined it would be better not to marry at all if easy divorce was no longer an option. Jesus responded by saying that not all have the ability to live as "eunuchs" "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. 19:11-12).

Does This Principle Apply to Us Today?

Jesus allowed only one reason to instigate divorce: fornication. Does this principle still apply to us today? Some say that it does not because the true context of the passage is simply Jesus answering a question about the Law.

The Pharisees had apparently asked for Jesus' interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 concerning the grounds for divorce and Jesus gave it. If, in fact, that is all He is doing, then it would not truly be applicable in the Christian age (since we are not now under the Jewish Law; our civil law recognizes other reasons for a valid divorce).

It may be, however, that Jesus was also intending that such would continue to be God's law on the matter. Three reasons are given to support such: Jesus referred to God's eternal intent for marriage in spite of man's common failure to live up to it. Therefore His teaching regarding the one reason to instigate divorce would likely be intended for all time.

His response is very similar to that used many times in His sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7). There Jesus often referred to the common understanding of Old Testament teaching, but He would then say, "But I say to you..." Jesus would clarify the true intent of the Old Testament teaching as well as introduce teachings that would also be applicable in the new covenant.

Later, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul teaches about marriage and divorce and says concerning his teaching, "Not I, but the Lord." Most scholars agree that Paul means he is teaching about a subject that Jesus Himself had already addressed, apparently indicating that Jesus' command on the subject was to be applicable in the Christian age (not just under the Law of Moses).

Paul and Jesus on Marriage and Divorce)

The church at Corinth had apparently written to Paul with some questions on various issues. One of those issues was regarding marriage and divorce. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul says, "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, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away."

Paul uses two terms in this passage: "depart" from the Greek word choristhenai and "put away" from the Greek word aphienai. Choristhenai in 1 Corinthians 7 means "to leave a husband or wife: of divorce;" And, aphienai in 1 Corinthians 7 refers to "a husband putting away his wife." Essentially, the first refers to something you do yourself (choosing to leave), while the second is something you do to someone else (making your spouse leave).

The result, though, is the same since both refer to a separation between husband and wife. It should be noted that, as Paul wrote this, according to Roman law, a divorce was considered complete when one spouse left; there was no need for any further legal proceeding.

Notice he said that one was "unmarried" after the other had left. Thus, when Paul speaks of leaving or sending away, he is apparently referring to divorce. The command to the Christian is: stay married; do not leave. But if you do leave (therefore separated/divorced), do not marry someone else. God's true desire in the matter is reconciliation. Both husband and wife are commanded to maintain their marriage commitment.

Paul then instructs "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:12-16)

Jesus had discussed what the Law said about marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:9, but that was not all that was to be given on the subject. In verses 10-11, Paul commented on the subject in connection with what Jesus had already given ("not I, but the Lord").

But then in verses 12-16, Paul gave further instructions beyond what Jesus had personally given. He specifically said, "...the rest speak I, not the Lord:..." which most scholars see as meaning that Jesus did not speak of the issue that Paul herein addresses. Paul gives this instruction to Christians married to non-Christians. As he refers to them as "the rest," it is commonly accepted that verses 10-11 then refers to Christians married to Christians. There is, however, another (and perhaps more pertinent) difference between these two groups.

As just mentioned, in verses 10-11, Paul addresses the one who is tempted to leave the marriage. In verses 12-16, on the other hand, he addresses the one whose mate is leaving (or has left) the marriage.

His command to such at first seems basically the same as in verses 10-11: the Christian is not to leave his/her mate nor send her/him away. Just because that spouse is not a Christian does not allow one to divorce. Paul states that the marriage is a spiritual blessing to both the unbelieving mate and their children. He further states in verse 16 that the marriage may likely help in converting the unbeliever

Peter addresses the issue in 1 Peter 3:1; "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;"

But then Paul makes a statement that differs from what was said in verses 10-11. In verse 15 Paul says, "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." Paul does not command one who is deserted to reconcile for such is not possible except by the one who leaves (thus the command in verses 10-11).

As noted above, according to Roman law (and as Thayer indicates), the marriage was now legally over. To the Christian in verses 10-11, Paul said don't leave and don't marry another, but to the one already deserted, Paul says, "You are not under bondage."

"Not Under Bondage"

What does Paul mean by "not under bondage?" Many understand "not under bondage" to mean that the marriage bond is broken or destroyed and the Christian is free to marry again. Accordingly, the following points should be made:

Some believe that Paul is only giving a release from marital obligations, but no such release is needed from Paul. The unbeliever had already divorced the Christian and left! Therefore it would make no sense for Paul to give any further release to the one deserted other than the freedom to remarry.

Some have stated that Matthew 19:9 is everything given on the subject of marriage and divorce, but Paul's comments make it clear that such is not the case; there was more to be revealed than just what Jesus had said.

This is consistent with the principle of progressive revelation. For instance, Jesus did not mention that widows are allowed to marry again, but we know such is permitted because Paul states it later in this same chapter (verse 39).

Jesus gave His instruction on marriage and divorce, but there was more to come later. Jesus and Paul both instructed one who is married not to divorce/put away his/her spouse. But Jesus apparently did not give any command concerning Christians who were deserted.Paul, on the other hand, did. He is therefore not contradicting Jesus, and his words need not be taken to fit with what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9. Paul is simply giving further inspired teaching beyond that which was already given by Jesus.

Some claim such a view presents a contradiction with the one reason allowed by Jesus. There is, however, no such contradiction. In Matthew 19:9 (and the other gospel accounts), Jesus essentially said (by condemning those who did): don't instigate a divorce. He commands the believer not to put away a spouse (other than for the cause of fornication). And that's exactly what Paul said in verses 12-16.

To the Christian, Paul said: don't divorce. But Paul also acknowledged that the Christian's spouse may instigate the divorce. Jesus did not give any command about what to do if one's spouse leaves. But Paul did; he said, "Let him leave, you're not under bondage then."

The word bondage is from the Greek word dedoulotai. Thayer gives this meaning for its use in verse 15: "to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter." It is contended by some that it is too strong a word to be used for the marriage bond, but what bond is stronger?

Some say that this particular Greek word is never used concerning marriage, but the context of the entire chapter is the marriage bond. If Paul is not talking about the marriage bond, what bond or bondage is he talking about?

In verse 27 and verse 39, Paul speaks of being "bound" in marriage; he uses the Greek dedesai which certainly seems to be related to dedoulotai (after all, they are translated most similarly in English). Thayer says dedesai means "to bind, i.e. put under obligation, sc. Of law, duty, etc.... to be bound to one: of a wife, Romans 7:2; of a husband, 1 Cor. 7:27." This is a very similar meaning to dedoulotai. It seems the most natural understanding of "not under bondage"  is that such a one is no longer bound by law to the marriage.

Paul may be intentionally comparing one who is free from the marriage bond to one who is given freedom from slavery. The rabbis of that day saw many similarities between the certificate of divorce and the certificate given to free a slave. "The essential formula in the bill of divorce is: ‘Lo, you are free to marry any man.' The essential formula in a writ of emancipation [from slavery] is: ‘Lo you are a freedwoman: Lo you belong to yourself'"

When Paul said that the divorced person was no longer "enslaved", his readers in Corinth would have immediately understood that he was referring to the words in their divorce certificate that they were "free to marry any man...." This was the only phrase which had to occur in a divorce certificate, and it embodied the whole purpose of the certificate. The certificate was necessary to prove to any future husband that she was legally entitled to remarry. (Greek and Roman divorce certificates also contained similar phrases.) There can be no doubt that any first century Jew reading the words "not enslaved" in the context of divorce would assume that Paul meant they were free to remarry.

In 1 Cor. 7:27-28, Paul said, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. (Greek lusin--Strong's #3080). Art thou loosed (Greek lelusai-) from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you."

Thayer gives this meaning of  lusin: "a loosing of any bond, as that of marriage; hence once in the NT of divorce." Concerning lelusai, Thayer says it means: "To loose any person tied or fastened; of a single man, whether he has already had a wife or has not yet married; to loose one bound, i.e. to unbind, release from bonds, set free."

Both these words mean to be set free--apparently including the idea of being divorced by one's mate (the divorce being instigated by the mate, similar to the case of verses 12-16). Whether or not Paul has in mind one divorced or one not yet married ("virgin" as in verse 28 and verse 34), he does clearly show that being released is synonymous with not being bound. This is important and relevant in that verse 28 says that someone who is released (or no longer bound) is allowed to marry without sinning.

The most compelling evidence comes by comparing what Paul said to these two groups. The Christians in verses 10-11 were told not to marry again. On the other hand, the Christians in verses 12-16 were told they were "not under bondage."

If these two statements mean the same thing (as some contend), then why did Paul separate these into two groups? Would not one statement then cover all marriage situations? More importantly, Paul said that Jesus spoke about the first group, but not about the second. If the command to both groups is the same, how can this be?! This is a strong and certain indication that Paul gave a different command to the second group than he did to the first. To believe otherwise would necessitate an explanation of this contradiction.

What About the "Guilty Party?"

A common question arises in regards to one who is guilty of fornication and is therefore put away by his/her spouse (as discussed in Matthew 19:9). Is such a one allowed to ever marry again? It should be obvious that such a one should ask for forgiveness and do his/her best to save the marriage.

It is agreed that if the guilty one is forgiven by the offended spouse, then all is well and the marriage may continue with all its benefits. But what if that person has indeed repented to God and to his/her spouse and has made every effort to reconcile, but the spouse refuses and does, in fact, divorce the guilty one? Is that one thus divorced then forbidden from ever marrying again?

There are those who contend that such a one is never again permitted to marry. It is said that because of the nature of the sin, he/she has forever lost the right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Such a one does not deserve to be married because he/she messed up the first time. It is contended that God has placed the demand of eternal celibacy on one who has thus sinned.

Those who disagree with this position cite the following reasons: In the New Testament, there is actually no command given concerning the guilty party; neither Jesus nor Paul specifically discussed the "guilty party." There is no specific statement either allowing them to marry again or forbidding such. It is simply not discussed. It is, however, discussed in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 24 shows an example of one who was put away for "uncleanness."

That one was apparently permitted to marry again. The law was clear that the first husband could not come and take her again, thereby ensuring her right to be married to another. (In other ancient Near Eastern cultures, a man could apparently leave his wife and then reclaim her within five years, even if she had remarried in the meantime. The law given by Moses prevented such from occurring.)

If the innocent one is free, to what is the other bound? If the marriage bond is broken, thereby allowing one to marry again, then why not the other? The only purpose to forbid marriage to the guilty one would be to punish him/her, but such is not consistent with Biblical teaching on God's forgiveness (Hebrews 8:12; 1 John 1:9). If the person has indeed repented and God doesn't hold it against him/her any longer, why would He forbid marriage for such a one? Is there a Scripture that teaches such?

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives his personal advice against being married "in view of the present distress." But he does not forbid marriage to anyone (other than those in verse 10 in view of their hopeful reconciliation). In verses 8-9, Paul spoke about those who were unmarried and those who were widows.

The word unmarried is from the Greek word agamos (Strong #22); it is the negative of gamos, meaning "married." It apparently is a reference to people who are divorced as it is contrasted in verse 28 and verse 34 to those who are virgins (never been married). Paul advises such people to remain single; but he then says, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Paul makes no qualifications about which divorced people are allowed to marry again. Apparently, if they were truly agomos, meaning that they were no longer tied to another, they were free to marry without sin (as he says in verses 27-28).

Both Jesus (in Matthew 19:11) and Paul (in 1 Corinthians 7:7) acknowledged that not all are able to live as eunuchs (live celibate). That means that some will truly struggle with the temptation of fornication. To such people Paul says clearly that they should marry instead of burn (with passion). Would this not apply as well to the one who has already struggled with such? Is the "guilty party" required to continually burn with passion? Is this how God deals with those who sin but then repent?

God designed marriage as a remedy for sexual impurity. In 1 Corinthians 7:2, Paul wrote: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Notice he wrote this statement to people who had previously committed fornication and adultery (6:9). Paul did not forbid marriage to such people! (If marriage is going to be forbidden to all those who commit fornication, will this then be applied to those who commit fornication before ever being married?)

Finally, Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 would imply that anyone who leaves his/her mate should attempt to reconcile. This ought surely to apply to one who, in a sense, left their spouse by being unfaithful. This certainly seems to be God's ultimate will and thus should not be hindered.

It may be that the "guilty one" would be responsible to remain unmarried and continue every effort to reconcile until such is either successful or no longer possible (i.e., spouse remarries or dies). However, it is not for others to judge when one has made sufficient effort, but rather the one involved, knowing that God will judge him/her accordingly.

"Commits Adultery" Defined as Physical Sexual Act

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus said that one who wrongly divorces and marries another "commits adultery." Since men and women have often failed to live as Jesus commanded, there is (and ought to be) a great concern regarding what Jesus meant by that.

That He was clearly and boldly condemning the common practice of divorce "for any reason" is hopefully not under dispute. Jesus plainly taught that to divorce (except for the reason of fornication) and marry again was sinful. What is disputed is the specific meaning of "commits adultery." It is contended by many that Jesus was referring to the literal sexual act committed in the subsequent marriage. Accordingly, these arguments are made:

Such a position is consistent with the proper context of the passage (Jesus answering a question about the Law of Moses and perhaps applicable to those who had been getting divorces under the regulation of that Law). This dispute [between the Shammaites and the Hillelites] did not just concern a seemingly obscure interpretation, because if the Hillelite interpretation was incorrect then all the divorces which had been granted by Hillelites on the basis of "any matter" were invalid...  This would include virtually all the divorces at that time, because the Shammaite divorce was so much more difficult to obtain. Jesus was, in effect, declaring that all these divorces were invalid.

Jesus then pointed out a further consequence of his teaching: if any of those divorcees had got married (which would probably include virtually all of them), they were not really married, and were committing adultery. They were committing adultery because they were still married to their original spouse, while living with someone else.

In the Old Testament, the word adultery in taken from the Hebrew na'aph. This word is used many times to refer to the actual sexual act, such as is forbidden in the 7th commandment.

It is further contended that the sin of physical adultery occurs continuously throughout the course of the marriage. The term "commits adultery" is in the present tense and thus often refers to an action that is ongoing. It is commonly referred to then as "living in sin" or "living in adultery."

This view appears to place the emphasis on what occurs with the subsequent spouse. Thus, by this position, Jesus said that one who wrongly divorces and marries another is committing literal sexual adultery with that next wife/husband.

"Commits Adultery" Defined as Unfaithfulness to Covenant

Another view places the emphasis of "commits adultery" on what happens in connection with the original spouse and interprets the term perhaps more figuratively than literally. According to this position, Jesus said that one who wrongly divorces and marries has committed an act of unfaithfulness against his/her first spouse and has broken that marriage vow and/or covenant. Accordingly, the following arguments are given:

It is not uncommon in Scripture for Bible terms and words to be used in a figurative sense regardless of their primary meaning. For example, the word "baptism" primarily refers to immersion in water, but it is also used figuratively by Jesus in reference to the overwhelming sufferings of His life (Matthew 20:22) and also by Paul in reference to Moses and the Israelites (1 Corinthians 10:2).

Another example of figurative language is found in 1 John 3:15; there it says, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer:..." John was speaking figuratively to show that hatred is just as bad as murder. (In Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus similarly refers to the command against murder and then indicates that anger against a brother is likewise sinful.)

Likewise, there are several occasions of the word adultery being used figuratively to denote unfaithfulness or the breaking of vows. Israel's unfaithfulness to God is often referred to as adultery. Concerning Israel's sin of idolatry, Jeremiah 3:8-9 says, "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to  pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks."

Ezekiel 23:37 says, "That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them." Jesus seemed to use the word figuratively in Matthew 5:28 (just before speaking about marriage and divorce) when He said that looking at and lusting after a woman is "committing adultery." He also spoke of people unfaithful to God as an "evil and adulterous generation" (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38). Likewise, James referred to people who were unfaithful to God as "adulteresses" in James 4:4.

The Bible teaches that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman before God. In Proverbs 2:16-17, the writer speaks of an adulteress who "To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words; Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God."

Malachi 2:14 as well speaks of "Yet ye say, Wherefore? 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."

It is thus suggested that Jesus may be intending to use the word "adultery" to refer to unfaithfulness and the breaking of the vows of the marriage covenant. The Hebrew word na'aph (Strong #5003) normally translated as adultery, is actually translated as "break wedlock" in Ezekiel 16:38.

It is said that some older versions of the Bible (such as the Great Bible and Tynsdale Bible) actually translated moichatai in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as "breaks wedlock." Some thus think that this is exactly what Jesus intended by His statement. He is saying that one who wrongly divorces and marries another is indeed "breaking wedlock."

By the act of divorcing and marrying again, that one is being unfaithful to his/her vow and covenant with the first spouse. If husbands and wives would think more about the vows they made to each other and God and the covenant they made with one another and God, if they would seek to be more what God intended them to be (1 Peter 3:1-7; Ephesians 5:21-25; Philippians 2:3-4), then perhaps their marriages would be strong enough to endure those circumstances that would otherwise lead to divorce. Perhaps it is significant that Matthew's account in 5:32 has Jesus speaking on the importance of keeping vows right after speaking on marriage.

Is "Commits Adultery" a Continuous Action?

Regardless of how one chooses to define adultery (whether literal or figurative), there is no question or dispute that the practice of divorcing just to marry someone else is contrary to the will of God and thus sinful. The question that remains is in regards to whether the sinful action is point in time or continuous.

Was Jesus condemning the sexual act that would occur continually in a subsequent marriage (thus perhaps warranting another divorce or, at least, a cessation of marital relations)? Or was He focusing His condemnation specifically on the sinful act of divorcing and marrying without a proper cause?

What does the Greek language indicate about this issue? Of primary interest is the fact that "commits adultery" is grammatically in the present indicative. Many have contended that the present indicative has to indicate a continuous action. But does the present indicative have to indicate a continuous action? Apparently not. According to Greek scholars, present indicative may be either point or continuous action.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery." Both actions, divorcing and marrying, are both point in time actions. The conclusion would then also be a point in time action.

There is no doubt but that divorce, whether due to fornication or not, will lead to resulting conditions that are indeed continuous. Similarly, one who ‘buys a gun and shoots somebody' ‘commits murder'. The resulting condition is indeed continuous; the person remains dead. But the person who committed the murder did so at only one point in time.

The present indicative apparently no more suggests a continuous act of committing adultery than it does a continuous act of committing murder. The one who wrongly divorces and marries is deemed an adulterer, and perhaps he will always be considered as such. But he is considered as such because of a one time action.

What Must be Done to Repent?

It is obvious that Christians should strive to maintain their marriage commitment. Husbands and wives who imitate Christ in their personal lives and who adhere to biblical teachings will surely have successful marriages.

However, men and women have often failed to be what they ought to be and to live as Jesus commanded. Despite Jesus' and Paul's teaching to the contrary, some have indeed wrongly divorced and married again. What must such people do to truly repent and make things right with God and with others?

Hopefully all will agree that the guilt of one's sinful behavior continues until that one genuinely repents and confesses such sin (1 John 1:9). However, there are many who contend that one who wrongly divorces and marries another is continually committing the sin of actual sexual adultery in the subsequent marriage and must therefore divorce the subsequent spouse in order to truly repent and stand justified before God.

There are two biblical examples in the context of the Law of Moses where divorcing a subsequent spouse was apparently necessary in order to truly repent and be right with God:

In Deuteronomy 7:3-4, God had commanded His people, "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them [the heathen nations]; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods...."

Ezra speaks of the people of Israel realizing that they had forsaken the commandment of the Lord and thus determining to rid themselves of the evil influence. Ezra commanded, "And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives." (Ezra 10:10-11).

There is one example from the context of the Christian age in which divorce may have been necessary in order to truly repent and be right with God (though the context is concerning the sin of incest rather than that of wrongly divorcing and marrying another):

In 1 Corinthians 5:1, "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." The man and the woman (either his mother or stepmother) were apparently married (or at least living together) and thus in an incestuous relationship. Such was not only a violation of the Law of Moses, it was also against the Roman law of that time.

Paul commanded that the church was "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor. 5:5); apparently referring to withdrawing fellowship). It would be presumed that the man should remove himself from the sinful situation/relationship in order to be forgiven and restored to the fellowship of the church.

Others, believe that God makes no such demand on those who wrongly marry. The following points are made to show that another divorce is not necessarily required to be right with God:

Repentance means to stop doing what is sinful. What act did Jesus condemn as sinful? The act of sexual relations or the act of wrongly divorcing and marrying? The emphasis appears to be on the shameful practice of divorcing for any reason in order to marry another. This He called adulterous, and it is this practice that must cease (such was indeed a common practice of that time).

If this is the sin, then repentance means to stop the wrongful practice of divorcing and marrying. Stop breaking up marriages. Observe the teaching of Acts 8:18-24 and 1 John 1:9-confessing sin and asking for forgiveness. Start living by God's law to remain faithful to a husband/wife and to be committed to that marriage until death.

The Bible teaches that God approves of marriage and hates divorce. If one has sinned against God's law of marriage and divorce, how can divorcing again be the solution? Was it not wrong the first time to destroy a marriage and a home? How can it then be right to destroy a second marriage and home to make up for doing it the first time? God still hates divorce. Would not divorcing a subsequent spouse be a further sin against him/her?

Those who had been guilty of adultery before becoming Christians were apparently not required to end their marriages. Neither Jesus nor any apostle ever declared that one in an "unscriptural" or "adulterous" marriage needed to end such in order to be saved.

Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Some of those who became Christians had been guilty of fornication and adultery. Some had surely violated Jesus' command against marrying again, but Paul gave no command for anyone there to divorce.

Some today would require that one desiring baptism must understand all of God's laws on marriage and divorce and submit accordingly before being baptized. But apparently Paul had not followed that practice, because the Christians at Corinth wrote to Paul asking about marriage and divorce! They had all been saved without a thorough teaching on the issue of marriage and divorce. There is no record of them being commanded to divorce before salvation or in order to be right with God. It can, however, be assumed that they were taught to "repent, and sin no more."

Not only is there no record in Scripture of one who wrongly divorced and remarried being told to divorce (or to abstain from marital relations), there is nothing in historical writings about such. Divorcing and marrying was extremely commonplace in the Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures of that time. Nevertheless, nowhere in Scripture or any other writing of that time can be found a mention of such a one needing to divorce in order to be right with God.

Paul said in 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be bound (heterozugountes--Strong's #2086, meaning bound unequally) together with unbelievers." Paul may not have specifically had marriage in mind as he wrote this, but as already stated, there is no greater or more important bond than that of marriage.

Surely it is against God's will for a Christian to enter that bond with an unbeliever. But should a Christian then divorce his/her unbelieving spouse in order to be right with God? In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, Paul commands that a Christian should not divorce his/her unbelieving spouse.

While he is speaking (most likely) to those who became Christians after already being married, it seems reasonable that his command would also be applicable in this situation. And if so, is this not further evidence that God does not require those who wrongly marry to divorce that spouse?

One other point could be made regarding this particular issue. Romans 7:2-3 says, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 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." Though the context of this passage is not about marriage, but rather the extent of the Law, the lesson is still applicable. One is committing adultery as long as there remains a bond to another.

Conclusion

Many wise and godly people have studied what the Bible says about marriage and divorce and still find it hard to understand every aspect of the issue. All will agree that husbands and wives ought to diligently strive to stay together. And when they strive first to be what God intends for them to be, surely they will have successful marriages.

But what does God require of people who wrongly divorce and/or marry? Not everyone agrees on this. God may indeed at times make some difficult demands on people, but we need to make sure that we don't demand more than He does. Thank God for His wonderful love and grace and mercy given to those who honestly and sincerely seek to obey Him. May God bless those in such situations with wisdom to know what is required by Him and strength to do whatever that may be. And may God bless all of us with a right understanding of His will... in this and in all things.