‘DEATH’ the only ground for ‘Remarriage’!

Letter to a Christian friend who believed that Fornication and Desertion were a
ground for Remarriage.

Dear Brother,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I am not writing this letter to burden you with
a debate on ‘Divorce and remarriage’, knowing that right now time is very
precious to you, as you are preparing for your upcoming exams.

Neither do I write this to show how you are wrong and Brother C and I are right
on this matter.

I admit that for a long time after my salvation, I too believed exactly the way you
right now see things in this regard. I was convinced that fornication or the
departure of an unbelieving spouse was a valid ground for remarriage. I praise
God for showing me His mind on this.

The scriptures are written with one purpose in mind, i.e. to enlighten and save the
elect and to confuse and damn the reprobate! The Apostle says, there must be
heresies also [1Cor 11:19]. And the Scriptures are written in a way for these
errors and heresies to thrive. At face value many Scriptures seem to teach the
exact opposite of what they actually teach and affirm!

Two Scriptures that had convinced me that ‘Divorce and remarriage’ are
permissible while the spouse liveth are –
1. 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. [Mat 19:9]
2. 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. [1Cor
7:15]
In fact these are the same verses used by many to justify remarriage while the
spouse is alive! We shall consider these verses as we go, but first a word on
marriage itself.

ALL marriages are ordained of God: in every case God joins a man and a
woman in an unbreakable bond until death parts them. This is the case, even if
the wedding vows were exchanged in a registry office between two pagans. A
marriage is not a sacrament - as Rome teaches - so a non Christian marriage in a
secular place, or a marriage in a false church is still a joining of two in an
unbreakable bond. ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder’! (Matthew 19:5) & ‘The wife is bound by the law as long as her
husband liveth’ (1 Corinthians 7:39) & ‘For the woman which hath an husband
is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth’ (Romans 7:2).
‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they shall be one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24)

ANYONE who comes between a man and a woman thus joined commits
adultery.

“Divorce then is sin. Jesus gives only one exception, "except it be for
fornication." (Matthew 19:9) Note that in giving this permission, Jesus is giving
the sole reason for divorce, not a ground for remarriage. The text does not say,
Whosoever shall put away...and marry another..., except it be for fornication.
Jesus is not giving permission, even in such a case, for remarriage. Of
remarriage, He says, "...and shall marry another, committeth adultery." (Matthew
19:9) And He says of the spouse, whether guilty or innocent victim, "...and
whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew
19:9)

Jesus makes it clear then that divorce does not dissolve the original marriage.
Therefore such remarriage is always called "adultery." Moreover Jesus' words
make it clear that it is not simply the act of remarriage which is adultery, but the
remarriage relationship itself is a state of adultery, a constant walk of sin. Sin and
divorce may separate married persons. They give none the right to remarry
another”. [Rev. Thomas Miersma]

“If a man divorces his first wife he is NOT FREE to make wedding vows to
another woman: unless the first spouse is dead! NOTHING can sanctify / or
make lawful a ‘marriage’ to a second spouse: neither the passage of time, nor
conversion of one or both of the partners, nor custom, nor human law, nor public
or popular opinion, nor church decree or ‘blessing’ can make lawful a second
‘marriage’ while the first spouse lives. Jesus confronted the many-times married
Samaritan woman with these words, ‘Thou hast had five husbands; and he whom
thou now hast is not thy husband’ (John 4:18). John the Baptist confronted Herod
and Herodias (because Herodias’ first husband Philip was still alive), ‘It is not
lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife’ (Mark 6:18). It would not have been
against the law of Moses for Herod to marry Herodias if Philip was dead.
Deuteronomy chapter 25:5-6 actually commanded it. Because Philip was still
alive Herod and Herodias were committing adultery. For speaking out. John the
Baptist was persecuted. The same happens today. Today the persecution comes
in the form of anger against the messenger. ‘You’re a legalist’, ‘God wouldn’t
expect that of me’, ‘You are making everything too hard’ are common objections
today”. [Martyn’s Tulip Garden]

What of an innocent victim deserted and divorced by an unbelieving spouse?

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under
bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." [I Corinthians 7:15]

The first few years of my life as a Christian I took the words ‘not under
bondage’ to mean ‘free to marry again’.

But that is not what the Spirit through the Apostle is saying!

“The kind of desertion Paul speaks about is one where the unbeliever departs
because of the piety of the Christian spouse. In that case, the believer can have a
good conscience. The spouse left because of the godly behaviour of the
Christian. There is no guilt, no need to fear church discipline or disapproval of
the saints: ''a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath
called us to peace'' (I Cor. 7:15). ''If the unbelieving depart, let him depart'' is the
message of I Corinthians 7:15.

None of that means that the bond of marriage has been severed! The
unbeliever has sinned in departing. The believer can have a good conscience, but
the marriage bond is still maintained. The same chapter proves this (see I Cor.
7:39). The believer may not remarry because he is still married (''one flesh'') in
God's eyes. If the believer subsequently remarries, even if the state and the
church approve, he commits adultery, if his original spouse is still alive. Then
he can no longer have a good conscience, can no longer be in peace, and must
repent, and end that adulterous relationship!

Note very carefully that I Corinthians 7:15 does not say ''a brother or a sister is
not bound in such cases'' but ''a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such
cases.'' The phrases ''not bound'' and ''not under bondage'' are different. That is
obvious in the AV, but in some modern versions (example, the NIV) in both
places, the text is rendered ''not bound.'' That is an inexcusable mistranslation,
occasioned by an antinomian view of divorce and remarriage! A Christian
abandoned by his unbelieving spouse is not under bondage, but is certainly still
bound. Marriage is a bond, a lifelong, one-flesh union, but it is never described
in Scripture as being ''under bondage!'' It is simply unacceptable to say that I
Corinthians 7:15 means that a brother or a sister is not bound—not married—in
such cases”. [Martyn McGeown]

“That ‘not being under bondage’ describes one’s spiritual state before God is
borne out by the words in the text that express the opposite of being under
bondage: “but God hath called us to peace.” Peace is not, by any stretch of the
imagination, the right to remarry, but the spiritual state of a believer who lives in
the enjoyment of God’s favor, regardless of the most miserable circumstances of
earthly life.

If Paul taught in verse 15 that desertion is the dissolution of marriage and the
granting of the right to remarry, he would have flagrantly contradicted what he
would write a few verses later. For in verse 39 he stated in clearest and sharpest
language that married people are “bound” (not: “under bondage”) to each other
for life, and that death, and death only, gives a married woman the liberty to
marry another.

The teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter XXIV, VI, that
“nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by
the church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of
marriage . . . ,” is corruption of the Biblical truth of marriage, with deadly
serious consequences for those who carry it out in their practice.

Marriage is a life-long bond. The deserted believer, although not under bondage,
is very definitely still bound to the woman who has deserted him (as verse 39
establishes beyond any doubt). He is not at liberty to marry another.

Our young people must reckon with this solemn fact when they date and marry.
It is possible to marry an unbeliever in haste, only to repent in the leisure of a
long, lonely life, because the unbeliever departs. But it is also possible that a
believer is deserted by one who gave every evidence before marriage of being a
believer, but who proves herself an unbeliever by deserting. The comfort of this
believer is the Holy Spirit’s purpose in the text. It simply has nothing whatever
to do with the subject of the grounds for divorce and remarriage”. [Prof. D.J.
Engelsma]

Now consider this: “When the Pharisees came to Jesus, they asked, ''Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause?'' (Matt. 19:3). Jesus responded
by referring to the original ordinance in Genesis:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more
twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder (Matt. 19:4-6).

When the Pharisees objected by appealing to Deuteronomy 24, Jesus explained

that Moses had legislated for the hard-hearted Israelites (Matt. 19:8): Moses had
''suffered'' (Matt. 19:8) a situation in his day of men putting away their wives and
remarrying. Such hard-hearted Israelites could not submit to the law of the
LORD (Rom. 8:7), who ''hateth putting away'' (Mal. 2:16), and was a witness to
their treacherous dealings with the wives of their youth (Mal. 2:14). But Jesus
will not suffer that situation in His kingdom. The hard-hearted in today's church
may want to appeal to Deuteronomy 24, but Christ's response is
uncompromising:

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your
wives: but from the beginning it was not so, 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 (Matt. 19:8-9).

What was the reaction to this uncompromising doctrine of marriage? The

disciples were stunned: ''His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so
with his wife, it is not good to marry'' (Matthew 19:10).

Would the disciples have been shocked if Jesus had taught that fornication
was a ground for remarriage? Is anybody stunned if they are told, ''Well, you
can get married, and if the marriage breaks down, you can divorce your
unfaithful spouse and then marry somebody else?'' Most people think that this is
"fair", most people can live with that and see the ‘reasonableness’ of it. The flesh
can handle that kind of doctrine.

Would Jesus have answered, as He does in Matthew 19:11, ''all men cannot
receive this saying'' if he was allowing the innocent party to remarry? No
Sir! Only Jesus' doctrine of the unbreakable marriage bond elicits the response,
''if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry'' (Matt. 19:10).
There is something terribly wrong with the doctrine of marriage taught by the
church today. This response of the disciples is not being heard”! [Martyn Mc
Geown]

A Final Word
As a norm only two kinds of people embrace the error that remarriage is
permissible while the spouse still lives. One: those who are guilty of this sin and,
two: those planning on committing it. But there is a third kind too, i.e. those who
bow before the ‘god of reason’. Their response is- “I don’t see how it can be the
will of a righteous God for an innocent person to be penalized the remainder of
his or her earthly life because of the infidelity of another? Surely the very idea is
repugnant to all who are really acquainted with the Divine goodness and mercy”.
Strangely these are the same Reformed Christians who have no problem with a
God who has cursed the whole human race for the transgression of one man!
[Rom 5:12] Neither do they have a problem with a God who loves one twin
brother and hates the other before either of them are born or have done any good
or evil! [Rom 9:11-13]

The question as to whether remarriage is permissible while the spouse is alive, is

not to be decided by ascertaining which is more agreeable to our feelings or the
more plausible to our understanding, but what is consistent with the doctrines of
the Bible and the command of God!

'The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long
as he liveth'' (Rom. 7:2) and ''the wife is bound by the law as long as her
husband liveth'' (I Cor. 7:39).

Dear Brother, it is my prayer that sooner or later God will grant you the grace to
receive this ‘hard saying’ for all men cannot receive this saying, save they to
whom it is given! You are in my prayers.

Love
Mike!