The Hope of the Believer . . .

MAY THE DIVORCED REMARRY?

Cecil Hook 

In discussions concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage, Paul's explanation in Rom. 7:1-3 has been both misunderstood and misused. From it some students conclude that there is no condition which makes divorce and remarriage acceptable. Other persons allow for divorce under certain conditions but they contend that a subsequent marriage would be sinful.

Let me direct your attention to a few points about this passage which often are overlooked. Sometimes we become so confused by our boggling explanations that we fail to see some of the plainest teachings.

In the RSV the passage reads: "Do you not know, brethren — for I am speaking to those who know the law — that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."

Paul has much to say about the Law of Moses in Romans. In this setting he is using a point about marriage as an illustration. He is not stating all of the regulations that may pertain to marriage, but he is teaching that a Jew could accept Christ without disrespecting or violating the Law of Moses. That is simple enough until we get hung up on quibbles.

Under the law a woman could not divorce her husband; so, she was bound to him generally. Does that mean she could never be divorced with permission to remarry? It does not!

Paul was addressing "those who know the law." What did the law say? In Dt. 24:14 it clearly states that a man could give his wife a bill of divorce and send her out of his house. Thus she was freed from the man so that she could become the wife of another man. God put that provision in the law because of "your hardness of heart" (Mt. 19:3-9). In those times when a woman could hardly make her own way alone in their society, it would have been hard-hearted to drive her out with no permission to find another man to provide for her.

Did the law demand that she continue to consider herself to be that man's wife after he divorced her? No. Was she branded an adulteress when she married another man? No. Was her second union an unlawful situation rather than really being a marriage? No, for she became "another man's wife," not a live-in. Marriage partners do not commit adultery with one another.

Was this remarried woman living with, or married to, "another man while her husband is alive"? She was not! She had no husband at the time she became another man's wife. After her husband gave her a bill of divorce, he was no longer her husband. He is then referred to as her "former husband." He became an ex-husband from whom she was free with the privilege of becoming another man's wife.

If a husband found an "indecency" or an "unseemly thing" in his wife, he could divorce her, according to Dt. 24:14. Whether this was something genetic (kinship), bad manners, or immoral conduct, the cause for the divorce lay in her. Did this flaw in her make her the "guilty party"? Even though the grounds for the divorce were in her, upon being given a certificate of divorce by her husband, she became loosed from him and was free to become the wife of another man — the "guilty party" remarrying! "Knowing the law," Jesus was recognizing, explaining, and reinforcing this Mosaic passage in Mt. 19:3-9. "Knowing the law," Paul was not contradicting it.

Paul's illustration in Rom. 7 deals with bigamy or living with two men at one time. The woman already has one husband when she takes a second man to live with. Under the law a man could practice bigamy without committing adultery against his wife, but a woman did not enjoy a comparable privilege. Paul states that "she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive," but if her husband dies, "and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."

Divorce is not a factor discussed in this passage. The general concept of marriage is being used as an illustration to teach the Jews that one could accept Christ without violating another relationship with God through law.

Paul's explanation in Rom. 7:4-6 takes a surprising twist. We expect him to declare that the law was dead, but he does not! It is not the husband (law) that died to free the wife from the law of her husband. The wife died! "The law is binding on a person only during his life" (v.1). Under the law she could not put her husband away; so, she freed herself from him by dying while he yet lived! (Later, he who is "become obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" Heb. 8:13.) Paul had explained already in chapter 6 that the believers had died to law. They looked to law no more for justification, for "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

So, rather than giving a discourse on marriage here, Paul is assuring disciples that when they died with Christ for their justification they freed themselves from law as another source of it.

We should uphold all of God's law with fervor, but our zeal must not lead us to bind restrictions where God has not. The road to heaven has enough discouragements without having an extra yoke laid on us by well-meaning men. — 1350 Huisache, New Braunfels, Tx. 78130