Man's ability to justify his sins is
amazing. "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out
any inventions"
(Eccl. 7:29). In their efforts to justify divorces and
remarriages of every description, men have come up with the
following concept. When two people cannot get along and they
decide to break up their home in the absence of adultery, it
is a sinful tragedy, but the result is that they are both free
to marry new partners. Some people would add that after such a
divorce, both parties are free to marry new partners only
after one of them commits fornication. (After already having
repudiated their marriage, and waiting for one or the other to
fall into immorality, by some mental gymnastics one party puts
away the other a second time!)
Still other folks argue that after such a divorce, when one
party finally commits fornication, the other party alone is
free to marry someone else. (This too requires the mental
gymnastics of a person putting away a second time for another
cause the mate whom they have already put away!) According to
some of these inventions of men, if the first party enters an
adulterous marriage after the separation, his bed of adultery
can be transformed into the bed of honorable marriage by the
hocus-pocus and mental gymnastics of his original mate.
HOW LONG IS HE GUILTY? Until his first mate says, "I DON'T
WANT TO BE BOUND TO THAT ADULTEROUS PARTNER." That is when
that man stops committing adultery (Glen Lovelady in [J.T.]
Smith-Lovelady Debate on Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage
[Brooks, KY: Searching the Scriptures, 1976], p. 69).
The mere words of his first mate sanctify the adulterous
marriage. Such cases, scenarios, and variations might be
multiplied endlessly, but they all share the common fallacy of
"the waiting game." They all share the concept that all
remarriages, regardless of the circumstances, can be justified
by waiting. A person can put a stumbling block before his
mate, wait for her to fall over it, then proclaim himself free
to enter another marriage. He could do this again and again,
just so he tries to "do better" each time. Or, a person in an
adulterous marriage can wait for his mate to say some words
which free him from the adultery while allowing him to stay in
the very same marriage. Such a theory would allow him to move
from one marriage to another again and again if he could get
the last mate to say the magic words after each new
remarriage.
The Teaching of Jesus in Matt. 5:32
Jesus prohibited and precluded every possible variation of
"the waiting game" in divorce and remarriage.
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 (Matt. 5:31-32).
Let us notice briefly what the Law of Moses said and how
men misuse it. Then, we will examine more closely what Jesus
said.
During the Mosaic Age, when God tolerated polygamy, He also
tolerated divorce for a cause short of fornication:
uncleanness or shameful indecency (Deut. 24:1-4). The severe
limitations and restrictions placed upon such a divorce
discouraged it, but it was permitted temporarily "because of
the hardness of your hearts" (Matt. 19:8). Some very liberal
minded Jews perverted Deuteronomy 24 to justify divorce for
any and every cause, and some like-minded brethren today
misuse the passage in the same way. Jack Freeman claims, "God
was allowing...divorce if she burned the toast or the
biscuits....He did under the Law that He gave through Moses"
(Marriage Series, No. 1, North Las Vegas Church of Christ, Las
Vegas, NV, 1988). Maurice Estes claims, "Divorce for any cause
under the Law of Moses dissolved the marriage," even for such
flimsy excuses as a wife going about "with her hair undone,"
and this established "the right of both parties to remarry"
(Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage: The Scriptures Speak
[Morro Bay, CA: Meco Foundation, Inc., 1979], pp. 5-8).
That is the kind of foolishness Deuteronomy 24 was designed
to eliminate. This misuse of the Law of Moses is utilized
today by some brethren to twist Matthew 5:32 to justify
freeing both parties for second marriages no matter what the
cause of the divorce. Some brethren profess that both parties
are free to marry new mates only if the divorce was caused by
fornication, but they end up allowing people to stay in
adulterous marriages formed after divorces which were not for
fornication. Maurice Estes perverts both the Law of Moses and
the Law of Christ to argue that "there must be today the same
understanding of the effect of a scriptural writing of
divorcement: that it frees both parties to remarry" (ibid., p.
6).
All such arguments lend themselves to "the waiting game"
fallacy. It does not matter how or why the marriage breaks up,
regardless of how flimsy the excuse, as soon as either party
remarries, the other is considered free to remarry. The bottom
line is this: All cases of remarriage following divorce for
any and every cause can be justified with the help of "the
waiting game," some mental gymnastics, and a little
hocus-pocus.
A Rule, One Exception, No Waiting Game
The Law of Christ embodies a rule with one exception. The
rule is, "Whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to
commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery." The man who divorces his wife
for any and every cause will be responsible for her subsequent
adulterous marriage. This man will be held accountable to God
for causing his wife to fall into sin. That does not exonerate
her from guilt in forming and maintaining an adulterous union.
In the case presented by Jesus, a subsequent marriage is
assumed as is evident from his reference to the one who
marries "her that is divorced." The subsequent marriage is
clearly held to be immoral, adulterous, or impure in God's
sight, contrary to the claim that God recognizes or approves
every marriage which is legal according to human law (Heb.
13:4). The rule announced by Jesus forever prohibits and
precludes people breaking up their marriage and waiting for
their mate to commit adultery, as a pretext for claiming the
right to select a new marriage partner!
The exception has the following force. "Whosoever shall put
away his wife FOR FORNICATION is not responsible for her
subsequent adultery: and whosever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery." Again, Jesus assumes the case
of a second or subsequent marriage and condemns it as
adulterous, but the man who divorced her because of her
immorality is not the cause of the sin she commits when she
remarries. The claim that she is living in adultery in the
subsequent marriage until her original mate says he releases
her is ludicrous, the vain imagination and wicked invention of
men attempting to create loopholes in divine law. Waiting for
her former mate to say hocus-pocus will not resolve her
adultery. If that would suffice, John could have easily
resolved the incestuous adultery of Herod and Herodias by
getting Philip to say he did not want her back anyway. John
told Herod in no uncertain terms, "It is not lawful for thee
to have her" (Matt. 14:4).
J.W. McGarvey summed it up well in his excellent commentary
on The Fourfold Gospel (p. 242):
Jesus here limits the right of divorce to cases of
unchastity, and if there be a divorce on any other ground,
neither the man nor the woman can marry again without
committing adultery....and in no part of the New Testament
is there any relaxation as to the law here set forth...and
it is therefore held almost universally...that the innocent
party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the
guilty party could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap
the benefits of his own wrong.
God's law on marriage is one man for one woman for life,
with only one exception. The exception is that an innocent
partner can put away an immoral mate, and marry another person
without committing adultery. No theory of man, including "the
waiting game," can nullify or alter one iota of God's law.
[Published in Guardian of Truth, XXX, 6 (Mar. 18,
1993):168-69]
