Following are a number of other objections that have been raised in an effort to prove that to take a position like Jerome took would be extreme, unreasonable, or unscriptural.
Didn’t Paul write that when a believer is deserted by an unbelieving spouse, he or she is “not under bondage”? How can you then say that he or she is not free to remarry?
The passage referred to here is 1 Corinthians 7:15. The answer is yes, Paul does clearly say that the believer is “not under bondage in such cases”. The question we must ask, however, is “not under bondage to what?” What is the nature of the freedom mentioned here? It is often assumed this freedom must mean the freedom to remarry, but this verse doesn’t say that at all. Instead, it spells out clearly the nature of this freedom. Here is the complete text of this verse.
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. (1 Corinthians 7:15)
So the freedom mentioned here is just that: the freedom to allow the unbeliever to depart. The guilt that is normally attached to divorce (see the prohibition given in 1 Corinthians 7:10) does not touch the believer who has been deserted, provided he or she has done nothing to provoke the separation.
The freedom to remarry, on the other hand, is not mentioned at all in this verse. That particular freedom can only be achieved by one event, and that event is also spelled out clearly in another verse later in this same chapter.
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39)
What if the remarriage has already occurred? Can’t the couple just repent of their sin but then go on living together?
Those who ask this question seem to acknowledge that the act of remarriage is sin, but then deny that the condition of remarriage is also sin. In other words, the wedding was sin but the marriage is not. The cure, therefore, is to simply ask forgiveness for getting remarried; there is no need to then separate from that marriage as Jerome directed.
If you are one who holds this view, here is an important question you should ask yourself. If the on-going marriage is not sin, at what point did the sin stop? At what point did the sinful relationship become non-sinful?
Let me put this question another way. When a married man, on night number one, goes out with a prostitute, most of us would agree that he is committing adultery. But what about on night number two, when he divorces his wife and then goes out with the prostitute again? Or what about night number three, when he goes to a judge and marries the prostitute? What about nights number four, five, and six? At what point does this relationship stop being adultery? On which night did this relationship change from being sinful to sinless?
It seems far more reasonable to conclude, as Jerome did, that a lapse of time will never be enough to remove the adultery from this relationship. As long as the first spouse is still living, this second relationship will continue to be adulterous. This man will still be committing adultery against his first wife on nights four, five, six, and one hundred and six.
This is also consistent with Jesus’ words in Mark 10:11 when He indicated that in addition to adultery being a vertical sin (against God), it is also a horizontal sin (against man). As long as the wife in the above illustration is still living, the man is still committing adultery against her, regardless of the amount of time that has passed.
What if the divorce and remarriage happened before conversion?
One argument that would doubtless be used against Jerome’s counsel, if he were alive today, is this: “But what if this marriage, divorce, and remarriage all took place before this woman was saved? Doesn’t the blood of Christ wash away her former sins? Since ‘all things have become new’, can’t they simply ask forgiveness for past actions and then remain together as husband and wife?”
This argument sounds logical, but it is built on an assumption that is simply not true. It assumes that the thing which makes the second marriage adulterous is the sin of divorce. “Therefore,” this reasoning continues, “if the sin of divorce can be washed away, then the second marriage will no longer be adulterous.”
In reality, however, it is not the sin of divorce that makes the second marriage adulterous, but rather the existence of the first marriage. The first marriage is still binding as long as the other partner is still alive, according to 1 Corinthians 7:39. The first marriage is not a sin that can be simply wiped away at time of conversion, but rather a covenant which can be either honored or violated as long as both partners are still living. And the violation of a marriage covenant, through sexual relations with another person, is called adultery.
While it is true that the new birth brings momentous changes into the life of a new believer, there are certain physical conditions that do not automatically disappear. A tall person is still tall, a fat person is still fat, a debtor is still in debt, and earthly relationships still exist. And since God recognizes even the marriages of unbelievers, a married person is still married.
Didn’t Paul write that new believers should remain in the condition they were in at the time of conversion? Why then didn’t Jerome tell Fabiola to remain in her second marriage?
Here is the passage in question.
Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed 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. (1 Corinthians 7:24-28)
Paul is giving a general encouragement to believers (directed primarily to virgins) to remain in the marital state they were in at the time of their calling. But he simply is not giving any direction at all about what to do with an adulterous marriage. We can only assume that the bondage he mentions is a normal (non-adulterous) marriage and that the freedom he mentions is due to the natural conditions of virginity (v. 25) or death (v. 39). To apply this passage to the unnatural condition of divorce and remarriage is to make an inference from silence, an inference that is very dangerous with a matter as important as this one.
To be consistent with the rest of Scripture we ought to treat an adulterous marriage that exists at the time of conversion just like we would treat any other sin. To repent is to turn from sin, which means that a killer will stop killing, a liar will stop lying, and a thief will give back what he has stolen. Likewise true repentance for someone in an adulterous marriage will mean turning from the adultery by getting out of the marriage, just as Jerome counseled Fabiola to do.
Surely a loving God would never be in favor of dividing a family, would He?
This question implies that God, being a God of love, is concerned primarily about our happiness. Yet the consistent testimony of Scripture is that God is far more concerned about our holiness than He is about our happiness. And there are times when, for the sake of holiness, He asks us to give up things that we think make us happy.
In Ezra chapter 10, for instance, we have the account of a large number of Jewish men who had taken foreign wives contrary to the law of God. After a time of prayer and fasting, Ezra instructed these men to separate themselves from these strange women (verse 11). This was done, according to verse 14, in the hope that “the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us”. (Is it not reasonable to conclude similarly that God’s fierce wrath is right now about to fall upon America, and that it is at least partially because of the sin of divorce and remarriage? Are we willing to do whatever is in our power to divert that wrath?)
In another case, John the Baptist rebuked Herod because of his unlawful marriage. The implication in this passage is that he would have had to put her away in order to be right with God, thus again splitting up a family unit.
In spite of these two cases, however, it is still true that God’s desire generally is to protect the family unit and to see families stay together. This desire is one of the primary reasons for the stringent requirements Jesus placed on divorce and remarriage in the first place. In one of Tertullian’s quotes in Chapter 5, he implies that the very fact that remarriage is forbidden will itself become a deterrent to divorce. And this has certainly proven to be true in modern America. At one time in the recent past, remarriage was stigmatized, and divorces were extremely rare. Once remarriage became a respectable option, however, the number of divorces in this country grew exponentially.
But has this approach ever been successful?
For some, the biggest objection against the kind of decision that Jerome made about Fabiola is that it just doesn’t work. In the long run, they say, it doesn’t work to split up a happily married couple and ask them to live separately. Eventually, they will give in to the pressure to get back together. Or one of them will get discouraged and then get remarried to someone else.
I can’t deny that the situations are very rare where both spouses are permanently convinced of the need to separate. But should the rate of acceptance ever be a determining factor in discerning the will of God? Jesus said that certain classes of people (the rich) would have a very hard time entering the kingdom of God. Is it possible that He would say the same thing about those who are divorced? Is it right for us to alter the demands of the gospel in order to improve our “success rate” with any group of people?
The fact is that while Jerome’s decision about Fabiola would be a very hard sell in any society, it is especially true in modern America. First of all, we as a nation are totally adverse to any hint of self-denial and sacrifice. Secondly, in this supposedly “Christian” nation, any couple who would take such a radical stand would immediately be faced with a whole boat-load of pastors telling them that they could and should get back together.
Is it possible that the success rate would improve if all pastors would become united in their call to radical repentance? Would the idea of separation become more acceptable once there have been a number of divorced and remarried couples that have taken such a stand? I don’t know. Either way, our basis for making such decisions must always be the Word of God, not the popular opinion of those affected.
But I know some divorced and remarried couples who live such beautiful, godly lives! Doesn’t this prove that their marriages are not adulterous?
The fact is that there are many remarried couples today who profess to be Christians and are otherwise living seemingly godly lives. For some, this fact is a big hindrance to the acceptance of Christ’s teachings about divorce and remarriage. They ask, “Doesn’t the Bible say that we will know people by their fruits? Could they actually be producing these fruits if they are living in the sin of adultery?”
One thing we must remember as we answer this question is that we are called to examine our lives by the Word of God, not interpret the Word of God by human lives. Even though there are many people who seem to be bearing fruit that is supernatural, the real testing point ought to be whether or not they obey Christ. Jesus said there would be many people on judgment day who will be relying on their own supernatural fruit (prophesying, casting out demons, etc.) as evidence that they are right with God. But because they have been disobedient to the very commands of Christ, He is going to tell them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
We must also remember that there are many members of cults and false religions who, to some extent, produce fruit that looks supernatural. Often they have been set free from sins such as drugs, alcohol, and fornication, and have embraced good teachings such as family values, industry, and self-control. But these things are, in the long run, utterly vain if they are not built upon a true surrender to the lordship of Jesus Christ.
I Timothy 4:3 says that it will be the false teachers who forbid people to marry. Doesn’t this implicate Jerome when he counseled Fabiola to remain single?
The problem with this line of reasoning appears obvious, since this would also implicate our Lord Jesus when He forbade the remarriage of divorcees. Paul would also be implicating himself, since he had commanded a deserted spouse to “remain unmarried” in 1 Corinthians 7:11. There is a big difference between a general prohibition against marriage that applies to everyone and a specific prohibition against marriage for someone who has been previously married.
But I love my spouse too much to even consider the possibility of separation.
There is no doubt that a separation such as Jerome asked of Fabiola would be an extremely difficult ordeal to go through. The real question, however, is whether or not you love your spouse enough to go through this separation. Because if God is truly asking you to separate yourself from a sinful relationship, then the most loving thing you could do for your spouse is to patiently endure the trial of separation. To insist on remaining in an adulterous relationship, and thus endangering the soul of your spouse (as well as your own soul), would actually be an act of hatred, not an act of true love.
But what if there are children from the second marriage? Won’t it hurt them drastically if the marriage is split up? Shouldn’t we be considerate of what this will do to them?
To this question I can only respond passionately, “Yes, let’s be considerate of the children!” The horrendous permissiveness regarding divorce over the last several decades has destroyed the lives of millions of people, and tragically it has been the children who have suffered most. If all churches in America would take a stand against remarriage like Jesus taught, most divorce within the church would also fall by the wayside and put an end to this horrible carnage.
Would the children have to make some sacrifices if their parents would separate from each other for the cause of Christ? Probably. But it would be nothing compared to the horrible suffering they have already endured when their parents separated for the cause of Satan. What a powerful testimony it would be for these children to see Mommy and Daddy, who once lived for their own selfish motives, start to make difficult choices for the sake of righteousness!
_______________________
The burden of this book is to urge all Christians toward a radical obedience to Jesus and a rejection of all divorce and remarriage, yet I know there will be many objections raised against this idea. Although I have attempted to answer some of these objections to the best of my ability, I also know that for many of you these answers have not been satisfactory. You still believe that one or more of these objections may have some merit. You still believe that there may be some valid exceptions for which this book does not make room.
If this is the situation with you, I would like to ask you a simple question. If you reject my proposal, what do you have to replace it with? If you make room for one of these exceptions that I have encouraged you to reject, what is your basis for doing so? If you are honest about your answer, don’t you have to admit that it is based on a “maybe”? Isn’t the allowance you are making based on what the Bible doesn’t say, rather than on what it does say? If so, is this not a dangerous way to make such far-reaching decisions?
Be the first to react on this!
