Sunday Sermons
The Guilty Party
This lesson will deal with the question of whether or not the person who has been put away (divorced) because of their sexual immorality (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) is free to remarry. This author believes that the Scriptures do not authorize the guilty party to remarry. Therefore, I will present some arguments that are used to justify the guilty party remarrying and then answer them.
The Bible does not even mention the “guilty party”
It is true that the Bible does not use the terminology “guilty party” and yet we must not get side-tracked, it is clear that someone in Matthew 19:9 is guilty and someone is innocent of sexual immorality. If you don’t like the phrase “guilty party” then I guess you can say the “sexually immoral one”. When Jesus said, “except for immorality” (Matthew 19:9), this opens to the door to talk about the guilty party. If one is authorized to put away their mate for the cause of immorality, then the question naturally becomes, what about the one put away – can they remarry?
“Sexual immorality ends the marriage... logic would teach us that if the marriage is broken neither party is bound to it; each is free to marry whomever he or she wills”
This position is at times called, “one loosed, both loosed”. The idea is that if two people are handcuffed together and one is released then the other one is naturally free. Yet this analogy isn’t true. If one person is released, the other person is still wearing the handcuffs.
-
Marriage is much more than a civil contract (Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 7:2-3). The two people in the marriage are bound to each other and at the same time bound to the law of God. We must recognize that since God planned marriage (Genesis 2:18, 22-25), He has the exclusive right to set the terms and conditions of not only who can marry, what is a marriage, and who can divorce and remarry.
-
Divorce can end a marriage, yet the two people involved, although free from each other, are not free from the Law of God. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 a couple is divorced and yet is not free to remarry. Whether or not either can remarry depends on whether or not God has given the right of remarriage to one, both or none.
-
The text does not say that sexual immorality ends the relationship, it simply says that the person sinned against has the right to put their mate away and remarry without committing adultery. Sexual immorality does not automatically end the marriage and divorce is not demanded.
“Where does it say that the guilty party cannot remarry?”
First, there is no passage that specifically has the words, “the guilty party cannot remarry”. Yet this does not settle the matter. In like manner, there is no passage which says, “Thou shalt not use instrumental music in worship”, and yet we know that it is unauthorized, for what is authorized is singing (Ephesians 5:19). We are going to end up in trouble spiritually if we address every issue with the attitude, “Well, where does it say that I can’t do it?” Or, “What is wrong with it?” David Posey notes, “I believe every person who persists in making moral and religious decisions by means of asking, ‘what is wrong with it’ has very little hope of getting to heaven. It is the most immature question a Christian can ask. Philippians 4:8 says that we are to dwell on things that are right. When we conduct our lives and make decisions by asking ‘what is right with it’. It is hard to go wrong” (Can’t Dance, Focus Magazine, March 1999, p. 6). Let us learn well the lesson of Leviticus 10:1. These two priests did something that there was no command against, yet they were condemned, because there was no command for it. The question that must be asked is, “What is right with it?” That is, where does the text give the guilty party the right or remarriage? I can find a right of remarriage of widows and widowers (1 Corinthians 7:39), and I can find the right of remarriage for the innocent party in Matthew 19:9. Yet there is absolutely no authority or right given to the put away person to remarry.
-
“And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”(Matthew 5:32).
Notice that the “divorced” woman here is intentionally left generic. No specific divorced woman can be referred to. That is, we cannot say, “This is limited only to a woman put away – not for sexual immorality”, or, “This is limited only to a woman put away because of sexual immorality”. The meaning is, that any put away woman, whether put away for sexual immorality or not – cannot remarry without committing adultery. I only have the right of remarriage if my spouse cheated on me. I do not have the right of remarriage if the marriage simply ended without anyone cheating or if I was the one doing the cheating and I was put away.
“The woman in Deuteronomy 24 was put away because of fornication, she is allowed to remarry without sin, Jesus was teaching the right view of Deuteronomy 24 in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 and therefore – the guilty party can remarry”
This is a more recent argument that I have heard on this issue. Allow me to address the false assumptions upon which it rests:
-
First Assumption: “The woman in Deuteronomy 24 was put away because of the cause of fornication”
Actually, the text does not say that, rather, the text says, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her”(Deuteronomy 24:1). Some argue that the “indecency” her must be sexual immorality. The problem with this is that other passages specifically address what to do with a woman guilty of adultery. She was to be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22). Observe that the death penalty was not an option, but a direct command, “then both of them shall die”. Therefore, the “indecency” is something other than sexual immorality.
-
Second Assumption: Matthew 19:9 is exactly the same teaching as Deuteronomy 24:1-3
First, Jesus specifically denied this assumption. His teaching in Matthew 19:9 is true “from the beginning” (19:8), the instruction in Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is something Moses permitted due to the hardness of Israelite hearts. Observe the word “but” in Matthew 19:8. Deuteronomy 24:1-3 was not what was taught from the beginning. Second, “If Deuteronomy 24 is simply granting divorce for fornication, then why did Jesus say that Moses gave the precept for the hardness of their hearts? Jesus is not accusing a man of being hardhearted because he divorces an adulterous wife. If that is true, then Jesus statement in Matthew 19:9 is also written for the hardness of our hearts” (Misapplying Deuteronomy 24, Berry Kercheville, Focus Magazine, June 1999, p. 14). Remember this last point. If Deuteronomy 24:1-3 and Matthew 19:9 are identical, then putting away your mate because they cheated on you is an indication that you have a hard heart! Recently someone has tried to reinterpret the phrase “your hardness of heart” to make it mean not that the men here are evil but rather, but because some men can’t forgive, and they continue to have angry feelings toward the cheating mate, I am giving you the right to put them away. Yet this not only turns the phrase “hardness of heart” into something that is not evil, it equally accuses the person who puts away a cheating mate of being morally or spiritually inferior. Observe what has happened here. In trying to give the guilty party the right to remarry – we end making innocent people feel bad for not taking back their cheating mates. In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus is making it clear that Deuteronomy 24:1-3 was not giving the Jews a green light for divorce.
-
Third Assumption: The woman in Deuteronomy 24 is given the right to marry again without sin
Carefully read Deuteronomy 24:1-3 and see if you can find any authorization to divorce and remarry. The man is not authorized to divorce his wife for “indecency”, it rather says, “When a man...” (24:1). There is no command here, rather God is simply describing a situation. This passage is no different than passages such as Exodus 21:20-27 where a man must let his servant go free if he knocks out his eye or his tooth. God is not authorizing the beating of servants! He is simply saying, “if this happens... then”. Therefore, the woman is not authorized to go out and remarry, the text does not say that, it simply says, “and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife”. Too many people read Deuteronomy 24:2 and they think they see the words, “and she may go and marry another”. There is no command here, no permission, rather, God is describing a “what if”.
“Then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her back again to be his wife, since she has been defiled” (Deuteronomy 24:4).
Now here is the actual command. This is an “if”, “then” section of Scripture. The “if” is often something that is sinful, like beating a servant or seducing a woman (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), the “then” is what is authorized, or the consequences. So what about that second marriage, was it lawful? Observe that Moses says that the woman is “defiled”. In fact, she is spoken of as “defiled” even if her second husband is dead (24:3). She is not defiled by a second divorce because her defilement remains even if her second husband dies. Leviticus 18:20-25 speaks of a similar defilement in regard to such sins as adultery. In light of such a word, we cannot speak of the second marriage in this text as being holy or authorized. Therefore, God tolerated such a divorce and remarriage, but did not authorize them as Malachi 2:14-16 proves. If she is defiled, when should any godly man marry her, and if the second marriage defiled her – then what about her first husband if he had remarried. Sounds like he would have been defiled as well! Therefore, Jesus is not saying that Moses wrote a bad Law (Romans 7:12). He is saying that the Jews took “if, then verses” and turned them into positive authority to do something. The “if, then” of Deuteronomy 24:1-3 was not God’s law on the matter, it did not alter Genesis, it was not a green light for divorce and remarriage, it was simply permitted with clear consequences, both physical and spiritual.
