Better to Marry than to Burn

Mark Dunagan
07/13/08 - Sunday Evening

 

1 Corinthians 7:9

 

In this lesson we want to address the claim that 1 Corinthians chapter 7 is the definitive chapter on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the New Testament and the statement, “It is better to marry than to burn” (7:9) is the foundational verse that underlies all questions that pertain to this topic. Yet from the outset can one honestly consider one passage as more foundational than any other passage? Is it not more wise to simply take all the verses on the topic and come up with the right conclusion? It is unwise to decide that one passage defines all others or trumps all others.

 

• The Application

 

Many have believed that Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, along with other passages, teach there is only one biblical cause for divorce, that is sexual immorality on the part of one’s spouse, and that any remarriage that does not follow such an act of sexual immorality, is adultery, and must be ceased if one wants to be right with God. Others state this conclusion is erroneous on a couple of points:

 

Some are claiming that what Jesus taught in the Gospels only applied to the Jews, and does not apply to Christians or to anyone living after the cross. Yet the context of Matthew 5 argues that Jesus was not teaching the Law of Moses, rather, He was teaching the gospel (Matthew 4:23). Jesus makes it clear in Luke 16:16, that from the time of John the Baptist, the gospel was being proclaimed by both John and Himself. In addition, it seems very strange for Jesus to command His disciples to teach new converts “to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:20), if in fact, everything that He taught while on earth does not apply to anyone after the cross. Finally, in Matthew 19:8 Jesus makes it very clear that what He was teaching on this point was not the Law, but what had been true “from the beginning”.

 

There is another problem with claiming that Matthew 5:32 or Matthew 19:9 do not apply to anyone after the cross: What passage after the cross authorizes one to put away their mate for sexual immorality? If these passages do not apply today, if they were just Old Testament teaching, then it would be sinful to divorce your mate even if they cheated on you, for 1 Corinthians 7 does not mention the exception cause and neither does any other passage outside the Gospels. It is inconsistent to appeal to Matthew 19:9 when authorizing a divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality (which most people on all sides of the marriage question do), yet condemning those who appeal to the passage as applying to us today.

 

Some argue that in telling people that their remarriage violates Matthew 19:9, we are commanding people to burn rather than marry. Instead, we should be teaching people to marry rather than burn. Thus 1 Corinthians 7:9 is being used to justify all remarriages on the premise that people always have a right to marry if they are burning with passion—no matter how many times they have been married before. We will address this argument in this next section; the Bible clearly teaches that one can lose their right to remarry.

 

• 1 Timothy 4:3 “Men who forbid marriage”

 

It is being taught that anytime we require certain people to remain unmarried in order to be right with God that we are teaching a doctrine of demons, and are liars and hypocrites (4:1-2), and are violating this passage. Yet, I find the following teachers preached the gospel honorably when forbidding sinful marriages:

 

1. John the Baptist condemned an adulterous marriage, “For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife’” (Mark 6:18).

2. Jesus forbid certain individuals to remarry (Matthew 19:9 “and marries another woman commits adultery”.

3. Jesus also forbid certain marriages, that is, “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32).

4. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul forbids a certain remarriage, that is, “but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband” (7:11). Here, a Christian woman who leaves her Christian husband is not allowed to remarry anyone else. She only has two options, remain single (celibate) or reconcile with her husband, all other options, such as remarrying someone else are forbidden.

 

Thus, we must conclude that 1 Timothy 4:3 was never written to give God’s stamp of approval on all and every marriage or remarriage, rather it simply condemns those who forbid people marrying who have God’s permission or Scriptural authority to marry. To say that the person who committed adultery has a right to remarry, or that I have a right to marry someone who was put away because of their adultery, or that I have a right to remarry though my spouse did not cheat on me, is perverting 1 Corinthians 7:9. It is misusing that passage to ignore all the other passages on the topic.

 

In the context, 1 Corinthians 7:9 is not directed to people who walked out on their mates, or people who were put away because of adultery, rather it is addressed to the unmarried and widows (7:8). It is addressed to people who have the right to marry. Carefully note the difference between 7:8-9 and 7:10-11. In these verses the unmarried and widows have the choice between remaining single or marrying. Yet to the married (7:10), the wife and husband are commanded not to leave, and if they have, they cannot argue, “I have the right to marry and not burn with passion”. Rather, they must either reconcile or remain celibate. Now remaining celibate may be one factor of many which may cause such a person to “burn with passion”, yet in this case 1 Corinthians 7:9 does not apply. It does not apply because they already were in a marriage and they chose to walk out of it. Anytime one walks out of a marriage without a scriptural cause for divorce they are forfeiting their privilege in 1 Corinthians 7:9.

 

• Another Application

 

If 1 Corinthians 7:9 is the definitive passage and in a sense overrules Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 and allows all divorced people (no matter what the cause of the divorce) to marry, because “it is better to marry than to burn”, then what will prevent the next generation from arguing that 1 Corinthians 7:9 also trumps passages that either condemn homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9) or polygamy (Matthew 19:5-6)? What if the homosexual is burning with passion, should they not marry instead of burn? And what about the polygamist that is burning for another wife? Finally, what about the man or woman who is already married, but they are sexually unfulfilled and are burning with passion as well? Does 1 Corinthians 7:9 command them to divorce and marry someone who will meet their needs? Think about this: If 1 Corinthians 7:9 allows someone to marry afterviolating Matthew 19:9, what is to prevent it from being used as a justification to get out of an “unhappy marriage”?

 

• 1 Corinthians 7:20 “Remain in that condition in which he was called”

 

It is claimed that this is a second foundation stone in God’s teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage, that whatever marriage a person was in when baptized, is authorized by God, even if it was formed in violation of Matthew 19:9 or 5:32. “This command to remain in the circumstances in which one has been called has been given applications which Paul never intended for it to bear since the very earliest of Christian exegesis. In the days of Tertullian (160-240 A.D.), ‘manufacturers of idols claimed this principle as justifying their continuing to earn a living in this way.’ Some among us today want to use this passage to justify the continuance of a marital relationship which the Scriptures label as adulterous”. ¹ We should note that the social circumstances in this chapter are conditions that the gospel has labeled as morally neutral (7:18-28), in contrast there are certain marital conditions of which the Lord does not approve (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 6:17-18; Romans 7:3). The social circumstances of this chapter are the very social conditions in which one became a Christian. “As God has called each” (7:17). Now we all know that one cannot become a Christian while engaging in a sinful lifestyle or while being involved in a sinful relationship. Before some of the Corinthians accepted the gospel call, that is, before they were baptized, they had to stop sinful practices (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Thus it would be a misuse of this verse to claim that one could remain a homosexual, or remain a thief or remain an adulterer. McGuiggan makes a good comment when he says, “And of course God doesn't give a person an immoral relationship” (p. 110). Obviously, whatever “condition” I am to remain in when I accept the gospel call, must be a condition that does not violate any passages, for one of the first things that the gospel tells me to do prior to becoming a Christian, is to repent (Acts 2:38).

 

• These are conditions that exist after repentance and baptism (7:20).

• A condition in which can remain with God (7:24).

• A condition that does not matter, has no negative spiritual ramifications (7:21).

• A condition that is nothing (7:19).

• A condition in which one is still keeping the commandments of God (7:19).

• A condition that God has assigned (7:17).

 

It is an abuse of this text to put into 1 Corinthians 7:20 some man or woman who has been unfaithful to their marriage vows and who has ignored Jesus’ teaching on this subject. Something is definitely wrong with our method of interpretation if we are telling someone to remain in a condition that Jesus said is adultery (Matthew 19:9). Hebrews 1:1-2 reveals that Jesus is God’s final spokesman, and in Acts 3:22 Peter identifies Jesus as “the Prophet” mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy 18, to which we are to give heed. As a result, I am not going to buy into the idea that what He said while upon the earth has no application to me today. I am going to heed everything He said—how about you?