Divorce, Remarriage, and Justification by Faith Alone

I have extensively studied what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage (and read every book on the topic) because in the 90s I was an assistant to John MacArthur and answered many of the letters people wrote to him. Hundreds of them contained doctrinal and practical questions about divorce and remarriage issues arising from real life situations, so I felt obligated to answer them as accurately and completely as I could. I worked hard to figure out what I believed and developed a system that took into account all the relevant biblical passages, connecting them to one another in a way that there are no contradictions or unanswered questions. The elders at MacArthur's church asked me to draft a lengthy statement on the issue for them, which they adopted with very few modifications. 

I have counseled many people about these issues through the years and taught my system in seminars throughout the country and the world. In my opinion it has stood up to all scrutiny and is a much better approach than the no divorce/no remarriage view that many Christians hold (and is taught by the Roman Catholic Church). Because that strict view has been so prevalent throughout history, I have always taken it seriously, but I have never been convinced by it for a number of reasons. I will list some of them briefly here, and please keep in mind that I have believed and counseled this way since long before I faced the personal issues I will refer to later (so I have not formed or changed my views because of experiences I've had).

Here are some of the reasons I think the no divorce/no remarriage view is not biblical...

1) Jesus said that divorce was wrong "except for porneia" in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, and grammatically that exception must apply to remarriage also. 

2) He only used one word in those verses (porneia), and He was a great communicator, so His audience must have known what he was referring to. As Jews, they were certainly familiar with Jeremiah 3:6-10, where God divorces Israel because she was unfaithful and "did not return to Me." (The word porneia appears four times in the Septuagint version of those few verses.) Comparing Scripture with Scripture, I believe that the people listening to Jesus would have understood that divorce was only acceptable when, like in the situation with God in Jeremiah, the faithful partners cannot fulfill their vows because their partners won't repent and return (i.e. they don't want to be faithful or remain in the marriage). I know that many no divorce/no remarriage advocates think Jesus was referring to unfaithfulness during the engagement period, but the meaning of porneia is much broader than that, the word is never used for that, and Jesus' listeners wouldn't have been familiar with the details of what happened with His parents (as they definitely were with Jeremiah 3). 

3) Regardless of whether or not Jeremiah 3 is a key to understanding the meaning of the exception clause, it clearly shows that divorce is not always sinful, because God Himself did it. (And there's also the divinely sanctioned divorces of pagan wives in Ezra 10.)

4) The fact that Jesus referred to remarried people as "committing adultery" does not mean, like the no divorce/no remarriage advocates claim, that they are "still married in God's eyes" to their first spouses. By using the term "adultery," Jesus is making the point that unbiblical divorce and remarriage is a violation of the 7th Commandment, the same way He says lust is adultery and hate is murder (breaking the 6th Commandment). The no divorce/no remarriage position reads too much into Jesus' rhetorical language in those verses. Besides, every time Jesus says things like that, he is talking about the sin of those who initiate an unbiblical divorce, not those who are victims of it. ("Makes her commit adultery" in Matthew 5:32 is admittedly difficult to understand, but those few words can't be contradictory to the rest of Scripture. And remember that in the context Jesus is hyperbolically emphasizing the responsibility of those making evil choices so they feel the full force of the Law. He doesn't repeat that wording in the more conversational settings depicted in the other passages.)   

5) In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul makes several statements that, in my mind, very clearly disprove the no divorce/no remarriage position. In verses 8-9 he encourages marriage for at least some of the "unmarried," which in the context means divorced people (they are distinguished from the widows in those verses and then from the virgins in verse 28, and the same word is used for a divorced person in verse 11.) In verse 15 he says divorced believers are "not bound," which compared with verses 27-28 includes the freedom to remarry. And those verses (27-28), clearly say that an "unmarried" (divorced) person who marries has not sinned (presumably if they cannot reconcile with their former spouse...v. 11). Notice that everything Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 fits very well with the idea in my system that we should never break our marriage vows, but if the other person makes it impossible for us to keep them through unfaithfulness or desertion (like Israel and God in Jeremiah 3), then we are free to divorce and remarry.   

Having said all that (and I could say more), I realize that I could wrong about this and the no divorce/no remarriage advocates could be right. I'm not so idiotic or arrogant to think that I have necessarily solved a debate that has raged for thousands of years. And this has become very personal for me recently, because my wife divorced me and a year later I met a wonderful godly woman who also had been divorced by her husband. I would like to remarry, but what if I'm wrong in my understanding of divorce and remarriage in the Bible?

This is where the blessed doctrine of justification by faith alone becomes very practical and gives me great comfort. Put another way, this is a very concrete illustration of how justification by faith alone works and how all other approaches to being right with God actually prevent any real assurance of salvation. If I didn't believe in justification by faith alone and I end up being wrong on this issue, I could have no confidence that I am saved and will be in heaven, because I might commit adultery by remarrying and then not be repentant enough because I don't believe I'm committing adultery. I would then be one of the people living in immorality who do not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and are thrown in the Lake of Fire (Rev. 21:8). 

Because of my understanding of justification by faith alone, however, even if I am wrong about this issue, Jesus died for all my sins and his sacrifice covers even those things that I am wrong about. So even if my understanding of this issue turns out to be incorrect, I can trust that God will still forgive me in Christ. You might say, "But if you don't believe remarriage is wrong, then you won't repent of it, so you will be living in unrepentant sin." Remember, however, that in the Old Testament God told people to offer sacrifices for their "sins of ignorance"--things they did without knowing they were wrong. And of course that was a picture of Christ, who died for all our sins, even those we're not aware of committing. 

I won't go into all the biblical evidence for the doctrine of justification by faith alone--you can find that in many other places. But I'll conclude this discussion by saying that the faith by which we are justified includes a dependence on Christ to cover even the errors and sins that we don't know are wrong. And I would suggest that this is the only way to successfully navigate our doubts about any belief or practice in our lives. Because I trust in Him alone, rather than my own works or merit, I can still have confidence that I am God's child and bound for heaven, even though I might be wrong about some important biblical issues.