In order to have a clear understanding of divorce and subsequent remarriage, we must first come to a consensus regarding a definition of marriage. Indeed, if divorce is the breakup of a marriage, we must know the nature of the thing that actually gets broken. If marriage is simply a matter of convenience created by man, as some suggest, in order to control women and ensure a male’s exclusive right to the woman of his choice, then divorce is hardly a matter of great concern, for we can simply change our definition of marriage or move right along and do away with it if it becomes too much of a practical burden. Isn’t this what we’re seeing in the news?

What is marriage? What does the Bible have to say regarding this institution? Indeed, if it is the Bible that provides us our definition of marriage we would do well to go there and have a fresh articulation of its contents here. The book of Genesis provides us with the story of creation. It is a book of beginnings – the beginning of the universe, and perhaps time; the beginning of life in all its rich diversity; and specifically the beginning of God’s pinnacle of creation, mankind. I attribute such quality to mankind because it is only man (need I say I use this term inclusively?) that is given the privilege of being created “in God’s image”. Traditionally, this means we share God’s communicable attributes, not that we are little gods who have the same powers of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnisapience (all wise). It means we are like him in smaller, more discreet ways. We consist, partly, of a spirit; we share God’s mental attributes of knowledge and wisdom; we share in God’s moral attributes in that we are created to be moral creatures; and lastly we each have a will and certain measures of freedom.

Genesis 1 shows us God’s act of creation. What he creates he declares to be “good”. Chapter 2 gives us more specific details regarding the process of man’s creation. When we get to verse 18 we stumble upon something, or some state of affairs, that is not good. Adam is alone. (I will hesitate to use the term lonely, though I can see how an argument for that term’s legitimate use in this context can be made.) There was no companion suitable/appropriate/fit for him. Of all the creatures God created, there was none that could be Adam’s companion. None met the requirements. God therefore created a woman, Eve, using one of Adam’s ribs. Adam declares,

This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Certain truths are apparent as one reads this account. Because Genesis 1 and 2 are chiefly about God’s creative acts, this includes the fact that God institutes this new and unique relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage has divine origins. Adam’s words signify the deeply intimate nature of this new relationship. Verse 24 further clarifies God’s intent regarding this new institution. Marriage is intended for one man and one woman, and therefore excludes supposed unions that do not reflect that reality. The notion of cleaving demonstrates that this relationship should be a total commitment to one’s spouse for life. Jay Adams astutely calls marriage a “covenant of companionship”. It is a unique relationship that involves a commitment to the welfare of the other and includes the gift of sexual union. God declares this new relationship to have such significance that the union involves the two becoming one flesh. It is as though a singular identity results from this bond between the husband and wife. Jesus reaffirms these principles in Matthew 19 when the Pharisees confront him with a question regarding divorce.

The New Testament provides more insight into the nature of this relationship as the implications of Christ’s death and resurrection have direct bearing on marriage since it is a representation of Christ and the church. Nevertheless, I believe what I’ve shown above sufficiently summarizes the biblical conception of marriage. More can be said especially for the love that two people in such a relationship ought to have. I understand that the definition I’ve presented above is more academic for those of you with slightly more romantic desires. But those two classifications need not be mutually exclusive, if we can only rescue the proper sense of romance from individualistic hijackers.

The type of bond depicted in scripture is deeply intimate and is chiefly rooted in the commitment of one’s will, rather than the capriciousness of one’s emotions. Note that I say “chiefly rooted”. This willful commitment certainly involves the emotions but that is not the place from which the commitment takes its direction. God chose to maintain his commitment to his people by sending his Son, even though his people were unlovable (we were sinners). This is love; this is the steadfast love (hesed) that God continually displays and we are to emulate. It is unconditional.

Traditional marriage vows should be sufficient to close this thought. Next time I’ll present a definition of divorce and perhaps touch on what some of the most prominent teachings have been throughout church history.

I, ___, take you ___, to be my wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, ’til death do us part.

This is the subject of a paper I’m writing for my ethics course. Yes, it will be a challenging topic, no less so since I am obviously, in one way or another, personally affected by the subject matter, which really serves as the reason for its selection as my topic.

To date I don’t have an official position on the issue, yet in conversation or in my own personal reflection I’ve held to certain ideas or concepts which led me to one particular position. I do hope, however, to use this paper as an opportunity to study the matter in depth and perhaps come to a biblically-sustainable position.

Part of my motivation for selecting this topic too rests in my experience that most churches are without a theology of marriage that extends beyond the simplistic definition of marriage as exclusively heterosexual. While I agree with this partial definition of marriage’s design, more needs to be said regarding its purpose, significance, and end (goal, purpose). Churches must consider these very important aspects of marriage if they are to teach the whole counsel of God regarding its purpose and role in life. Only with this understanding can a church express and pass on the significance of the marriage union to couples seeking marriage. On this foundation only can couples truly see the hideous effects of divorce. We must come to recognize the high view of marriage Jesus expressed on multiple occasions in Matthew. We must see as central to the marriage union the act and pledge of willful commitment to the other, in addition to the qualities of faithfulness, forgiveness and union.

So, what is the general consensus regarding divorce among believers? What about mixed marriages (believer and non-believer)? When is divorce permissible (note this term)? If a seemingly justified divorce occurs, is either partner free to remarry? If the life of the Christian is to be marked by faithfulness and forgiveness (sharing of God’s communicable attributes), what implications does that have for the believing partner’s pursuit of another spouse? If some kind of marital infidelity occurs, is the original marriage bond broken?

Many of my presumptions were called into question as I read some poignant resources on this topic. I am glad for that. I realized as I read that much of what I called my exegetically-sound position was untenable at worst, and under-studied at best. My interaction with brothers and sisters in Christ reveals an unfortunate, disappointing, and sometimes upsetting conclusion. Our views of marriage are not so much informed by scripture as much as they are by pop culture or, simply, the world’s way of thinking. Marriage is often seen as chiefly a matter of self-fulfillment or romance. Love, the kind between a man and a woman, receives a certain segmentation in the broader definition that may not be valid. While I acknowledge that the relationship between a husband and wife is unique, this need not necessarily lead to the false conclusion that love is exclusively an act of the emotions. Time and time again scripture paints a different picture. The swaths of God’s strokes through his word paint love, his perfectly love especially, as an act of the will, of one’s inclinations. As such it can be seen as unconditional.

Of course, there is more to it than that. Love, I am willing to admit, involves our emotions but it does not start or end there. If it did, love would be fickle; as such it would not be love. I believe this topic is largely ignored by most believers. We have been preached to and have regularly heard the traditional position – divorce is permitted for adultery and desertion, and thus includes the believers right to remarry, and we have all generally agreed with this position. But how many of us have questioned these notions in light of what scripture really says? Is the traditional position biblical? Does the traditional position address the nature of the marital union and what happens to it in the face of infidelity? To whom are the relevant passages addressed in scripture? To whom do these words apply? What is the ideal for which Jesus would have us strive? If the traditional position is to be scrapped in order for Christians to have a sound theology of marriage, divorce and remarriage, what implications will this have in the area of church responsibility toward those hurt by the affects of divorce?

I don’t know who actually reads this blog, but I’d be interested in starting a conversation (not like Rob Bell where only questions are acceptable but no answers) and listening to the thoughts of others. I only ask that, as I’ve tried to keep the content of this post impersonal, that any conversation here remain the same.

I plan on continuing a series of posts on this topic as I continue research for my paper.