An Absolute Rule?
In Luke 16:18, Jesus said, “...and whoever marries her who is divorced
from her husband commits adultery.” We have heard some argue recently
that this statement was not intended as an absolute rule, that there are
exceptions to it. It is being said that some people who have been “put
away” by their mates may remarry.
Well, of a truth there are some exceptions to Jesus’ rule. For instance,
if a woman’s husband put her away and then two months later died, she
would then have the right to remarry. The Bible says, “For the woman who
has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives.
But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband”
(Romans 7:2). Further, if a man’s wife put him away and then later,
thinking better of it, desired reconciliation, he could “remarry” the
woman. God’s word says, “A wife is not to depart from her husband. But
even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
to her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:11). So we can see a couple of
exceptions to Jesus’ rule.
But does the finding of exceptions to a rule mean the rule itself is no
longer valid? One might think so by the way some talk. However, when all
is said and done, the rule still stands, exceptions notwithstanding.
There are many Biblical "rules" that have Biblical exceptions. For
instance, consider Jesus’ rule found in Mark 16:16, “He who does
not believe will be condemned.” Will non-believers be condemned? Yes.
Are there exceptions to such a rule? Most certainly. A two-year-old
killed in a car accident, though having never come to faith in Jesus,
will not be condemned (Matthew 19:14). Does this exception then
invalidate the rule? Certainly not. Just so, should one find a
Biblical exception to the rule found in Luke 16:18, he has done nothing
but find an exception. The rule still stands, which is also stated in
Matthew 19:9, that “whoever marries her who is divorced commits
adultery.”
Sadly, there are some in our generation who are teaching that they can
find even more exceptions to Jesus’ rule as stated in Luke 16:18. They
argue that a divorced woman, if unjustly put away (i.e., for a cause
other than fornication), may, if her former husband commits fornication
after the divorce, put him away and marry another. They claim that an
“innocent” spouse has a God-given “right” to put away a sexually
unfaithful mate (regardless of whether the “innocent“ spouse has already
been put away or not), and remarry. But beloved, this is not how the
Bible puts it -- this is not speaking “as the oracles of God” (1 Peter
4:11). The Bible does not teach such a general rule, that an innocent
spouse has such a right. The Scriptures are very specific. They grant a
right of remarriage to the person who has “put away” his spouse for
fornication. They do not grant a right of remarriage to the person who
was (regardless of the reason) “put away.” Read Luke 16:18 and Matthew
19:9 again, and see that this is so.
To be specific: if a godless covenant-breaker of a rascal puts away
(divorces) his wife and then some time later commits fornication, she is
not then granted a license by God to “put him away” and remarry. She has
already been put away, and Jesus said (and I quote at the risk of
sounding like a broken record), “whoever marries her who is divorced
commits adultery.” We can cry “foul” and “unfair” until we are blue in
the face, but to no avail. Since when did our ideas regarding what
constitutes ‘fairness’ become equivalent to Biblical doctrine? (Proverbs
14:12; Isaiah 55:8-9). We can holler ’til our lungs are wore out about
how that neither her husband nor an infidel judge has the right to take
her right of remarriage away, but we miss the point when we argue in
such a way. Is it not apparent that Jesus HIMSELF gave a put-away woman
no such right in the first place? Is HE not the one who said what is
said in these passages?
Beloved, let us remember that “Whoever transgresses and does not abide
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the
doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
--Mike Noble
|
