Question: Can the person who has been put away for fornication (Mt 19:9) later repent and pray for forgiveness and then scripturally remarry? (Ca)

Answer: This question concerns the rights of the guilty fornicator who has been divorced by an innocent partner. Without doubt anyone can repent and pray for God to forgive them. The right to contract another marriage, however, is an entirely different matter. It is the belief of this writer that no such right is granted by the scripture. I offer the following for your consideration: (1) to conclude that the guilty may remarry without committing adultery is to render useless and meaningless the purpose of the exceptive clause in Mt 5:32 and Mt 19:9. The exceptive clause is given for the protection of the innocent party. Jesus gives the innocent party the right to divorce the guilty, a right not given to the guilty. Even if the guilty obtains the divorce they are not free, since they had no scriptural right to seek a divorce. If the guilty is as free to remarry as the innocent, why did the Lord mention the exception in the first place? Of what use is it? Both parties would be treated equally so far as remarriage is concerned. Such an interpretation could lead one to commit fornication, be divorced by an innocent mate, then go and remarry claiming they are scriptural in doing so. Who can believe it? (2) To conclude that the guilty may remarry presents a terrible inconsistency. Most would agree that one divorced for trivial reasons has no right to remarry. Jesus plainly said that anyone who divorced and remarried for anything other than fornication committed adultery when they did. Does it not seem strange that one put away for burning the bread cannot remarry, but one put away for the sin of adultery can remarry? Again I say, who can believe it? Also in I Cor 7:11 Paul teaches that the wife is not to "depart from her husband," But should she do so, she is to "remain unmarried" or else "be reconciled to her husband." These are the only two options that may be pursued in such situations. Are we to assume that an innocent person, unjustly and wrongly put away by a wicked and disobedient partner is not free to remarry, but an unfaithful fornicator may remarry? As Guy N. Woods so succinctly said "he who concludes such has, in my view, abandoned both reason and revelation". (3) The argument is often made that there is no such thing as a half marriage, i.e. if the innocent is freed from the marriage, then the guilty must be also. Since the guilty is no longer bound to the marriage, they are free to remarry. Some use the example of one having his hands tied with a rope or two men handcuffed together. "When one is freed, both are freed" they say. The point overlooked by this illustration and argument is that marriage is more than a contractual arrangement. It is a spiritual union made in heaven. The two parties in this relationship have been joined together by God and may only be released from that bond on the basis of the will of Him who joined the parties in the first place. That will is expressed in the following words: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery! "The Lord in this verse authorized the innocent party to put away his/her mate for fornication and remarry. However, there is no passage that authorizes the put away fornicator to remarry. It's as simple as that.

It seems to this writer that more and more people are trying to get around, over, and under the bible teaching on divorce and remarriage. Seldom does a week pass but what I hear of some attempt to circumvent scripture on this subject. The result is a host of unscriptural marriages filling churches everywhere. Brethren, such cannot be tolerated. It is time, high time, we stand up and condemn what is wrong without fear or favor. One additional point needs to be made. There are many who teach that Mt 19:9 is but a restatement of Deut 24:1 and applied under the law of Moses, but not today under the law of Christ. If the uncleanness of Deut 24:1 is fornication as some claim, then the guilty party could remarry for the scripture plainly says "she may go and be another man's wife." This is but one of many reasons why I reject the idea that Mt 19:9 applied under the Law of Moses. Mt 19:9 does not grant the guilty the right of remarriage, Deut 24:1 clearly does, hence they cannot be the same teaching. One applied under the law. The other applies today. (Send all questions to Ronny F. Wade, P.O. Box 10811, Springfield, Mo. 65808)