What does the Bible say about remarriage if a divorce occurred before salvation?

On the other hand, according to 1 Corinthians 7, I cannot doubt that the Christian, deliberately deserted by the unchristian partner, was in every way free, free that is to marry; but it assumes deliberate forsaking by the one who went away. The Christian was never to do it, and if obliged to leave, to remain unmarried or return. Romans 7:3 has nothing, I think, to do with it; the case supposed is of being (not "married") to another man while the tie subsists; then she is guilty of adultery - not, if the husband be dead. Divorce is not in question, but acts of sin while the marriage subsists. This is evident. Mark 10 does not annul Matthew 19: a man putting away his wife is looked at as his act or will. If he puts away, he has broken a tie God formed, by his own will; then marrying another is adultery. By act of sin the tie was broken already, and judicial divorce allowed.

If all had passed before conversion, I should take it as I found it; but when a person has merely gone off now, when a person is a Christian, I should be very slow to accept a marriage as in the Lord. Have they sought them out, or proof of the unfaithfulness? If so, let them obtain a divorce, and then they are free to marry. But if not, I could not accept their doing their own will, any more than the unfaithful one doing his. The marriage is not in the Lord, and it says even of widows - "only in the Lord." Matthew 5 is to me equally clear with chapter 19, but I think the person should obtain a divorce otherwise they remain legally married, and the new connection is concubinage. In any case forgiveness is allowed.

p191 [W G Heney] MY DEAR BROTHER, - I write to reply to your question at the close of your letter, though most thankful to get your account of the work. The only difficulty with me is the question, whether the law of Canada does not require a formal divorce in these cases. If it does not, I should just leave the matter where it is. In the first place, what was done originally was before her conversion; but when the unbeliever leaves, the other party is free according to [1 Corinthians 7, and if a divorce be not required, she is free according to the law of man (if it be, there is irregularity which perhaps may be rectified). As the man had left her, she practically entered the church of God as a lone woman, and I do not occupy myself with what was before, unless sin to be repented of. When I meet her now, I meet her as one whom the law considers free; and the previous desertion left her free when deliberately done, if I take Christian ground. I may regret her doing it, and do as to the manner of it. But as unconverted, I recognise nothing before unless sin: say a heathen, he may as such have had and left twenty wives, I ignore it all when he is converted. Being abandoned she did not stand as a married woman, when she married, unless a formal divorce was required. In England the courts hold a woman free after seven years, the husband not being heard of, but there is no law to say so. I know not how it is in Canada. I question it a little unless it be known to be so. But I do not think a deserted woman would be held to perpetual celibacy where the law recognised her as free. Many questions would arise as to her conduct. Did she tell her present husband before she was married? What oath or equivalent assertion was made to get married? I suppose there is some as in civil marriage, and publishing banns. Did she say there was no impediment when, if a formal divorce was required, there was? A person in London was kept out on this ground; he had sworn or solemnly declared there was no obstacle as they went, and it was his wife's sister, not allowed in England. But if a formal divorce is not required by law, but the woman held free ipso facto after seven years, I should say she stood a free woman, though I may regret her path, and inquire, as I have said, as to the circumstances. If taken on profession as a Christian, she was free according to 1 Corinthians; if looked at as merely of the world, she had no husband. It was all before conversion. And legally (if divorce not required) she was free when she married, only I should look to where her conscience was in doing it. The passage in Romans [Rom. 7:2-3] does not exactly apply. The word "married" is not in the Greek at all. The woman is supposed to be in full connection with and under the authority of the husband, and then "is to another man," that is faithless to the existing bond. Here the question is whether the existing bond was not dissolved, and an actual marriage a lawful one. I should fear if her conscience had been clear she would have spoken to brethren. But that is another question.

The case you mention has occurred before. … It is a very trying and sorrowful case, and calls for a lowly and retired walk in the person concerned. The refusal of divorce is the only additional circumstance. Did the woman refuse it, or how came it to be refused? It must be recent, as the court is. This may modify the case, because it may have been a recognition of the bond by her conscience. But this apart, I judge the church must take her as she is when converted. I suppose a heathen, who had been married and separated, and had ever such a long history, and then was married, converted and baptized - I should certainly take him as I found him. I look upon the man's act as a breach of the tie before God, namely - the tie as broken (Matt. 19:9); and that the church must take the person as it finds them when converted.

The only other question connected with it is, the state of her own conscience when she married the last time. Did she consider herself free, or as then committing a sin? This may affect the present state of her conscience. But I should take her, as before the church, as married to her present husband. But she should walk softly.

(Vv. 10, 11). To the married he gives, not simply his counsel, but the direct ruling of the Lord. The wife is not to depart from the husband. If she shall have been separated, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. Let not the husband put away his wife.

(Vv. 12-17). The Apostle then takes up the difficult position of a brother with an unbelieving wife, or the woman with an unbelieving husband. Here he gives his advice. This does not contemplate for a moment the case of a believer marrying an unbeliever, which is clearly contrary to the mind of the Lord (2 Cor. 6:14). Here it is the case of mixed marriages, where one of the parties has been converted after the marriage. In this case the believer is not defiled by union with the unbeliever. On the contrary the unbeliever is sanctified and the children holy. Here the sanctification and the holiness do not signify a spiritual condition that puts them in relationship with God, but rather that through the believer the relationship is clean and owned of God, so that the believer can continue in it. If, however, the unbeliever departs, the believer is released from the bondage of being tied to an unbeliever and is not to raise any dispute with the one that has departed, for we are called to peace. This does not give the believer any licence to break the tie by departing from the unbeliever, nor does it grant the abandoned believer permission to remarry. So far from the believer separating from the unbeliever, the brother or sister is to remain at all cost in the relationship, counting upon God for the salvation of the unbeliever. There will thus be submission to what the Lord has allowed, and a walk in accord with His will. This, too, we are reminded, is the order for all the assemblies; thus ecclesiastical independency is shut out. The assemblies are not independent companies, each left free to adopt its own practices. The word of God is still our only guide, and assemblies walking in the light of the word will be united in submitting to its instructions.

We have now the question raised of separation on the part of the unbeliever. "But if the unbelieving separates himself, let him be separated. The brother or the sister is not in bondage in such [circumstances]: but God has called us† in peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, if thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O husband, if thou shalt save thy wife? Only as the Lord†† divided‡ to each, as God†† has called each, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the assemblies." (Ver. 15-17.) Thus, if the unbelieving party in the relationship were to sever himself from the other, the believer is released from bondage, be it the brother or the sister in the case. Not that such an act on the unbeliever's side gives to the believer thus abandoned licence to marry, but that the believer is thereby left the more free to serve the Lord by the other's separation. Such a union after all is apt to involve strife, the natural man hating the life of the Spirit. Not that this would justify anything on the believer's part to break the marriage tie: the unbeliever is supposed to have broken it of himself or even herself; and "in peace has God called us," (or "you,") not to seek separation. On the contrary, whatever the trial involved in such a life, the brother or the sister must earnestly desire the salvation of the unbeliever; but this after all is in God's disposal. "For what knowest thou, woman, if thou shalt save the husband? or what knowest thou, husband, if thou shalt save the wife?" If it were so, what a joy! We have to acquiesce therefore in the ordering of the Lord and as we should on no account take the initiative into our own hands, so also to save the unbeliever is a question, and should not swamp everything else. Thus the apostle even here cautions by pressing the rule, whatever the issue: "Only as the Lord divided to each, as God has called each, so let him walk." This was intended to guard against undue or excessive feeling. Our place is one of intelligent subjection, owning the Lord's allotment and God's call: the one at the time of conversion, the other the permanent condition. So was each to walk. If Judaism enfeebled, Christianity strengthened a sense of relationship, and meets every difficulty and complication in grace. Nor was the apostle laying down anything peculiar on the Corinthians because of their peculiar circumstances: "So I ordain in all the assemblies." There may be ever so many assemblies, but the order of all is one, and apostolic authority is universal. Nothing is more opposed to its true idea than ecclesiastical independency. The notion of different bodies, each with a distinct regimen, is a modern invention, while the assumption of a continual power of regulation in or over the church may be ancient but is no better. Neither the one nor the other was "from the beginning," when the foundation was laid by the apostles and prophets. There is no authoritative regulation now outside the word of God, though the Lord raises up those that guide and take the lead, but they, as all, are bound by scripture to which the Spirit answers in power.

The baptism of the household is not intimated, but it is evident that this would naturally result from the position here. The token of discipleship could hardly be denied to those who as holy were to be brought up as disciples. They are thus addressed throughout the epistles, and they could not be so addressed if outside the Kingdom of that in which the claims of Christ as Lord were owned. It has sometimes been argued that the unbelieving wife or husband is, according to this, as much holy as are the children; but this is an oversight as to what is really expressed. The unbelieving husband or wife is only sanctified in the believing partner, not otherwise: sanctified, therefore, in that relationship in which he or she stood to the other, and not in himself, so as to be himself acknowledged in any relationship to the Church of God. The relationship was clean and owned of God, so that the believer could continue in it, and is urged to do so. But, on the other hand, if, on the side of the unbeliever, he departed, then, in such cases, the brother or the sister, says the apostle, is not bound. He or she is not obliged to recognize any more the relationship as existing. Yet the apostle does not mean by this anything equivalent to divorce, or that which would set absolutely free the one separated from. The Lord Himself has decided in the plainest possible way in the Gospels that there is but one ground for divorce, and we have no right from the apostle's words here to suppose, as many do suppose now, that they declare another. Whatever trial there may be in such circumstances of separation, yet if there be no more, it is a trial to which God has called the person in question, and for which He must be counted upon; but to continue in the relationship as far as possible is that which he encourages. Christianity, with its all-embracing desire for the salvation of souls, would rather use such a relation for the salvation of the unbeliever than cast out one who might be thus rescued from his natural, lost condition.

The Lord has spoken this to Pharisees, but inside the house His disciples questioned Him further, to whom He answers that a man putting away his wife and marrying another has committed adultery against his first wife. A wife doing the same would be guilty of adultery against her husband. The Lord does not here mention the exception noted in Matthew 19:9, "except for fornication," because it is, practically' speaking, not even an exception.

Fornication would virtually itself be a breaking of the marriage bond, which is only confirmed by a divorce in this case. The partner who was not guilty would not therefore be committing adultery in marrying another after divorce, though generally there may have been fault on both sides, and before another marriage, one should be broken before God, seeking only His will. 1Corinthians 7:15 shows also that desertion is considered a breaking of the marriage bond, so that the one who was deserted would be left no longer under that bond.

However, the Lord's answer to this is most penetrating. Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the manifestation of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than is the grace of God! For grace enables one to surmount difficulties in a way that law could never do.

Therefore, confirming what was implicit in creation, the Lord adds, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The one exception allowed here is because the marriage bond has been so violated as to be virtually broken already. If the one party is guilty of fornication, then it would not be adultery for the other party to divorce the first and marry another. But the one who married the party put away for fornication would be guilty of adultery.

In view oft hen present circumstances that were evidently of some trying character, he considered it wise for one to remain unmarried; though if already married, not to try to change this. A spirit of contentment is that which he seeks to encourage. If one were "loosed from a wife," by her death, or by her leaving to marry another, his advice is to "seek not a wife."

Yet, so long as he had been honorably loosed from a former wife, the fact of his marrying again would not be sin. And the fact of marrying for the first time is not sin. Of course, if marrying an unbeliever, this would be disobedience to the Word of God, and therefore sin (2 Cor. 6:14). And it is possible for one to marry while in a bad state of soul (1 Tim. 5:11,12), and reap sad results. In any case, one should certainly seek the clear guidance of God in a matter so serious, and not rush into something for which he is not prepared. Marriage itself, as Paul says, will bring with it "trouble in the flesh": the married man will be faced with many problems that never occur to one unmarried. Let all who contemplate marriage be fully prepared for this. But Paul adds, "I spare you." He would not press this point too far. For it is evident that God will provide grace for whatever path He may lead His own to take.

In view of then present circumstances that were evidently of some trying character, he considered it wise for one to remain unmarried; though if already married, not to try to change this. A spirit of contentment is that which he seeks to encourage. If one were "loosed from a wife," by her death, or by her leaving to marry another, his advice is to "seek not a wife."

Yet, so long as he had been honourably loosed from a former wife, the fact of his marrying again would not be sin. And the fact of marrying for the first time is not sin. Of course, if marrying an unbeliever, this would be disobedience to the Word of God, and therefore sin (2 Cor.6:14). And it is possible for one to marry while in a bad state of soul (I Tim.5:11,12), and reap sad results. In any case, one should certainly seek the clear guidance of God in a matter so serious, and not rush into something for which he is not prepared. Marriage itself, as Paul says, will bring with it "trouble in the flesh": the married man will be faced with many problems that never occur to one unmarried. Let all who contemplate marriage be fully prepared for this. But Paul adds, "I spare you." He would not press this point too far. For it is evident that God will provide grace for whatever path He may lead His own to take.