While all three of these positions admittedly have aspects of truth associated with them, they are all wanting and deficient when it comes to comprehensively addressing the subject. Each focuses on only one part of the picture to the exclusion of the whole.

Only through a deliberate consideration of all relevant scriptures, thus incorporating a holistic approach that grants the deserved emphasis to each, can a well balanced stance be achieved. Anything less than this leads to distortions. Starting with a very broad "landscape view" and working deductively from there helps in attaining and preserving that necessary balance.

The most basic and general truths about marriage are not controversial. God is the one who established the covenant of marriage. After first declaring that it was not good that man be alone, He made a helper who was suitable for Adam (Gen. 2:18). He instituted that man leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife, and become one flesh with her (v. 24). While some have the gift of celibacy, they are clearly exceptional (Matt. 19: 10-12; 1 Cor. 7:2, 7). For most, marriage is a blessing from God which is to be received from His hand with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:1-5; Pro. 18:23, 19:14).

So what happens when a Christian marriage falls apart in divorce? Where does this leave the divorcee in terms of the prospect of ever again enjoying the marriage blessing in his or her lifetime? And does the issue of "fault" or responsibility for the divorce come into play in the resolution of these questions?

Jesus' remarks to the religious leaders of His day bring important light to bear on this subject.

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery (Matt. 19:9)."

Both the audience and the context here are important. Jesus was addressing an apparently common practice which the Pharisees utilized to their own selfish benefit. Within the religious community of His day, a considerable debate raged concerning the legal grounds for divorce. "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, . . . (Deut. 24:1)."

While some scholars interpreted this passage to mean that only sexual impurity was grounds for divorce, many others insisted that "some uncleanness" could refer to an incident as trivial as burning a meal. Having seized this passage from Mosaic Law, which outlined the legal process in a divorce, the corrupt religious fraternity had twisted it into a justification, thus allowing them to ditch their wives in favor of "more attractive models". Hence, for them the writ of divorce functioned much like
an employer's "pink slip", and it carried little or no liability for them in the termination of their marriages, and in their subsequent remarriages.

Into this setting Jesus spoke:

"Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery (Matt. 5: 31, 32)." (See Matt. 19:3-9 for even greater detail.) Jesus was slamming the door on the Pharisees' abuse of the scriptures as a pretext for their immorality and the destruction of their households.

The "Legalist" Paradigm takes these verses much further than Jesus intended, and even in some directions that He obviously did not intend. For example, many of this persuasion completely overlook the "exception clause" that Jesus gave as grounds for divorce and remarriage-marital infidelity! They insist that divorce and remarriage for any cause is unlawful. While there is absolutely no biblical basis for such a position, it remains a very popular one, nonetheless. In the view of those in the "Legalist" camp, even saints who are traumatized by the behavior of a chronically adulterous spouse are left with the unenviable choice of continuing in that defiled marriage or else being banished to "single status", and a life of celibacy. The prospects for those without the "gift" of celibacy become particularly daunting. Such a cruel demand from the victim's church peers only further compounds his or her already severe anguish.

Furthermore, if these statements by Jesus were intended to establish an outright moratorium on divorce, as well as on subsequent remarriage, then they could never be harmonized with Paul's instructions. In actuality, when context and audience are considered, there is no contradiction with the Pauline epistles. Jesus' declarations were to a hard-hearted target audience who sought Bible-based excuses for their promiscuous lifestyles. They were never intended to provide a detailed and well-developed coverage of all the complexities and nuances associated with the subject, nor were they meant to be applied in a "one-size-fits-all" fashion.

Still, their relevance today is in their applicability for all "professors" of Christianity who hold to the "sin today, repent tomorrow" approach to life. These lack the fear of God, even as their Jewish counterparts, who were on the receiving end of Jesus' comments. They live their lives in the imagination that their clever proof-texting covers their adulterous hearts and actions. To all such, Jesus' words stand to condemn them in their self-delusion. They have no "privilege" of divorce or remarriage.

Yet for those who do not fall into this category, the fuller picture on this issue must be obtained through the consideration of additional passages of scripture. The most thorough development of this subject matter is provided in 1 Corinthians 7.

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: 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. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are
holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches (v. 10-17)."

Merely having a spouse who does not believe is not "grounds for divorce", but rather it is an opportunity to potentially win him or her to Christ. In such instances, keeping the family unit in tact also protects the children (v. 12-14). However, if the unbelieving party is not pleased to dwell with his or her Christian spouse and elects to depart, the brother or sister is to "let him or her depart". Not being "under bondage" in such cases, the saint is not under the burden of having to try to sustain a marriage that is effectively over, having ended due to the spouse's departure. The peace that God has called such a believer to is that he or she 1) has not broken covenant as a result of the unbeliever's choice to leave, 2) is free from further obligation regarding the marriage, and 3) is at liberty to be remarried in the Lord. (A more full development of point #3 is to follow.)

Astoundingly, many Christian leaders advise those whose spouses have departed that they are responsible to hold onto a hope of their return (and therefore remain "married" on paper, but functionally "unmarried") . . . for the rest of their lives, if necessary! This goes directly counter to Paul's instruction in these verses. Paul offers no such counsel, but rather to the contrary states, "For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk (v.16, 17)." In such a case, apart from supernatural encouragement from God to wait for the spouse's salvation and return, the believer is directed to accept the dissolution of the marriage. This is not a hard and fast rule; each one must follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in his life as he walks out this difficult situation. Still, in the preponderance of instances, the godly one is ahead to count the union irreparably severed, and move forward at this point.

Just to clarify, running away for a few hours to "cool off" after an argument is obviously not what is intended by the term "departure". Yet neither is the concept of a legal marital separation, which has become a common practice, a biblical one.

Quite clearly, a "departure" here is tantamount to a divorce.

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: 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. And a husband is not to divorce his wife (v. 11)."

Regrettably, the essence of what constitutes a marriage has too often been relegated to a document in a courthouse. While a legal certification by the state is a good and important thing, it falls far short of defining a marriage.

A union is often over even when two people are still, at least on paper, a couple. Many times this is the case where there has been infidelity (broken covenant), and this is equally true in cases of spousal abandonment (again, broken covenant). The definition of marriage is essentially tied to this issue of covenant, which two Christians enter into with a lifetime vow before God upon marriage.

As it pertains to remarriage after divorce, Paul's discourse continues:

"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed (Greek word, "lusis", i.e., divorced). Are you loosed ("lusis" = divorced) from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned . . . . (v. 27, 28b)."

In these verses, Paul plainly states to those of the community of faith who are victims of divorce that it is not sin for them to remarry anymore than it is sin for virgins to marry. The audience here is notably quite different than the one that Jesus spoke to in Matthew 5 & 19. The people to whom Paul was writing were not looking for an easy "out" for a turbulent marriage. They were saints, who were pursuing God's highest in their lives. This accounts for the different set of directions to them when compared with the directives that Jesus provided to the Pharisees on this same subject.

For those who are currently people of faith but have broken their covenant vow in the past through departing from their spouses, two options are offered-remain unmarried, or be reconciled to one's spouse (v. 11). It is as unrealistic as it is unbiblical for those who have married in Christ, and have subsequently broken that covenant, to now suppose that they are free through "Christ's forgiveness" to make a brand new wedding vow to another partner! To such, Jesus replies, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery (Matt. 19:9)."

Some would argue that any marriage which is recognized in the eyes of a state government is recognized equally by God. This is shallow reasoning. While states certainly certify marriage licenses, they ultimately do not have the authority to validate or invalidate an actual covenant of matrimony. This rests with the One who declared, "What God has joined together, let not man separate (Matt. 19:6)." Proof of this fact is painfully evident in the contemporary issue of "gay marriages", which are presently recognized by some state governments in the US and in a number of other countries around the world. The moral credibility of such unions may
be accepted in the sight of men, yet this fails to make them any less abominable in the sight of God. The same is equally true in the case of many remarriages involving heterosexual partners.

As with a driver's license, which is issued by a state government, so is the case of a matrimonial covenant, which is actually instituted, recognized, and honored by God. The former is a blessing and privilege that is provided by the state. The latter is truly a blessing and a privilege provided by God. Neither is an irrevocable right.

This brings the commentary back to the three popular premises regarding the question of divorce and remarriage. As to those of the "Legalist" persuasion, they are right in their assessment that divorce is a result of sin. What is unfounded is their categorical assumption that the guilt for a shattered union rests equally on both parties, or even on both parties in some proportion. Herein is the judgmental basis for their conclusion that all divorcees have committed sin, by virtue of the fact that they are divorced. By extension, such reason that all who remarry after a divorce are adulterers.

The rigidity and harshness of this position is not found in Jesus' comments on the subject, nor is it found in Paul's. Both referred to exceptions-Jesus mentioning sexual immorality on the part of the offending spouse, Paul noting abandonment by the same-as reasonable grounds for not only divorce, but also for allowance of remarriage by the offended party.

The "Liberalist", on the other hand, correctly maintains that all sins-including those which result in the breakup of a marriage-are washed in the blood of Jesus Christ for those who are repentant. However, confusing forgiveness with freedom from the consequences for sin, he mistakenly supposes that receiving mercy from the Lord releases all who have been divorced to remarry.

Such thinking has spawned promiscuous practices within the church, to the extent that some change spouses with the same air of flippancy and casualness with which they change their socks.

David sinned through adultery with Bathsheba and then subsequently in the murder of Uriah; he ultimately found forgiveness from the Lord. The consequences for his transgressions included the fact that the sword never departed from his house. This went beyond a "life sentence" because the pernicious effects of his sins impacted not just his own life, but the lives of his progeny as well. A daughter was incestuously raped, and three sons were killed as a direct, resulting curse for his iniquities.

Concerning the marriage covenant, God said, " . . . that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore, he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 4:6-8)."

The penalty for adultery under Mosaic Law was death (Lev. 20:10-12). It is erroneous to suppose that God does not avenge the violation of the marriage oath under the new covenant as surely as he did under the old. The principle of reaping where one has sown is a spiritual law that is not automatically suspended or cancelled because of faith in Christ's finished work on the cross. Vows made before God are very serious, and the breaking of them brings a snare (Pro. 20:25). God holds covenant breakers accountable, and part of that accountability involves a prohibition denying them the license to subsequently make another such covenant before and with Him. Even as the blood of Abel still speaks (Gen. 4:10; Heb. 11:4, 12:24), the signed matrimonial parchment cries out regarding those who cast off their previous vow before Him.

Finally, some point to the profound complexity and the great emotional load associated with this divorce/remarriage issue as good reason for the church to not get involved with the matter (see the third paradigm). Admittedly, these factors do make the broaching of this subject immensely challenging. (For example, it is impossible to write an article that adequately speaks to all the specifics of each personal situation. First I, for one, don't pretend to have the insight and clarity to be able do so. Second, attempting to go deeper in response to particulars would be prohibitively voluminous, even if I was capable of doing so.) For this, those in the third camp rightly conclude that much needs to be left to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who find themselves divorced.

This granted, to propose that the church should avoid the examination of this subject, or the taking of any position on these matters is irresponsibly passive. In as far as God gives understanding, all need to be doers of His Word. Much damage has been done through the church's callous condemnation of the innocent, speaking here of those who have been victimized by the divorce process. Much damage has also been done through the church's refusal to take a righteous stand on these issues. Unlike the good Samaritan, all too often she has chosen to walk on the other side of the road and ignore the battered and bleeding.

In contrast to their widowed counterparts, victims of divorce are not afforded the same grieving process, with its funerals, flowers, cards, etc. For them, there is no closure. They typically bear the death of their marriages in isolation, because the church often offers no real support base for them. Part of this has been due to reluctance on the church's part to roll up her shirt sleeves and get her hands dirty; part of this has been due to ignorance regarding what she can and should do.

Discernment is necessary in order to extend much needed pastoral ministry to divorcees. This is not a homogenous group. Some have obviously been victimized. Others have clearly done the victimizing. There is a sizeable number who fall somewhere in between. Sufficient involvement is necessary before it is possible to distinguish the proper response to each situation. Is this a case where restitution is in order? Is reconciliation possible?

"Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all (1 Thess. 5:14)."

Those who trash their families, then prowl around church gatherings looking to repeat the process do not need our comfort, or to be upheld. They deserve a severe rebuke!

One evening a number of years ago, a gifted man, who had ministered extensively within our local congregation, announced to me and a handful of other men that he was leaving his wife, who was also a member of our fellowship. (This was not the first that I had heard of this plan. Several months prior to this, he had shared with me that he was thinking about abandoning his spouse. After I had warned him of the grave implications of his intentions, he had thanked me, and conceded that my counsel was right.) Upon follow-up discussion with him later that night, I learned that his wife had not been guilty of infidelity (though he had been "dinner dating"
another woman).

Very shortly afterward, this man attempted to give me a brotherly hug, and "affirm his love" for me. I sharply reproved him, and warned him to never again approach me or any of my family members with such a disingenuous claim of "love". This man's actions revealed that he was truly clueless as to what the word "love" meant. I reminded him that his choice to break covenant with his wife was also a choice to break covenant with the Lord, and with His people. While he was making no pretense of trying to hide his sin, the man wanted his relationship with other church members to remain "business as usual". Yet there was not a flicker of conviction in him, much less repentance. I sighed with relief upon later learning that he had left the church. Some judged my response to this man to be harsh. Was it, in light of
how Paul dealt with immorality in 1 Corinthians 5? Returning to the original question: Is remarriage after divorce a biblical option for a Christian? . . . . That depends.

Appendix - WHAT ABOUT MINISTERIAL QUALIFICATIONS?

I have addressed the inquiry, "Is divorce and remarriage a biblical option for a Christian?" Specifically, this Appendix will explore how ministerial qualifications are impacted through divorce, as well as through a potential remarriage.

Today some denominations and many individual churches regard divorce to be a disqualifying strike against those who would engage in Christian service. From this viewpoint, any remarriage by a divorcee only further underscores his or her lack of fitness for duty.

Is this position a reasonable one? Is it supported by an accurate understanding of the scriptures?

To answer these questions one must examine the supporting texts that are used to build this argument. Typically, these are drawn predominately from the lists of qualifications that Paul wrote to govern the selection of elders and deacons:

"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil (1 Tim 3:1-7)."

Continuing, the qualifications for deacons are listed:

"Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Deacons must be the husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households (v. 8-12)."

For sake of emphasis, I have italicized those qualities that seem to have the most direct bearing on the subject at hand. I have further emboldened the one qualification that seems to get the most air time relative to this discussion-"the husband of one wife".

Paul's letter to Titus also contains qualifications for eldership, and it closely mirrors the one found in 1Timothy:

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful work which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict
(Titus 1:5-9)."

The phrase, "the husband of one wife", has been considered in some circles to equate to "not divorced". According to this line of reasoning, one who has remarried after a divorce has now had two wives, and is therefore disqualified from ministry. Likewise, the one who is merely divorced (but has not remarried) may have been qualified in the past to minister, but this is no longer the case, since he is now without a wife.

This position is internally inconsistent for several of reasons. First, it demands a dual definition for the word "wife". The "ex" counts as a wife for one who has remarried; she doesn't count as a wife for the divorcee who remains unmarried. Logically it is impossible to have it both ways.

Next, by carrying this thought to its inevitable conclusion, a man who has remarried following the death of his wife is likewise a "husband of two wives". Hence, all widowers (be they remarried, or now single) are disqualified from ministry on the same grounds as the divorced.

Last of all, it disqualifies from ministry all single people who have never married, since none of them are the "husband of one wife".

Clearly, none of this is the intent expressed in these verses. It is one of those classical instances where an argument proves too much.

So what is the point here? Simply put, in order to qualify for ministry one cannot be a polygamist.

The practice of having multiple wives (i.e., simultaneously) seems to have been a common social custom in the first century, even as it still is in some cultures to this day. Furthermore, there is no indication in the scriptures that polygamy is inherently wrong, for God permitted David, Jacob, Solomon, and others to have multiple wives. (Solomon's transgression was in having foreign wives, who turned his heart away from the Lord. See 1 Kings 11:1-3 & Deut. 7:1-4.) There were even cases under the Mosaic Law where polygamy apparently became familial duty. In the instance of a deceased brother who was without male offspring, a man was expected to marry his widowed sister-in-law and father offspring for her in order to perpetuate the family name. If that man was already married, he would now have two wives. (See Deut. 25:5-10.)

That admitted, polygamy fails to reflect God's highest in marriage. In fact, instead of accurately representing the image of Christ and His church, it distorts the picture.

"And he answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female", and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matt. 19:4-6).'"

Jesus' illustration was later utilized by Paul as he drew the parallel between the two becoming one flesh in marriage, and Christ being one with His body, the church. (See Eph. 5:22-33.) Under polygamy, no such connection exists. Instead of two uniting as one, there is almost certain strife and infighting between rival wives and children. This detracts in a major way from one's ability to well represent Christ to others. For this reason, those who are polygamists are excluded from qualifying for service in the ministry.

Qualifications can be considered from the standpoint of those which are directly and strictly related to the present character of the candidate, and those that are not. Arguably, David did not sin by having more than one wife. If I am right in my assertion concerning polygamy, the main issues resulting from it are the disruption of the function of the home and the distortion of its portrayal of Christ in the family unit. Today, in this country, it is also illegal. These are plenty enough good reasons to avoid it, even if it wasn't sin for David. Whether the "husband of one wife" rule was, strictly speaking, a "character matter" for Paul when he listed it is debatable.

Yet today, through misunderstanding, the "husband of one wife" qualifier is very much a "character issue" for many! As a result, all divorcees have been categorically considered to be tarnished, and not "ministry material" by many Christian groups. This is very unfortunate, because it often results in the oppression and even ostracizing of one segment of the church which is in the deepest need of support and understanding.

Actually, while the majority of the qualifications listed in the two aforementioned passages involve specific character issues, several more do not. An elder's ability to teach, or to refute those who would contradict is definitely more a matter of gifting than one of character. The requirement that one not be a new convert is no knock against anyone with short tenure as a believer; it is merely an acknowledgment of fact that the development of those who would exercise government in the church takes time.

The stipulation related to a proven ability for good management of one's household only indirectly relates to character, if at all. Oftentimes a failure in this area may stem more from a lack of wisdom than from a character flaw per se. Arguably, this could apply equally to the prerequisite for having children who believe, and who have not been charged with being wild or rebellious.

It is also possible that one's character may be very good at present, and yet his reputation has not caught up with him, due to an unseemly past. Therefore the requirement that one be above reproach sometimes may not be as much an issue of some present character deficiency as it is of some past misbehavior.

All of these things, which one might label "non-character-related" qualifications, factor heavily into whether a divorcee (or anyone, for that matter) may stand as an elder or deacon, just as much as the "character-related" qualifications on the list. Hence, the whole composite must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, without a "litmus-test" conclusion based on whether or not one has undergone a divorce.

Obviously, in some cases the specifics surrounding a marital breakup, particularly infidelity or desertion on the part of the candidate, are enough to consider him disqualified. These most certainly are character-related. In other instances, and particularly where one is clearly the victim in a divorce, the divorce itself should not be held against them, or considered a disqualifier from public ministry.

So does a divorce, and particularly one that is followed by remarriage,disqualify one from being an elder or deacon? Again, my answer is, "That depends".