Many brethren have heard of the expression, "the waiting game," in connection with divorce and remarriage. Some have heard of it, but do not know what it is. Some do have a clear understanding of the concept, and stand ready to show from the Scriptures why it is wrong. Sadly, there are others who have some idea of what it is, but oppose the practice merely because it is opposed by those whom they admire and respect. And though I am pleased when people oppose any unscriptural concept or practice, I would prefer that they understand from the Bible why the practice is sinful and wrong. Their lack of Bible understanding makes these brethren very careless and dangerous in their application of the "waiting game" label. For example, I am frequently accused of believing in the divorce "waiting game" because I believe and teach that a faithful spouse can put away his sexually immoral mate even in cases where the sexually immoral mate has already taken some earlier divorce action against the faithful mate. Those who are honest see no necessary connection between the putting-away rights of a faithful spouse, and the false concept of the waiting game. My position on the putting-away rights of a faithful, innocent spouse has nothing whatsoever to do with the "waiting game." I hope that this material will set the record straight. It is a sin to falsely accuse others, and that is what some overzealous, but uninformed brethren are doing. Let us examine the divorce "waiting game" concept in the light of God's word.

   There have been times during the controversy over the marital rights of the innocent put-away spouse, that I have been falsely accused of holding the "waiting game" position. Some continue to charge me with the position knowing full well that I deny it. Such folks are guilty of the sin of lying, and we know God's attitude towards lying (Acts 5:1-11; Rev. 21:8). I have, in fact, taught openly and plainly against the waiting game concept for years. Obviously, it is impossible to change dishonest minds. I have given up on some folks (Tit. 3:10,11). However, it is my sincere hope to demonstrate to the honest readers of this article that I do not hold the waiting game position. Furthermore, I shall also prove that the waiting game position is unscriptural and wrong, and that those who practice it are sinning against God.

   People often use terms and expressions differently. Matters are further complicated when the position or practice that one seeks to label is unscriptural. This means that biblical terminology will not be found that describes the position. Other terms and phrases must be used. I don't mind labels, but we need to be as careful and consistent as possible when producing and applying these labels.

   Traditionally, the "waiting game" designation has been applied to two basic divorce positions:

1. A scenario involving two consenting, covenant-breaking mates in a divorce not for fornication. In this divorce scenario both partners agree to the divorce and no fornication has been committed by either party. Waiting game proponents reason, however, that the potential exists for either of the two parties to one day remarry. Proponents argue that when one of the two divorcees remarries or has sexual relations with another person, his fornication provides a scriptural basis for the sexually innocent spouse to remarry.
   
2. A scenario in which a covenant-breaker unlawfully divorces his sexually innocent, non covenant-breaking spouse, then waits for that innocent spouse to commit fornication. Proponents of this view allege that when that put-away spouse either remarries or has sexual relations with another person, his fornication provides a scriptural basis for the divorcer to remarry.

   Both of these positions are unscriptural and wrong! The Bible speaks of conditions that may allow one person the right of remarriage after a divorce, but it does not approve a scenario in which either or both parties may remarry after a divorce. By putting away a sexually immoral mate, the innocent party may remarry with divine approval. All other scenarios allow neither person the right of remarriage. Matthew 5:32 contains the key to exposing the fallacy of the waiting game scenario. Jesus said,

   On this particular point the key word is "causes". According to Jesus, if a man puts away his wife without the scriptural cause of fornication (sexual immorality), the man is guilty of causing his wife's adultery (when she marries another). The man is said to be the cause of his wife's sexual immorality. Jesus did not say that the man of this particular scenario would be guilty of adultery by his unlawful putting-away, but that he would be the cause of his wife's adultery. The woman would be guilty of "adultery" because she had sexual relations with another man while being bound by God to her husband. The man's putting-away actions would not change what God had bound. His actions resulted in the sundering of only the physical marriage relationship, and would not result in God releasing anyone from the marriage bond.

   For the fornicator's spouse to be free to remarry, that spouse must be innocent of sundering the marriage and he must also be innocent of fornication. No covenant-breaker (unlawful divorcer) has the right to marry another. By assigning causality and blame to the man, in Matthew 5:32a, Jesus eliminated that man's right of remarriage. This is why the waiting game theory is against the Bible. By rejecting one's mate without the scriptural cause, one drives that mate to sexual sin (see 1 Cor. 7:5). But, what if both spouses agree to the unlawful divorce? By consenting together to "put sunder" what God has "joined together," both spouses forfeit their right to remarry as long as their mates live (Rom. 7:2). Following is the breakdown of Matthew 5:32 with regard to guilt and innocence.

1. The first man is guilty of unlawful putting-away (covenant-breaking). Jesus addressed a scenario in which a man might "put" his wife "away" for a cause other than fornication. By putting his wife away without a scriptural cause, he is complicit in her guilt. He forfeits his right of remarriage.
   
2. The first man is innocent of fornication. Jesus did not charge the first man with fornication. He charged him with an act that caused his wife's fornication.
   
3. The woman is guilty of adultery. In the absence any scriptural grounds for putting away her husband, the put-away woman commits adultery by marrying another. She is not approved to remarry another because she is still bound to the first man. (Incidentally, the woman would be guilty of adultery by marrying another whether she had been "put away" or not. The act of being "put away" is not the thing that makes her guilty of adultery in her remarriage. She is guilty of "adultery" because she has sexual relations with one man while being bound by God to another man - Romans 7:3).
   
4. The woman is innocent of putting-away. She is no covenant-breaker. Note that in Matthew 5:32, Jesus did not charge the woman with putting away her husband: He charged the man with this sin. He wrongly repudiated her!

   Jesus also mentioned a third party who is also guilty of adultery. He mentioned a man that might marry the unlawfully put-away woman. This man's adultery would be caused by his marrying a woman who was still bound to another man.

   Notice what happens when the exception clause is activated. Had the man of Matthew 5:32 remained committed to his marriage vows, and his wife engaged in sexual immorality anyway, he would not have been responsible for her sin. Matthew 19:9a teaches that whoever puts his wife away for sexual immorality does not make her an adulteress when she marries another. Again, in order to be free to marry another, one must be innocent of unlawful putting-away, and he must be innocent of fornication. Those who meet these two conditions are allowed by God to repudiate their fornicator-mates and marry others (Matt. 19:9a).

   The divorce waiting game concept is unscriptural and wrong. Divorces not involving sexual immorality result in no one having a right to marry others. Passages like Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 address such scenarios. Where there is no fornication there is no scriptural basis for the right of remarriage for anyone. Of course, these passages do not apply in divorce cases where the mate of an innocent spouse has committed sexual immorality. In these scenarios, the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 applies. There, Jesus granted repudiation rights to the innocent spouse of a fornicator-mate (Matt. 19:9). Matthew 5:32 does not permit marriage partners to divorce each other, wait for the other one to commit fornication, then remarry. There are no such loopholes in God's divorce law.

   I strongly resent the godless actions of those who falsely label me as believing in the divorce waiting game. I challenge such people to cite proof of their allegations against me. In the absence of any such proof, I urge them to cease their lies and slanderous accusations against me. Those who don't understand my position need only to ask for clarification and I will give it. Those who do understand my position and are knowingly misrepresenting me, are in danger of hell fire. Of course, the dishonorable always have one particular advantage in controversy: Their seared consciences allow them to engage in lies, deceit and misrepresentations without feeling even the smallest goads of guilt. However, the honest and honorable do possess the equipment necessary to protect themselves. We have the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:10-17), which includes the sword of the Spirit. This sword exposes, judges and silences the gainsayers (Jn. 3:19; Heb. 4:12; Tit. 1:11). We place our confidence in its power and precision (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 4:12).

by Tim Haile

Review of Joel Gwin's Debate Charts | Home Page