The Lord God formed woman of the very substance of the man. Her creation was a wonderful type of the creation of the Bride of Christ — a prophecy in symbol of the crucifixion, resurrection, and marriage of the Lamb. While Adam was in a "deep sleep" God removed a rib from his side, and from it fashioned a woman the bride of Adam. It was while Christ was in the "deep sleep" of death that his Bride had her beginning, born of the blood that flowed from his side.
The words spoken in Gen 2:24Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. were spoken before the Fall, and we have the authority of Christ, in Matt 19:4 & 5Matt 19:4 & 5 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?, for saying that they were spoken by God, and not by Adam, as the Genesis account seems to suggest. So, before sin had entered the world, and while everything was pronounced "very good", God said, " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave (Hebrew — `dabaq' — be joined) unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." So the marriage of Adam and Eve, and the marriages of all their descendants, are a divinely given institution, and something which God has enjoined upon mankind as a wonderful blessing, for marriage is a marvellous type of the fellowship between Christ and his Bride.
Whenever God establishes a type in the scriptures He requires it to be most strictly observed, as we can see from the punishments meted out whenever they were broken. When the man was found gathering sticks on the sabbath, the question was not, "Had he a sick wife or child at home, who needed a fire to keep warm?" Without any consideration of why the man had taken it upon himself to break the sabbath, he was stoned to death, because he had disobeyed God in breaking a type. Because Moses struck the rock twice (Christ was smitten only once), and "spake unadvisedly with his lips", in spite of his faithfulness throughout his long life, he was barred from entering the Promised Land. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord, (it should have been fire from the altar), and they died. Because Uzzah put forth his hand, and touched the ark, when it rocked, surely a quite natural reaction, and as the ark represented Christ, and only the priests should touch it, he broke a type, and was slain by God. Because King Uzziah insisted on entering the temple, and offering incense, though unqualified to do so, he was stricken with leprosy, and cut off from the rest of Israel, dwelling in a several house until his death — a lifetime sentence.
As far as God is concerned, marriage is a life-long unionScripture clearly indicates that, as far as God is concerned, marriage is a life-long union, which can only be broken by the death of one of the partners. It is a type of the union between Christ and his Bride, who at the moment is only espoused to him, but when the marriage of the Lamb takes place will be joined to him for ever. If we break our marriage, and are joined to another during the lifetime of our first partner, we break this God-given type. We have no reason to believe that this type is an exception, and that, although punishment invariably followed the breaking of other types, we can break this one with impunity. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that we fully understand Bible teaching on marriage, and all that is related to it, including the man-made institution of divorce and remarriage, which is so abhorrent to God.
Numerous passages illustrate that marriage is a wonderful blessing bestowed upon mankind by God. It is man's perversion and misuse of marriage which has so degraded this wonderful relationship between one man and one woman. No marriage can be a sin, if it is ordered according to God's rules, and not man's. It is man's violation of the marriage-bond (i.e. fornication, prostitution, adultery, divorce and remarriage), which is sin.
BIBLE TEACHING IS CLEAR
In the society by which we are surrounded marriage has been downgraded to the point where more than one marriage in three ends in divorce, and the ratio is still getting worse. Jesus foretold that this would happen, in Matt 24:38 & 39, "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. "And again in Luke 17:26 & 27, "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all." These verses are in the imperfect tense, and as the verbs are ongoing verbs the references to marriage mean that the people of Noah's day were not just marrying once, but continually marrying. It is intended that we should understand Bible teaching on divorce and remarriage, and it can be clarified.And Jesus says that this violation of the marriage covenant will characterize our days! Untold misery is caused to parents and children, simply because of the fickle way in which men and women treat their marriage-vows. And the sickness of divorce and remarriage is now pervading the "body of Christ", and causing misery among brethren and sisters, and schisms within the ecclesias of God. Regarding this subject we are fast approaching the time when "every man does that which is right in his own eyes". Different brethren, and different ecclesias, have different and opposing viewpoints on what the Bible teaches about it. And as the Apostle Paul writes, "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" Or as the prophet Amos says in chapter 3. verse 3, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?". A correct understanding of the subject must be possible, for God does not leave His people without guidance on such important matters. "Evil men understand not judgement: but they that seek Yahweh understand all things" (Proverbs 28:5). We are kings and priests in prospect, waiting for the return of our lord, that he might establish that reign which we shall, by grace, share with him. And Proverbs 25:2 tells us, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter". It is intended that we should understand Bible teaching on divorce and remarriage, and it can be clarified.
On all other doctrinal and moral issues we claim that the scripture teaching can be clearly established. And the way we do this is to look first at key verses, which are simple, easily understood, and which cannot be misconstrued. We then interpret less clear, less precise verses in the light of those verses whose meaning is clear, recognizing that the scriptures cannot contradict themselves. For example, when explaining the temptation of Christ, we first establish the doctrine of "sin's flesh" from such passages as James 1:13-15James 1:13-15 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.. Or if we are dealing with the return of Christ to the earth, we turn first to such passages as Acts 1:11Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven., the meaning of which is quite plain. In the same way we should deal with the subject of marriage by going first to passages which are straightforward in their meaning. We can then use our understanding of them to help us with those passages with which some brethren and sisters seem to have difficulty.
PLAIN, SIMPLE TEACHING
In Malachi 2:16 we read, "For Yahweh, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away". Even without remarriage, the act of putting away one's partner is hated by God. This should be sufficient in itself for believers to refrain from divorce, whether they are contemplating remarriage or not. Malachi's time must have been characterized by unfaithfulness in marriage, for the prophet says, "Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant."(Mal 2:14). Even after a man had "put away" his wife, she was still "the wife of thy covenant". As far as God was concerned the marriage still existed, and "putting away" did not bring it to an end. Our marriage is a binding covenant, and cannot be dissolved! It is characteristic of the wicked that they are "covenant-breakers" (Rom 1:31). Shall we break our marriage-vows, and become covenant-breakers like those in the world? Israel after the flesh were commanded "If a man vow a vow unto Yahweh, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num 30:2). How much more should Israel after the spirit hold steadfast to their vows, whether concerning marriage, or anything else! When we make our marriage vows, we make them before Yahweh! "When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?" (Ecc 5:4-6). If we divorce our partner we are saying "before the angel" that our marriage vow was "an error", and the thought that God will be angry with us for doing so is a very sobering thought.
Luke 16:18 records some words of Jesus which are quite plain and emphatic, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery". It is quite obvious from these words of Jesus that remarriage after divorce is adultery. It can only be adultery if, so far as God is concerned, the first marriage has not been dissolved. Remarriage after divorce is living in sin!Therefore, every time a man or woman come together with someone other than their first spouse, they must be committing adultery. Remarriage, then, during the lifetime of a first spouse, is a continuing state of adultery. Adultery is sin! Therefore, remarriage after divorce is living in sin! The words of the Spirit through Paul are very apt here, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom 6:1 & 2). While a single act of adultery, committed on the spur of the moment, heinous though it might be, if repented of, will be forgiven, those who persist in adultery must face a bleak future, "neither fornicators, ......nor adulterers, ...... shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9 & 10). Again the words of the Apostle Paul in Heb 13:4, "adulterers God will judge".
STICKABILITY
Some more words of Jesus, equally plain, and which can only mean that marriage is indissoluble, are found in Matthew 19:4-6. In reply to a question by the Pharisees on putting away, Jesus says, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at (Greek `apo' — 'from') the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The fact that the Greek word "apo" is used means that what God said back in Genesis, applies not just to the first pair, but to all subsequent marriages of Adam's descendants.
The Greek word translated "cleave" is "proskollao", and means "to be glued together". This gluing together is God's doing! He takes a man and a woman, and glues them together, and they become "one flesh". In Eph 5:30 Paul says, "For we are members of his body", and quotes the passage from Gen 2:24, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined ('proskollao') unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the ecclesia". The Christ body is made up of Christ (the head), and his Bride (the body). If the body were separated from the head it would die, but we know that Christ and his Bride are to be glued together for ever in glorious immortality. Christ will never put away his Bride, the ecclesia, once the marriage of the Lamb has taken place. Now a man and his wife are glued together by God to become one body, typifying the immortal relationship between Christ and his Bride. To divorce one's partner is to destroy what is perhaps the most marvellous of all the types.
Jesus says, "They are no more twain" (Matt 19:6Matt 19:6 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.). In Greek there are two negatives. "Me" is the conditional negative. For instance, in the words of Jesus, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow", the negative is "me", because we should take some thought for the morrow, but we should not take anxious thought for the morrow. The other Greek negative "ou" is unconditional, and means "absolutely no". It occurs in 1 Pet 2:22, where it says of Jesus, "Who did no sin". He was absolutely sinless, with no conditions attached. Because the word "ou" is used here, there is absolutely no possibility of Jesus having committed even one sin!
"Ouketi" means "absolutely and unconditionally no more"The word "ouketi", translated "no more" in Matt 19:6, comes from the Greek "ou", the unconditional negative, and "eti", meaning "more". "Ouketi" means "absolutely and unconditionally no more". "Ouketi" is used twice in Rom 6:9, "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth NO MORE; death hath NO MORE dominion over him". If the conditional negative "me" had been used here, it would raise the possibility of Christ dying again. He would not be immortal. The unconditional negative "ouketi" is used, because there is not the remotest possibility of Christ dying again! He is alive for evermore! We must, therefore, accept that the use of the unconditional negative "ouketi" in Matt 19:6, means that there is absolutely no possibility of a man and wife, once glued together by God, becoming "twain" again. Jesus has said that once a man and woman are married, they are married for life, full stop. Whatever the circumstances of their marriage, there is no exception. That is why he follows his unequivocal statement with the words, "What therefore God hath joined (yoked) together, let not man put asunder".
It would have been difficult for Jesus to have made a plainer, more definite, or more straightforward statement. But the Pharisees refused to accept such a sweeping statement, because it ran completely counter to their own teaching and practice. There are brethren and sisters who also refuse to accept it. Let us beware, lest we fall into the same condemnation as the Pharisees — lest we, too, are found to have closed our eyes and ears on this matter! The Pharisees then appealed to the Law of Moses, in a vain attempt to justify themselves before the people, and discredit Jesus. We will return to this narrative later, but first some more plain statements.
PLAIN SPEAKING
Mark records something concerning this incident which Matthew does not. After Jesus had answered the Pharisees, and was back in the house, his disciples asked him again about "putting away". Obviously, even his disciples were taken aback, and were troubled by the severity of his answer to the Pharisees. Note his re-affirmation of what he had said to the Pharisees, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11 & 12). No words could be plainer — no meaning more obvious — no warning more serious! Brethren and sisters who put away their partners, and marry another, are committing adultery! Jesus says so!Brethren and sisters who put away their partners, and marry another, are committing adultery! Jesus says so! And that is the only meaning that can be put upon these words to his disciples. And, because God only recognizes a first marriage, while both partners are alive, any second relationship is a state of continuous adultery.
Now consider some words of God through the Apostle Paul. In Romans 7:1-3Romans 7:1-3 1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man., although Paul is using the example of a man and wife to draw an analogy concerning the relationship of Israel to the Mosaic Law, yet that does not alter one jot what Paul is saying about marriage. Otherwise the analogy would not be a true one! He says, "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, SHE SHALL BE CALLED AN ADULTERESS: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man". Here, God states quite categorically, and without any exception, that a woman cannot obtain a discharge from her marriage-covenant, except by the death of her husband. The marriage-covenant is binding for life — she is glued to her husband by God — for life! Of course, the same rule applies also to husbands. A man cannot be absolved from his marriage-covenant, except by the death of his wife. Commenting on this passage John Carter, in "Paul's Letter To The Romans", page 64, says, "This principle is illustrated in the law of marriage, called in verse 2, "the law of the husband" i.e. the law concerning the husband. This law fastens a wife to her husband while he lives but when he dies she is "discharged" from this law. To be joined to another while the husband lives is adultery" (my emphasis).
We turn to some more plain teaching of the Spirit through the Apostle Paul. "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Cor 7:10 & 11). Here Paul is reiterating the teaching of Jesus that for brethren and sisters divorce is forbidden. If a marriage has broken down to the extent that a husband and wife can no longer tolerate each other's presence, then the only course left to them is to separate from each other. However, divorce is forbidden, and both should be holding the door open to reconciliation. If, however, reconciliation proves impossible, they were commanded to live celibate lives. They could not go and marry someone else while their first partner was still living.
After devoting a section of 1 Corinthians to dealing with the whole spectrum of marriage, Paul sums up that section by repeating the Divine principle that marriage is indissoluble. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor 7:39). Again, as we would expect, the words of the Spirit through Paul are entirely in accord with the teaching of Jesus that marriage is the gluing together of a man and woman for life.
This principle of the permanency of marriage is so clearly taught in Scripture that it cannot be denied. God does not recognize the right of any person, or group of persons, to ignore, or to change, His law.God does not recognize the right of any person, or group of persons, to ignore, or to change, His law. And by instituting divorce man has done exactly that. Logic alone tells us that, for the people of God, a man-made law can NEVER override, or cancel out a God-given law. Divorce can never cut short a marriage. God hates what man has devised in order to circumvent His law concerning marriage. "For Yahweh, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away" (Mal 2:16). How can we seek to justify what God hates? Are we going to say, "We ought to obey men rather than God"? Because that is just what we ARE saying, if we allow a man-made decree to override a God-made decree. Surely, we should be standing firm on the words of Jesus, "What God hath glued together, let not man put asunder".
THE LAW OF MOSES
Having noted the unequivocal teaching that divorce is not allowable for followers of Jesus, now let us consider some of the arguments that have been advanced for allowing divorce and remarriage. It is argued that the Law of Moses was in favour of divorce, and Deut 24:1-4Deut 24:1-4 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. is cited as evidence. However, a closer look at this passage shows that the opposite is true. In his book, "Marriage And Divorce", Bro. John Carter says on page 36:—
"The accuracy of the translation of both A.V. and R.V., however, appears to be open to question. The American Jewish Translation reads as follows:— 'When a man hath taken a wife, and marrieth her, then it come to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, AFTER THAT SHE IS DEFILED (my capitals), for that is an abomination before the LORD'.Her former husband...may not take her again to be his wife, AFTER THAT SHE IS DEFILED This translation is supported by scholars generally. The Speaker's Commentary gives the rendering: 'If a man hath taken a wife.....and given her a bill of divorcement; and (verse 2) if she has departed out of his house and become another man's wife; and (verse 3) if the latter husband hate her, then (verse 4) her former husband may not take her again'. The attached note declares that the A.V. is undoubtedly wrong in placing a full stop at the end of verse 1 and verse 2. The four verses form only one sentence......thus verse 4 lays down the law on the case. So in the LXX (Septuagint version, Ed.), and the vast majority of commentators. It is thus evident that Moses neither institutes nor enjoins divorce."
The Law of Moses was given for a nation, and God recognized that among the millions of Israel, (just like any other nation), there would be a wide diversity of character, and therefore behaviour. He recognized that among them there would be those who, "for the hardness of their hearts", would put away their wives. He accepted this inevitable situation, but expressed His disapproval by limiting and regulating, the scope for divorce. Thus, the excesses of the surrounding nations were forbidden to Israel. "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled". As a second relationship "defiles" a woman God cannot regard it as a lawful marriage.We, as voluntary followers of Christ, are commanded to observe a higher moral standard than those who, in Israel, were the "hard of heart" among them. God does not enjoin divorce — He hates it!
The essential point to notice in Deut 24:4Deut 24:44 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance., which we have just looked at, is that a woman who marries another man, after she is put away from her husband, is described as "defiled". The Hebrew word means "unclean" (Young), or "foul" (Strong). Hebrew 13:4 tells us that "marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled". As a second relationship "defiles" a woman God cannot regard it as a lawful marriage. Quite clearly, what God did not regard as lawful in the time of Moses, He must regard as at least equally unlawful between brethren and sisters of the Lord Jesus Christ. If a second marriage while the first partner is alive is not a valid marriage, IT MUST BE ADULTERY! What more proof do we want that it is wrong for brethren and sisters to either instigate divorce, or take part in remarriage after divorce?
DEUTERONOMY 22
It has been suggested that Deut 22 also advocates divorce. But, again, a closer examination will find this to be untrue. Verses Deut. 22:13-21Deut. 22:13-21 13 ¶If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. deal with a man who finds his wife is not a virgin when he marries her. If the accusation was found to be false, no matter what the subsequent feelings of the couple were for each other, (and we can well imagine the strain in such a marriage), he could not put her away "all his days". Such a marriage would most probably be a severe strain on both parties for the rest of their lives. Yet they could not divorce!
If the accusation was proved, then the woman was put to death for her pre-marital misconduct, because "she hath wrought folly in Israel". Even though she may have been faithful to her husband since their betrothal, she was put to death for her fornication (the Hebrew word translated "whore" in verse 21 is "zanah" — "to commit fornication"), or pre-marital misconduct. This was not to set the husband free, as some would allege, but to condemn the woman's sin, and to "put away evil from among" God's people (verse 21). The sentence of death was because the woman had transgressed against God, and against His law. The fact that the marriage had been terminated by the death of the transgressor, and the husband freed from his marriage bond was incidental to this.
We cannot, and must not, go beyond the teaching of God's Word.Deut 22:22 pronounces sentence of death upon all adulterers and adulteresses. Again, it was not to free the innocent partner, but in order to "put away evil from Israel". We must not ignore the reason given in Scripture, and attempt to insert our own reason, simply because it seems to us to be more humanitarian, for that would be to question God's own wisdom and love. We cannot, and must not, go beyond the teaching of God's Word. The other references in Deuteronomy 22 are to premarital misconduct, and to rape. It should be noted that, if a man had forced a virgin who was not betrothed, he was forced to marry her, and could not "put her away all his days". If ever there was a bad marriage this was it, but even so, according to the Law, that marriage was for life, and could not be broken. Far from advocating divorce and remarriage, the instances recorded in Deuteronomy 22 uphold the sanctity of the marriage-bond, and even insist on the worst marriages lasting the life-time of the partners.
"BREAK WEDLOCK"?
It is suggested by some that adultery breaks the marriage-bond, and the Authorized Version of Ezekiel 16:38 is quoted, where, speaking of His relationship with the southern kingdom of Judah God says, "And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged". However, the word translated "break wedlock" is the Hebrew "naaph". Any concordance will tell you that it simply means "to commit adultery", and is always translated so elsewhere. God is simply saying that He will judge Judah as women who commit adultery are judged.
If adultery breaks the marriage-bond, whenever a man or woman commit adultery, they bring their marriage to an end, and are then either single again, or married to the one with whom they have committed adultery. They would no longer be bonded in covenant-relationship with their husband or wife. Scripture teaching is clear! ADULTERY DOES NOT BREAK THE MARRIAGE-BOND! Only the death of one of the partners can do that.We do not see those who take this view insisting that such should either remain separate from their partner, or go through a form of re-marriage to them, before they can be reconciled. Nor do they insist that an adulterer is now married to the one with whom they have committed adultery. Why not? Scripture teaching is clear! ADULTERY DOES NOT BREAK THE MARRIAGE-BOND! Only the death of one of the partners can do that.
If we take the analogy of God as a husband to Israel, we see a husband who says to his wife, "I have loved thee with an everlasting love" (Jer 31:3). Israel, However, played the whore, and "took many lovers" (Jer 3:1). In other words, she went after idols. "Surely, as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith Yahweh" (Jer 3:20). "She went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith Yahweh" (Hos 2:13). In the face of such continued desertion, God accepted that such misconduct had separated Zion from Him. "Thus saith Yahweh, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away" (Isa 50:1). "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear" (Isa 59:2). God had shown utmost patience with Israel, but they had turned from him to idolatry and would not hear his pleas. The time came when he had to acknowledge that their whoredoms had caused a separation which would take time to overcome. The greatest lesson is that although we may put away our marriage partner, yet so far as God is concerned, the marriage still exists — we are still husband and wife!"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee" (Isa 54:5-10). Although God had been forced to acknowledge the rift which already existed between Himself and his "wife" by "putting her away", yet HE WAS STILL HER HUSBAND, AND THEREFORE SHE WAS STILL HIS WIFE. "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce....... Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you" (Jer 3:8 & 14). God is not a covenant-breaker, for He condemns covenant-breakers! He is still married to Israel, and will yet bring her back to Him. He has never closed the door to Israel's return, and in spite of her backsliding, the time will come when God will persuade Israel to return to Him. "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her (Hebrew "to her heart")......And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi (My Husband); and shalt call me no more Baali (My Lord)" (Hos 2:14 & 16). Such is the example of God's faithfulness toward Israel! His only thought has been of reconciliation, and He is working to bring about that reconciliation. If our partner strays, then, like the Almighty, we must never close the door, but seek reconciliation. And the greatest lesson is that although we may put away our marriage partner, yet so far as God is concerned, the marriage still exists — we are still husband and wife!
PAUL AND DIVORCE
It has been suggested that the words of the Holy Spirit through Paul in 1 Cor 7:27-281 Cor 7:27-2827 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. are in favour of divorce and remarriage. If they were it would be a clear contradiction of all the evidence we have considered so far, and we know that God does not contradict Himself, for God "cannot lie". Firstly we see from verse 26 that Paul is writing about "the present distress" of his own times. The early ecclesias recognized, from the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, that the end of the Jewish Era was near, and that they were entering a difficult period, when persecution would arise. The enforced separation of husbands and fathers from their own families was a distinct possibility. Because of the imminent persecution Paul is saying, "Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned".
We understand these verses in the following sense. If you are married, in spite of the difficulties which tribulation and persecution may bring to your marriage, you must not seek to end it. If you have no wife, (either a bachelor or widower), do not seek marriage. But if you are free to marry, then it is no sin to do so, though it may cause problems and difficulties in the coming persecution. This is the interpretation placed upon these verses by many, including Weymouth, Moffatt, and the R.S.V., and is in complete accord with the rest of Paul's teaching, and the teaching of Jesus. "Barnes Notes On The New Testament", vol 5, says,
"Art thou loosed from a wife? Art thou unmarried? It should have been rendered free from a wife; or art thou single? It does not imply of necessity that the person had been married, though it may have that meaning, and signify those who have been separated from a wife by her death. There is no necessity of supposing that Paul refers to persons who had divorced their wives. So Grotius, Schleusner, Doddridge, &c."
The Speaker's Commentary has "Bachelor or widower? Seek not a wife".
THE EXCEPTIVE CLAUSE
Having established the very clear Bible teaching on this matter of divorce and remarriage, we come now to consider the phrase which seems to present most difficulty to brethren and sisters, and which is quoted more than any other in support of divorce — the so-called "exceptive clause". The phrase... which is quoted more than any other in support of divorceIt occurs in Matthew 5:32Matthew 5:32 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery., and again in Matthew 19:9Matthew 19:9 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.. As Matthew 19 contains more detail, and as we have already considered part of the text there, we will deal with it from that chapter.
As we have seen, the rest of Scripture teaches the absolute permanence of the marriage-bond, and so the "exceptive clause", if it allowed for the breaking of the marriage-bond, would deny what the rest of Scripture upholds, and we know that this cannot be so. There were two schools of thought among the Jews on this subject of divorce and remarriage. The school of Shammai allowed divorce only for adultery by the wife. The school of Hillel allowed a man to divorce his wife for all sorts of trivial reasons. Obviously, Jesus would not have countenanced the loose morals of the school of Hillel. Therefore his disciples, the Pharisees, and the vast majority of the Jews, would expect him to take and support the same position as the school of Shammai, and allow a man to divorce his wife for her adultery. Almost certainly the Pharisees were hoping that Jesus would take the stricter view, and so incur the wrath of Herod, (who had married his brother Philip's wife), just as John the Baptist had done earlier.
If Jesus had taken the liberal view he would have astonished everyone, especially his disciples. But if Jesus was taking the same view as the school of Shammai, that divorce was only permissible for adultery by the wife, why were his disciples so astonished as to make the comment, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good (R.V. "expedient") to marry" (verse 10). His answer to the Pharisees' question, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" did not allow for any divorce at all, ONCE A MAN AND WOMAN HAD COME TOGETHER IN MARRIAGE. "Have ye not read, that he which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall be glued to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are never again two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath yoked together, LET NOT MAN PUT ASUNDER" (verses 4-6).
"Have ye not read?"
Whenever Jesus used the phrase "have ye not read?" it was in an accusative form, suggesting that those addressed should have known the answer to their question from the Scriptures. When God created man and woman, says Jesus, he made them male and female, so that they might be "glued together" by Him in marriage. It is God's doing! And because they are "never again two" it is, of course, quite plain that there are no grounds whatsoever on which to justify divorce. Therefore, what God has glued together "let not man put asunder".
THE WRIGGLING PHARISEES SILENCED
Jesus had now set out his teaching on divorce in his answer to the Pharisees, and so far as he was concerned his answer was clear and decisive. It was unequivocal, and should have required no more elucidation. To suggest that Jesus would command in his first answer that once a man and woman had come together in marriage they must not "put asunder", and then say that, when pressured by the Pharisees he would change his mind and say that divorce was allowable, is straining credulity too far. I certainly would not dare to say that, in almost the next breath, Jesus would contradict himself. But the Pharisees were most put out and embarrassed by his answer, for it meant that both schools of thought among them were wrong. They knew what he meant — that even those who followed the school of Shammai, which only allowed divorce for adultery by the wife, were wrong. How, then, dare men accuse those who are against divorce of being hard-hearted when Jesus says the very opposite!Their embarrassment was plain to all the onlookers, and so they sought to salvage their pride by appealing to Moses, who, they contended, supported divorce. "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" If the answer of Jesus to their first question had agreed with the school of Shammai that a man could divorce his wife for adultery, then this second question of the Pharisees would have been nonsensical. Why would they appeal to Moses who allowed divorce, if Jesus' first answer had also allowed it? If there is no divorce, they were saying, why did Moses command it? If the previous answer of Jesus had allowed for any divorce at all, there would have been no sense in this further question. It was Christ's complete prohibition of divorce which prompted it. The Pharisees probably had in mind the narrative in Deut 24:1-4Deut 24:1-4 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance., which we have already dealt with. Moses had not commanded divorce, and Jesus tells them so. He told them that Moses did not advocate divorce, but "because of the hardness of your hearts" he suffered it (verse 8). "But", said Jesus, "from the beginning it was not so". Again he is taking the Pharisees back to Creation, and says that divorce was not part of God's system of things, and is a direct negation of what God had arranged in Creation. It has been invented by men because of their "hardness of heart". How, then, dare men accuse those who are against divorce of being hard-hearted when Jesus says the very opposite! He says that divorce is brought about because of men's hard-heartedness! So those who, like Jesus, oppose divorce must be the ones who are showing love. And although God recognized that among a whole nation like the nation of Israel there would be hard men who would put away their wives, He showed His abhorrence of "putting away" by strictly regulating it. How many of us would have said that, if a woman left her husband to marry another, if the second husband died, she could not return to her first husband (Deut 24:1-4)?
Jesus then goes on to reinforce and emphasize his original answer to the Pharisees, and show that his teaching on divorce is divergent from the Law of Moses. "And I (not Moses) say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery" (verse 9). Moses suffered divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, says Jesus, BUT I AM TELLING YOU SOMETHING DIFFERENT. The teaching of Moses was for a national law which would have to deal with all sorts of people, hard-hearted and otherwise. But the teaching of Jesus, which we call "the Law of Grace", is for individuals whose hearts have been touched by the love of Christ. Jesus expresses the morality of the matterJesus expresses the morality of the matter, and the way in which that morality applies to each individual marriage. The morality is, says Jesus, that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, is an adulterer. And because the first action of adultery does not break a person's marriage-bond, then to continue an adulterous relationship means that those who do this are living in a state of continuous and ongoing adultery. There is no point at which an adulterous relationship stops being adulterous!
We are plainly told in 1 Cor 6:9 & 101 Cor 6:9 & 10 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. that no "adulterers" shall "inherit the kingdom of God". If we say to those contemplating divorce or remarriage after divorce that it is alright for them to do so, we are encouraging them to place their eternal welfare in jeopardy. How can this be "showing love"? We are not only placing their eternal welfare in jeopardy, but our own future also, by influencing others to deny the doctrine of Christ.
"EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION"
Always in the New Testament the Greek word "porneia" is translated by the word "fornication", and the Greek word "moicheia" by "adultery". Jesus uses both these words in Matt 19:9Matt 19:9 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.. If Jesus had said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for 'moicheia', and shall marry another, committeth 'moicheia'" there would have been no doubt that the exceptive clause refers to adultery. But this would have directly contradicted his previous answer to the Pharisees, which made no allowance for "putting away", ONCE A MAN AND WOMAN HAD BEEN "GLUED TOGETHER" IN MARRIAGE. "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given"Jesus would not have changed, or weakened his teaching simply because he had been challenged by the Pharisees. The fact that he used two different words, "porneia" and "moicheia", in the same sentence, shows that he was thinking of, and referring to, two different things. Those who insist that the exceptive clause refers to adultery can give no reason why the word "moicheia" was not used. If he meant adultery why did he use the word "porneia", which many argue covers all sorts of sexual perversion and uncleanness? And if, as some argue, the word "porneia" covers all sorts of sexual aberrations, including adultery, it would mean that Jesus was now advocating divorce for anything sexually immoral. Appearing nude, or reading or watching anything remotely sexually explicit and a whole host of other things, would be grounds for divorce. His disciples might have been astonished at his answer, but they would certainly not have said, "If the case of a man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry". Nor would Jesus have answered them, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given".
Not only are the two words, "porneia" used together in Matt 19:9, but they also appear in Matt 15:19Matt 15:19 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:, where they appear together in a list of things to be condemned, and must, therefore, be different from each other. Jesus would not have listed "adultery, adultery" in this passage. It is obvious that the Scriptures do not treat the word "porneia" as including adulteryThe same two words also appear as separate items in 1 Cor 6:91 Cor 6:9 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,, and Gal 5:19Gal 5:19 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, . In 1 Cor 6:91 Cor 6:9 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, adulterers, fornicators, and "abusers of themselves with mankind (sodomites — Greek "arsenokoites"), are all mentioned separately, showing that "fornication" includes neither adultery, nor sodomy. This not only shows that adultery is separate from fornication. It is also a further nail in the coffin of the argument used by some that fornication covers all uncleaness. The related nouns of "porneia" and "moicheia" occur in Heb 13:4, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but 'pornos'(fornicators) and 'moichos'(adulterers) God will judge". It is obvious that the Scriptures do not treat the word "porneia" as including adultery, and as we shall see later, this fully accords with the way this word was used by the Jews in an attempt to deride Jesus.
These two Greek words have their Hebrew equivalents in the Old Testament, where the word "zanah" refers to fornication, and "naaph" to adultery. Because harlots were almost always unmarried women, the word "zanah" was also used to describe "whoredoms". Again, we see that fornication is pre-marital misconduct.To demonstrate their different usage both words are used in Isa 57:3, "But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer (naaph), and the whore (zanah)". The two words also occur in Hosea 4:13 & 14, "therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom ('zanah' — 'fornication'), and your spouses shall commit adultery ('naaph'). I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom ('zanah' — 'fornication'), nor your spouses when they commit adultery ('naaph'). Rotherham renders this, "For this cause do your daughters become unchaste, and your brides commit adultery. I do not bring punishment upon your daughters when they become unchaste, nor upon your brides when they commit adultery". This passage clearly shows that fornication is committed by the unmarried daughters of Israel, while adultery is committed by the wives. Again, we see that fornication is pre-marital misconduct. On one other occasion the word "adulteress", in Prov 6:26Prov 6:26 26 For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life., is translated from the Hebrew "esheth ish", properly meaning "the wife of a man".
THE TRUE MEANING OF "FORNICATION"
"The Universal English Dictionary" gives the origin of the word "fornication" as "ecclesiastical Latin", and says it means "sexual intercourse between unmarried persons; or between a married and an unmarried person". That the King James translators understood it in this way is evident from its usage in the passages which fit into this category. As the case of a "betrothed husband" putting away his "betrothed wife" is an exception, it must be the exception to which Jesus is referringIn the Scriptures a man was regarded as already a husband, even though he was only betrothed to his future partner. Likewise, a woman was regarded as already a wife, even though she was only betrothed. If a betrothed husband broke off his betrothal it was referred to as "putting away". Therefore, the only man who could "put away" his wife, and marry another, without committing adultery, was a betrothed husband, whose wife was "betrothed" to him, but not yet "glued together" in marriage. Jesus says there is only one exception! As the case of a "betrothed husband" putting away his "betrothed wife" is an exception, it must be the exception to which Jesus is referring. Otherwise, there would be more than one exception!
It is significant that we have just such a case in Scripture to illustrate our point. When Joseph discovered that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was with child, she was betrothed to him, but not yet married. Yet they are spoken of as husband and wife! Furthermore we are told that he was considering "putting her away"! Thus we see that the exceptive clause, the only reason for which a man could put away his wife, did not part those who have been "glued together" in marriage"Then Joseph, her husband.....was minded to put her away privily......Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife" (Matt 1:19 & 20). When the Pharisees wished to belittle Jesus, believing that he was born as a result of premarital unchastity on Mary's part, they said, "We be not born of fornication (porneia)" (John 8:41). The Jews were clearly using the word "porneia" to describe premarital unchastity! The example of Mary and Joseph shows that a man could "put away" his "wife" during betrothal and before they were married. Thus we see that the exceptive clause, the only reason for which a man could put away his wife, did not part those who have been "glued together" in marriage. This is why Jesus was so emphatic that, once married, a man and woman have been "glued together", and are "never again two".
JEZEBEL
In the letter to the ecclesia at Thyatira we have a reference to "that woman Jezebel" (Rev 2:20-24Rev 2:20-24 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. 24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.). First she is accused of teaching Christ's "servants to commit fornication (porneia)". Then, after a space of time, it mentions those "that commit adultery (moicheia) with her". in Constantine's time, "that woman Jezebel" was "married" to the stateWriting of this in Eureka Bro. Thomas shows that "Jezebel" refers to the idolatrous element which was beginning to poison their ecclesias. He says in volume 1, page 329, "In the days of John she was without political sovereignty; she was the daughter of Ethbaal the idolater; but she had not been married to the Greco-Latin Ahab". Clearly Bro. Thomas linked the word "porneia" with the unmarried state! When, in Constantine's time, "that woman Jezebel" was "married" to the state, and became the state religion of Rome, the "porneia" became "moicheia".
MORE FROM THE LAW OF MOSES
Like Matthew's Gospel the Law of Moses also refers to a man to whom a damsel was betrothed as her "husband", and to the damsel as his "wife" (Deut 22:23 & 24Deut 22:23 & 24 23 ¶If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.). "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you". Both the Old and New Testaments are consistent in calling betrothed couples "husband" and "wife". The Law of Moses required the death of a betrothed "wife" who was unfaithful to her betrothed "husband", but Jesus did not teach such drastic action. Both the Old and New Testaments are consistent in calling betrothed couples "husband" and "wife".The Law of Christ makes only provision for "putting away", or the breaking of the betrothal, as a result of unfaithfulness. As Jesus makes only one exception where putting away one's wife is permissible, this must be it!
It is sometimes argued that, because the word "porneia" is used in 1 Cor 5:11 Cor 5:1 1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife., where a brother had committed misconduct with "his father's wife", then "porneia" must mean adultery. But consider the facts:—
- The woman is not referred to as the brother's mother, but as "his father's wife". This suggests that the brother's father had married again, and the woman was, therefore, his step-mother. It would not be incest, as some suggest. We can only speculate about her age, but she may have been much younger than her husband, and nearer to the brother's age than his father's.
- The woman was not dealt with as an offender against the Law of Christ. She was not, therefore, a sister in Christ.
- The Westminster Dictionary definition of "fornication" (see above) fits the situation perfectly. Although the woman was married and her sin was adultery, if the brother was not, and there is no indication that he was, on his part the sin was premarital misconduct.
There is thus no conflict with this record, and our understanding of Scripture teaching.
THE ASTONISHMENT OF THE DISCIPLES
We come now to examine the reaction of the disciples to the answers Jesus had given to the Pharisees in Matt 19:3-9Matt 19:3-9 3 ¶The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.. To say they were surprised by his words would be an understatement. They were completely taken aback! "If the case of a man be so with his wife, it is not good (R.V. 'expedient') to marry" (Matt 19:10). The disciples would have been surprised if Jesus had supported the liberal views of the school of Hillel, and the Pharisees would not have asked their second question if he had supported the view of the school of Shammai. We cannot be selective in what parts we accept. It is all, or nothing!It was obvious that Jesus was taking a view held by neither of these schools of Jewry, a view to which the Pharisees took exception, and which astonished the disciples. The fact that they were so astonished can only be explained by the fact that he was taking an even stricter view than the school of Shammai, which only allowed divorce in the case of an unfaithful wife. Christ's position was obviously stricter than this.
Christ's answer to his disciples confirms this. "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given (i.e. his disciples). For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (verses 11 & 12). Jesus is saying this in the context of marriage. It must mean that if a man's wife leaves him for any reason, he must remain single, and not take another partner while his wife is alive. Jesus says that it is only those to whom this saying is given, who can receive it. The Pharisees could not accept the teaching of Jesus because of the hardness of their hearts. It is hardness of heart which prevents those who are not followers of Jesus from receiving (i.e. accepting) his teaching on the matter. The teaching of Jesus is for his followers, and if any man would be his disciple he must observe and follow his teaching. We cannot be selective in what parts we accept. It is all, or nothing!
No provision is made for divorce, or remarriage after divorceA comparison with Matt 13:9-16Matt 13:9-16 9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. will demonstrate that when Jesus used the phrase "to whom it is given" he was referring to his followers. "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (unbelievers) it is not given", and, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear". It is "they to whom it is given" — the followers of Jesus, who are called upon to observe and obey his teaching.
That the teaching of Jesus allows for no divorce is confirmed by the words of the Spirit through Paul at 1 Cor 7:10 & 11, "And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife". This is not just my teaching, says Paul, but the teaching of Jesus. As a summary of Christ's teaching on the matter of divorce and remarriage, it must be a true reflection of his doctrine. No provision is made for divorce, or remarriage after divorce. So the Apostle Paul understood that Jesus made provision for neither.
It has been suggested that Paul's words in 1 Cor 7:15 allow a believer whose partner has deserted them to divorce and remarry, but this would not only deny his words above, but would militate against the teaching of the rest of Scripture. "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us to peace". "Barnes On The New Testament", vol 5, says that if an unbelieving partner is determined to depart, the believer is not bound to go to extremes in seeking to prevent their departure. They can accept the separation, but it does not give licence to divorce and remarry!
MARRIAGE IS NOT A SIN
It has been contended that where a person is divorced before baptism, they are at liberty after baptism to remarry. The argument has been advanced that baptism washes away a person's past life, enabling them to have a fresh beginning, and so marriage which was the subject of a divorce before baptism has been washed away. But in what sense is baptism a fresh beginning?Romans is quoted extensively, and the phrase "but ye are washed" (1 Cor 6:111 Cor 6:11 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.). But in what sense is baptism a fresh beginning? And from what are we washed? Are our former relationships washed away? Of course they are not! Otherwise, a husband or wife, on being baptized, would have washed away their marriage-covenant, (which according to Scripture is for life), and would have to be remarried. And if they had children when they were baptized, it would make those children bastards. It would also mean that God does not recognize a marriage-covenant contracted in the world as of the same status as one contracted by a brother and sister in Christ, which, of course, He does. After baptism our father and mother, brothers and sisters, are still our father and mother, brothers and sisters. Baptism does not wash away relationships! Neither does it wash away solemn covenants made while in the world! In Rom 1:31Rom 1:31 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: the Godless are condemned for being covenant-breakers. SHALL WE ENTER INTO THE SAME CONDEMNATION?
The context of the phrase "but ye are washed" in 1 Cor 6:11 shows that it refers to the washing away of sins. When Ananias was sent to restore Paul's sight he said, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). In Rev 1:5 we read, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood". "Marriage is honourable in all, and the (marriage-) bed undefiled; but fornicators (pornos) and adulterers (moichos) God will judge"MARRIAGE IS NOT A SIN! If it was, those who come to the Truth as married persons would have to renounce their marriage at baptism. Do we find this being demanded of them? Certainly not! "Marriage is honourable in all, and the (marriage-) bed undefiled; but fornicators (pornos) and adulterers (moichos) God will judge" (i.e. condemn, Heb 13:4). As we demonstrated at the beginning of this article, marriage is a gift from the Almighty, a Divine institution, a wonderful blessing pronounced upon Adam and Eve, AND UPON ALL THEIR DESCENDANTS. The fact that man has misused this marvellous blessing is not God's fault. It is entirely man's! And if we agree to divorce for any reason we are joining in its misuse. It is not marriage which is a sin, but divorce, and if either of these is washed away by baptism it must be divorce. In reality, the divorce never existed anyway, for the almighty neither recognizes nor countenances man's foolish ways. Rather than wash away marriage, conversion and baptism should bring with it a keener awareness of the sanctity of marriage — the symbol of the faithfulness of Christ and his bride — whether one's partner is in the truth or not.
Those who assert that a person who has been divorced before baptism can remarry after baptism point out that while people are unbaptized they are not responsible to the Law of Christ. We heartily agree! But once they have come to the truth, and been baptized, it offends against that Law, either to instigate divorce, or take part in remarriage after divorce. Once baptized, we are responsible, and cannot, must not, be a party to such things.
JOHN BAPTIST AND HEROD
When we come to consider the episode of John the Baptist and Herod there are certain questions we must ask ourselves, and answer, in order to bring out the full import of what happened:—
- Was John Baptist right to condemn Herod for marrying a divorced woman, even though it brought about his violent death? Answer: John was the faithful herald of Jesus, and a prophet, preaching under divine inspiration. We have to accept that his action was justified.
- Marriages in the world are according to God's law, and therefore recognized as binding and unbreakable.Was condemning Herod for marrying a divorced woman worth losing his head for? Answer: As John was doing God's work in condemning Herod, and other prophets and faithful men have been required to die for the Truth, we have to say, Yes.
- Herod was not a Jew, and although the family of Herod were supposed to be proselytes to the Jewish Faith, this was only for convenience, and they were in reality idolators, as the Greek legends portrayed on Herodian coins bear witness. He was, therefore, a Gentile, and not under the Law of Moses, nor a follower of John or Jesus. Was it right for John Baptist to condemn such a man? Answer: If marriages outside the Truth are of no consequence, and not recognized by God, then John Baptist was wrong to condemn Herod. But if marriages among people in the world are recognized by God as lawful and right, then John was right to condemn Herod.
- Why did he tell Herod, "It is not lawful for thee to have her"? Did he mean it was not lawful according to the civil law, or according to God's law. Answer: Undoubtedly, he was saying that it was breaking God's law.
- If it is against God's law for an unbelieving Gentile to marry a divorced woman, is it not much more unlawful for a believer in Christ? Answer: Yes.
- If refraining from divorce and remarriage are not vital to salvation, why did John bother to condemn Herod, and so lose his head? Answer: Remarriage after divorce must endanger a person's salvation, or John would not have put himself in peril by condemning it.
We see that the case of Herod and John the Baptist clearly proves that marriages in the world are according to God's law, and therefore recognized as binding and unbreakable. A marriage contracted before baptism is just as valid as a marriage in the Truth. Therefore, a divorce before baptism is not recognized as allowing someone divorced before baptism to remarry after baptism. It further proves that if divorce and remarriage is wrong for people in the world, it is much more wrong for brethren and sisters to engage in something for which, because he condemned it, John Baptist was beheaded.
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE BEFORE BAPTISM
Some contend that someone who has been divorced and remarried before baptism, upon coming to the Truth, must discontinue their second marriage. But I believe this is the one circumstance where the Almighty, in His abundant mercy, has made a concession. In such a case the second marriage-contract was made in ignorance of God's law, and we behold the wonderful love and compassion of God in not requiring such to part again. In the context of marriage He says in 1 Cor 7:17, "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk". This is the one circumstance where the Almighty, in His abundant mercy, has made a concessionAgain in verse 20, "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called". And again in verse 24, "Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God". These verses come right in the middle of a passage dealing with various situations within marriage, and although Paul cites other examples (slavery and circumcision), yet the context shows that he is applying these words to marriage. The principle is that those who are called being divorced must either return to their partner or remain single, while those who are called being divorced and remarried can remain in that position, for that is their position at baptism. It would be foolish to suggest that, after baptism, those who have separated from or divorced their partner before baptism cannot return to their partner, for even those who separate from their partner after baptism are commanded "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" (1 Cor 7:11).
Bro. John Carter, in his book "Marriage And Divorce", page 75, refers to two passages, 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6, both of which say, "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife". He then says, "A parallel rule for widows generally overlooked, certainly rules out polygamy. Only a widow who had been the wife of one husband" (1 Tim 5:91 Tim 5:9 9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,) had to be admitted to the role of the church. Since polyandry was not practised, the corresponding rule for church officers cannot refer to polygamy. May not the meaning of Paul be found in the ways of life in the first century? A man who had exercised the current freedom for divorce and had married again was as a result regarded as thereby unsuited for official position, in which personal example played such a part. Such divorce and remarriage must have taken place before baptism, for as we have seen Paul had forbidden divorce for believers, or if this had taken place there MUST NOT be a marriage with another partner (1 Cor 7:111 Cor 7:11 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.)."
Bro. Carter rightly concludes from the Scriptures that there were in the early ecclesias some who had been divorced and remarried before baptism. They were not denied salvation, but prohibited from holding office in the ecclesias. Any brother who has been divorced and remarried before baptism cannot hold office in the ecclesiasThey were obviously not expected to separate from their second wife, for if they did there would be no reason for withholding ecclesial office from them. Such were accepted as the Truth found them. As this precedent was set by the early ecclesias, under the guidance of Spirit-endowed apostles and elders, it is right that we should not require such to separate, the one stipulation being that any brother who has been divorced and remarried before baptism cannot hold office in the ecclesias, (see also 1 Tim 3:121 Tim 3:12 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.).
At times, in ways to suit His purpose, God has changed the rules regarding marriage. When mankind were first created there was only one couple from which the world could be populated. The sons and daughters of Adam and Eve had to intermarry in order to continue the human race. Even in Abraham's time this situation remained, for Abraham married his half-sister. It was not until the Law of Moses that anything was expressly recorded to change this.
Similarly, it seems it was permissible in Old Testament times to have more than one wife, although the Law said of the kings of Israel, "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut 17:17). However, with God's foreknowledge, this, along with the prohibition about multiplying horses, seems to have been a warning concerning Solomon, more than to the other kings. By New Testament times the practice of having more than one wife seems to have died out in Jewry, and it is certainly forbidden to Christ's followers. May it be that the practice of having more than one wife in Old Testament times was a type of God's relationship with the two kingdoms, Samaria and Judah, just as having one wife since New Testament times is a type of Christ and his bride. The important point to recognize is that God makes the rules, and only he has the authority to change His rules.
DAVID AND BATH-SHEBA
The incident of David and Bath-Sheba has sometimes been quoted, and the suggestion made that, as David was forgiven, why cannot we forgive those who take part in divorce and remarriage? Those who take this view show a certain lack of understanding of the facts. Firstly, David did not divorce any of his wives in order to marry Bath-Sheba. Secondly, before Uriah was dead David's action in taking Bath-Sheba was adultery, but despite how Uriah died, it was after his death that Bath-Sheba became David's wife. She was, therefore, a widow when David took her to be his wife. God did not condone what David did, and neither do we. David said to Nathan, the prophet, "The man that hath done this thing shall restore fourfold", and David was punished fourfold. Adultery is a sin against God, and only God can forgive a sin against HimAccording to the Law of Moses David should have been stoned for his adultery, but Nathan said, "Thou shalt not die. Yahweh hath put away thy sin". David said, "I have sinned against Yahweh". Adultery is a sin against God, and only God can forgive a sin against Him. The incident of David and Bath-Sheba cannot be taken as justification for allowing divorce and remarriage. It is a red herring!
An attempt to justify divorce and remarriage is sometimes made by appealing to the supposed views of brethren of previous generations, but such brethren were not inspired, and therefore not infallible. The only real test is "What saith the scripture?"The only real test is "What saith the scripture?" To show how it can mislead to quote brethren of bygone days, it has been said that Bro. Roberts was in favour of divorce and remarriage. Yet, in the last year of his life the evidence shows exactly the opposite! This is proved by the following quotation from "The Christadelphian" for September 1898:—
"We returned to Melbourne on Friday, May 6th. The Melbourne meetings are well maintained. Some pain has been caused by the shocking behaviour of one brother, and the highly unscriptural action of another in connection with it, in seeking redress in the Divorce Court. The incident has discouraged the brethren somewhat. They have not, however, THE CAUSE FOR SHAME THAT THEY WOULD HAVE IF THEY TOLERATED OR COUNTENANCED SUCH INFRACTIONS OF THE DIVINE LAW. (Capitals and underline are mine) When brethren confess their sins, AND FORSAKE THEM, they are entitled to forgiveness, but when they defend and vindicate them, they stand in the way of their own mercy."
Sins have to be repented of and forsaken before they can be forgivenThese words of bro. Roberts prove that he approved of what the Melbourne Ecclesia did in disfellowshipping one brother for adultery, and another for suing for divorce. He recognized what is really quite obvious — that sins have to be repented of and forsaken before they can be forgiven.
SHOULD WE SHOW LOVE?
Of course we should show love wherever and whenever possible. No-one could disagree with that. But is it love to allow brethren and sisters to persist in an action which could result in their rejection at the hands of Jesus Christ, the judge? "Why shouldn't they be happy?" is the cry. But which is most important, the happiness of brethren and sisters in this life, or their eternal welfare? We have never been promised happiness in this life! Brethren who say we should show tolerance and forgiveness in these matters, are ignoring Scripture teachingMost of us achieve it, but the greatest satisfaction must be in doing the will of our Heavenly Father, whether or not we achieve happiness in our relationships with others. Those brethren who say we should show tolerance and forgiveness in these matters, are ignoring Scripture teaching. They should consider the words of Bro. Roberts, that divorce and remarriage are "infractions of the divine law".
Joseph was sold into Egypt as a young man, and his integrity was sorely tested by the infidelity of Potiphar's wife. She constantly sought to entice Joseph, and if he had succumbed he realized that it would not be just a sin against Potiphar, but a sin against God. "If a man sin against Yahweh, who shall intreat for him?""How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God" (Gen 39:9). When David committed adultery, not only was it a sin against Bath-Sheba, Uriah, and others — much more serious than that — it was a sin against God! "I have sinned against Yahweh" (2 Sam 12:13). The words of Eli, the high priest, to his wayward sons are very significant, "If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against Yahweh, who shall intreat for him?" ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE SINS AGAINST HIMSELF — WE CANNOT, FOR WE DO NOT HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY. We can only conform to His will as expressed in Scripture, which forbids divorce, or remarriage after divorce, to Christ's followers.
When the Jews returned from the seventy years exile in Babylon, under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah, some of them made marriages with the aliens in the land. This was contrary to the will of God, and Ezra and the God-fearing elders among them commanded them to separate from their strange wives, even though some had children by their alien wives. Ezra did not say, "We must show love, and allow the strange wives to remain with their husbands". He recognized that love for God must come first, and must be shown by complete and utter obedience to His Word.
Bro. Thomas has some very appropriate words in "Elpis Israel", page 81 & 82. Speaking of Eve's attitude to God's Word he writes, "There was truth in her; but she also began to intellectualize at the suggestion of the Serpent; and from his reasonings to doubt, and finally to conclude that God did not mean exactly what He said. This was an error of which all the world is guilty to this day. It admits that God has spoken; that he has promulgated laws; that He has made promises; and that He has said, "He that believeth the gospel, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." All this professors admit in theory; while, as in the case of Eve, in practice they deny it. They say He is too kind, too loving, too merciful, to act according to a rigid construction of the word: for if He did, multitudes of the good and pious, and excellent of the earth, would be condemned. This is doubtless true. Sceptics, however of this class should remember that they only are "the salt of the earth" who delight in the law of the Lord, and do it. Every sect has its "good and pious" ones, who are thought little or nothing of by adverse denominations. Today, there are brethren and sisters who are TURNING THE WORDS OF JESUS ON THEIR HEAD!The law of God is the only true standard of goodness and piety; and men may depend upon it, attested by the examples in Scripture, that they who treat Him as not meaning exactly what He says in his word, "make God a liar", and are anything but good and pious in His esteem."
In 1 Tim 1:19 & 201 Tim 1:19 & 20 19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. Hymenaeus and Alexander had "put away" their faith, and this is described as blasphemy. In Jer 29 the false prophet, Shemaiah, was contradicting the Spirit-given words of Jeremiah, and in verse 32 it says that he was teaching "rebellion against Yahweh". Today, there are brethren and sisters who are TURNING THE WORDS OF JESUS ON THEIR HEAD! Consider the following:—
Comparison of Jesus' teaching and what some brethren and sisters say today.
| (a) | Jesus taught that it was those who allow "putting away" who are hard-hearted. | Today there are brethren and sisters who say it is those who oppose "putting away" who are hard-hearted! |
| (b) | Jesus said that once a man and woman were "yoked together" in marriage they are "no more twain". | Today, it is said that after a man and woman have been "yoked together" in marriage they can again be two! |
| (c) | Jesus said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder". | Today it is said that "What God hath joined together man must be allowed to put asunder"! |
The Christadelphian body is falling into the same trap as the Pharisees, who made "the Word of God of none effect by their tradition". Is not contradicting the teaching of Jesus rebellion and blasphemy?
To summarize, we find that Jesus, Paul, and of course, the rest of the Holy Scriptures, clearly teach that marriage is indissoluble — that a man and woman, once they become one in marriage, are never again two. The marriage-bond is permanent, and can only be severed by death. Covenant-breakers are condemned by God (Rom 1:31Rom 1:31 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:), and we must not be "covenant-breakers". The Christadelphian body is falling into the same trap as the Pharisees, who made "the Word of God of none effect by their tradition". Is not contradicting the teaching of Jesus rebellion and blasphemy?The wonderful blessing of marriage is given us to enjoy, within the confines of "one man, one woman, for life". In spite of Israel's terrible record of unfaithfulness, God, our supreme example, has remained faithful to Israel, and will yet be re-united with His "wife". Jesus laid down his life for his bride, and his faithfulness is apparent to us all. When he returns his bride will be united with him for ever. Our marriages are a type of that relationship, a type which will be broken, if we are willing partners in divorce, or take part in remarriage after divorce. This is the true teaching of Scripture, and what we should be upholding in our ecclesias — this is what we should be teaching our children, and those seeking the Truth, by word, and above all, by example. To fall short of the teaching of the Word of the Living God on such a vital subject, is to fall short of that which God requires of us. It is to perpetrate "infractions of the divine law", and ecclesias who tolerate such actions are bidding "Godspeed", and become "partakers of their evil deeds". It is to jeopardize our eternal welfare, and the eternal welfare of those who may be led into wrong actions by our words, and our example. There are those who acknowledge that divorce and remarriage are wrong, until it strikes within their own family or friends, and who then decide it is permissible. Surely the faith of brethren and sisters should be strong enough to realize that in such circumstances the principle as taught in Scripture has not changed one iota. No matter what circumstances we find ourselves in, the teaching of the Word of Yahweh does not change, and we ignore it at our peril. Let us resolve to uphold the Scriptural doctrine of the sanctity of marriage, no matter what the personal cost may be. And let us teach our children, and all those who will give heed to the Scriptures, to do likewise.