DIVORSE AND RE-MARRIAGE??? MY BOOK

 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE?

                                Part One

                                      by

                               Keith Hunt

There are nearly as many DIVORCES in one year today as there are MARRIAGES.

                                                 

Some say once a marriage is bound by God there can NEVER be a DIVORCE under ANY circumstances. 

                                                 

Others say God does allow divorce and remarriage in ANY

situation.

                                                 

The ANSWERS to the question of DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE can be found in the BIBLE. 

Let us prayerfully SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES and find those answers.

                                                 

So God created man in his own image... MALE and FEMALE he created them  (Gen. 1:27).

                                                 

The Eternal made woman from man's RIB and brought her unto the man (Gen. 2:21,22).

Therefore [because woman was created FOR man and FROM man] shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall CLEAVE unto his WIFE; and they shall be ONE FLESH (Gen. 2:24).

                                                 

Marriage was instituted when the first MAN and WOMAN were created.

                                                 

Now TWO questions will immediately arise : 1) Did God originally purpose and intend that marriage between TWO people be for LIFE, till death do them part? 2)Does the LAW of marriage apply to ALL peoples of all societies?

                                  

                                                            

                        THE ANSWER TO QUESTION ONE

The account in Genesis does not give us a "Thus says the LORD" answer to our first question, but when Jesus was asked questions on marriage and divorce by the Pharisees, He took them back to the account in Genesis that we just read and told them that DIVORCE was PERMITTED under Moses' economy because of the HARDNESS of the people's hearts, "....BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO" (Mat. 19:8).

God never INTENDED originally for there to be DIVORCES. He did intend for a couple to come together as husband and wife until DEATH. That is the ideal -  marriage for life.

Paul, using God's original, basic intent of the marriage law to illustrate another point to his readers, said this, "Know you not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law has dominion over a man AS LONG AS HE LIVES? For the woman which has a husband is bound by the law to her husband so LONG AS HE LIVES; 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 the law, so that she is NO ADULTERESS, though she be married to another man" (Rom.7:1-3).

Paul understood God's original, overall intent and wish for man and woman coming together as one flesh. God does not think lightly of DIVORCE! He says "....Therefore TAKE HEED to your spirit, and let none deal TREACHEROUSLY [UNFAITHFULLY] against the wife of his youth. FOR the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He HATES PUTTING AWAY ..." (Mal. 2:15,16).

We will look at THIS PASSAGE in some detail later.

Under God's perfect government (as it was with ADAM and EVE before SIN entered) there would be no divorce. Why?  Because His Spirit would be upon everyone. Mothers and fathers would raise their children in the way of the Lord  - they would teach them the purpose of life, how to date and find the right mate and enter a marriage that would be a lifelong joy. Under God's government there would be NO NEED and NO DESIRE for DIVORCE.

   But the world is NOT under the government of God - that government was taken away when SATAN enticed mankind to sin. The world for the present is under the influence and sway of the Satanic forces (see Mat. 4:1-2, 8-9; Eph. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:4). There is coming a RESTITUTION of ALL THINGS (Acts 3: 19-21), an AGE to COME (Heb. 2:5) when MARRIAGE will be RESTORED to God's original intent. (If you would like to know more about the prophesied NEW WORLD to come, see my study lesson called, "ARMAGEDDON and the NEW AGE").

Jesus knew the Fathers's intention for marriage.

He knew that from the BEGINNING the Father did not want and did not intend for there to be DIVORCE, when He said, "....from the BEGINNING it was not so." But Jesus also realized this present world was not the Father's world, so He went on to say, "....Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery, and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery" (Mat.19:9).

   Jesus did allow - in this present age - DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE for either partner (God is no respecter of persons) if either was guilty of FORNICATION. The question of what is meant by fornication we shall look at in detail later.

   Jesus did give an EXCEPTION. We shall see later that there are other exceptions also.

                       THE ANSWER TO QUESTION TWO

Are the marriages of UNCONVERTED, UNCHRISTIAN and UNCHURCHED peoples - COMMON LAW or whatever other name is given to those outside the "Christian church marriages"  RECOGNIZED by God? Is it just as much a SIN for them to commit adultery as it is for the Christian? Does the Seventh Commandment apply to them, or is it only for those who follow the Bible?

   Down through history people have said that the SABBATH (the Fourth Commandment) is for the JEW or Israelite only, and the rest of mankind does not have to observe that day. Jesus Christ must have anticipated this deceitful thought of man, because He said, "The sabbath was made for MAN, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28). No, the Sabbath was not made for the JEW - it was not made for the "church in the wilderness" ONLY (Acts 7:38) or just the New Testament Church of God, but for ALL MANKIND. The Sabbath was instituted by God at the creation of man, for all mankind, before there ever was ONE converted human being (Gen. 2:1-3). When a person repents and is baptized, he repents of having broken God's laws - because those laws are in full force and effect on his life and it is sin not to obey them (I Jn. 3:4; Rom. 7:7).

In becoming a true Christian, one has to repent of SIN - which includes the breaking of the Sabbath, stealing and lying - whether one knew those laws existed or not. If they were broken, SIN was committed. As the saying goes, "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

The marriage law is as old as the Sabbath.

Marriage was also created at the time when man was (Gen. 2:18, 24 and Mark 10:6-9). It was instituted BEFORE there was a church, BEFORE there was one converted person, BEFORE there was any Israelite. As with the Sabbath, marriage was also made for ALL mankind. As the Scripture says, "Therefore shall a MAN (any man, not just the converted) leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his WIFE; and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Furthermore, "WHOSOEVER shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery" (Mat. 19:9). If a person has violated God's marriage laws before conversion, he must repent of those sins as much as any other sin he has committed by breaking any of the other nine Commandments.

ABIMELECH the king of Gerar KNEW it was SIN to take another man's wife. "But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, you are but a DEAD man for the woman which you have taken; for she is married to a husband(margin). But Abimelech had not come near her (in sexual contact) .... And God said unto him in a dream, Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart; for I also withheld you from SINNING against me; therefore I suffered you not to touch her" (Gen. 20:1-6). Even in ignorance, Abimelech would have sinned if he had taken her in sexual union.

When Isaac dwelt in Gerar, he also proclaimed that Rebekah was only his sister and not his wife. The king Abimelech found out Rebekah was Isaac's wife and said to him, "....What is this that you have done unto US? ONE OF THE PEOPLE (any one) might lightly have lain with your wife, and you would have brought GUILTINESS upon us" (Gen. 26: 6-10).

The laws of God were known before the FLOOD and after the Flood by the nations of the world. The law of marriage was binding on all peoples and it was SIN to have sexual relations with anyone other than your own husband or wife. 

 Even when God specifically chose a people, Israel, to do His will and revealed His laws to them, there was still to be "ONE LAW ... to him that is homeborn, and unto the STRANGER that sojourneth among you" (Ex. 12:49).

There are PHYSICAL LAWS that the Eternal God has set in motion. The law of "gravity" effects ALL people on earth, whether they know it exists or not, whether they believe in God or not, whether they are a Christian or none Christian, black or brown or white - English, French, Italian or German etc. all come under the penalty if they break the law of gravity.

God's Ten Commandments are a SPIRITUAL law (Rom. 7:14). Spirit is eternal - it is in full force at all times and affects ALL people just as do the physical laws. The marriage law is one of those spiritual laws - it does not matter what your race, nationality, or ideological viewpoint, break that law and you have sinned.

It is interesting to note in passing, that history tells us that for many centuries in the Roman Empire, it was not only impossible to get a DIVORCE but was also looked upon as a SHAME!

By the time of the apostles and after, DIVORCE in the that Empire had become just as prevalent as it is with our Western nations of today.

God's laws are made not for the righteous, but  "..... for the

lawless and disobedient" (I Tim. 1:9-10).  They are made not only to protect us from evil but to show EVERYONE where he/she has SINNED and broken those laws (Rom.7:7), and that includes the law of two persons coming together and being bound as husband and wife in ONE flesh. 

   

As I have said, ignorance is NO excuse!

Paul was a BENJAMITE and a Pharisee - as pertaining to JUDAISM, blameless (Phil 3:5,6). He was, as we would say today, a good "minister of the cloth." He THOUGHT he knew the law of God and was living it. It was not until Jesus struck him down on the road to Damascus - revealed Himself to Paul, and gave him His Spirit - that he began to UNDERSTAND the deep spirituality of the law. Up to that time in his life, he was DECEIVED and IGNORANT about SIN and death. I will PARAPHRASE what Paul said in Romans 7:8-11. 

"Sin, taking the opportunity by the vehicle of the commandments, had performed all kinds of evil in my life. For not really understanding the depth of the law, I thought sin did not exist in my life. I believed, in that condition of ignorance, that I was spiritually alive and okay. But when the full knowledge of the law came to me, then I knew sin was alive in my life and I was sentenced to die. And the commandments, which were given to produce a good life for people, I found were condemning me to death. For sin had, as it were, taken the commandments and DECEIVED me, kept me in ignorance as to truth, and thereby put me on death row."

Does God join together men and women who are not a part of the body of Christ? Let Proverbs 2:16,17 answer. "Saving you also from the loose woman, the harlot with her words so smooth, who leaves her own husband, forgetting her married troth before God" (Moffatt translation).

                         A PROPHECY FOR TODAY

The book of Hosea contains a prophecy for the peoples of the

British Commonwealth and the USA. For the identity of  Britain and the United States in Bible prophecy you need to have the book entitled JUDAH S SCEPTRE  AND JOSEPH'S  BIRTHRIGHT by Allen, published by Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass. It is a prophecy for the "latter days" (Hos. 3:5). One of the pivotal texts of the entire Bible is Hosea 4: 6, in which God shows that HIS VERY PEOPLE "are destroyed for lack of knowledge." It wasn't that they didn't HAVE the knowledge of God at one time. They did! But they REJECTED and FORGOT God's law. Besides other things, they are guilty of committing adultery and have the "spirit of whoredoms" (Hos. 4:2. 12 and 5:4).

 In Hosea 8:12, God says, ".....I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing" [KJV]. Or as the LIVING BIBLE states: "Even if I gave her ten thousand laws, she'd say they weren't for her - that they APPLIED to SOMEONE FAR AWAY." Notice! In the last days some will say that God's law or certain points of His law apply to others or no longer apply to them! Yet God says His laws are for all who have human nature and who sin (I Tim. 1: 9,10). And all mankind are sinners (Rom. 3:10, 19, 23).

God's law of marriage - the Seventh Commandment - applies to ALL people at all times.

                       WHAT CONSTITUTES MARRIAGE?

This is a question that is often asked early in a study on marriage and divorce. It needs to be answered. It is not the purpose of this book to relate all the practices and customs of marriage ceremonies as they developed in the history of man and the pages of the Bible. For information and answers to those questions, the readers are asked to consult BIBLE DICTIONARIES and ENCYCLOPEDIAS.

What does constitute a marriage in the eyes of God? There are THREE BASIC ELEMENTS of the marriage law revealed in Genesis 2:24.

   (1) Marriage involves the INTENT of leaving the parent's home and authority to establish a new family. It is the beginning of a new husband and wife relationship. Thus the statement, "Therefore shall a man LEAVE his father and his mother."

   (2) Next, the man "shall CLEAVE unto his wife." They are to be joined together in a covenant relationship with each other. With forethought and consent, they desire to live together and establish a home together.

   (3) The last major element of the marriage law is that "they

shall be one flesh." This includes sexual intercourse, which in

marriage is honorable (Heb. 13:4) and commanded (Gen. 1:28; I Cor. 7:3-5). It is holy and sacred to God when rightly used in marriage, but an abomination to Him when perverted or used outside marriage. Sex in marriage cements a couple together more firmly as the years go by. It is that very personal and intimate physical part of marriage between two persons of the opposite sex.

Let me say, it is possible, for whatever reason [would be very odd but we'll say it is so] the couple cannot perform full sexual intercourse relations; they could still be husband and wife by the first two points above; God would recognize them as married, as the third point would be out of their control; marriage is more than just sexual intercourse. God looks at the heart..... and would honour the marriage.

                                                  

                              CHAPTER TWO

                          DIVORCE UNDER MOSES

Most of what I have written in this chapter is taken from the

book "Divorce and Re-marriage" by Ralph Woodrow. Now moving on.....

Jesus said that under Moses' economy God did ALLOW divorce and remarriage. In fact it was allowed on a somewhat wide scale.

In Exodus, if a man took a slave girl he had purchased for a wife, and later decided to put her away, he was not to SELL her, "seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her." And "if HE TAKES ANOTHER WIFE, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. If he does not these three unto her, then she shall go out free" (Exodus 21:7-11). If he neglected her in any of these three areas, she could be free from that marriage, just as a released slave was free from slavery.

In Deuteronomy, a man who put away his wife was to "let her go whither she will" and he was not to "sell her at all for money" (Deut. 21:13,14). A divorced woman was free to "go and be another man's wife" (Deut. 24: 2). True, this was not the ideal - but as Jesus said, it was ALLOWED by God, because of the HARDNESS of man's heart (Mat. 19:8).

                              MALACHI 2:16

"For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that he hates putting away," or, as it is commonly summarized, God hates divorce - ALL divorce, under any situation, shout some.

This verse is often quoted by those who suppose ALL    divorce is sinful, regardless of circumstances, but they fail to show from the CONTEXT just WHAT KIND of divorce was meant.

To say that God NEVER approves of divorce, that He hates ALL divorce - and they quote this verse as a proof text. But we shall now proceed to show this  is unscholarly!

It can easily be seen within the Bible that God not only permitted divorce under the Old Covenant (and Malachi was written when still under the old dispensation) but in some situations He actually COMMANDED IT! 

DOES THAT SHOCK YOU?  Well those who do not read ALL the Bible but pick and choose what they want to establish their teaching, are going to be in for a surprise!

At one time "many" of the Jews  including priests, religious singers, and others, had married foreign wives. Children had been born as a result of those marriages. Yet in a time of repentance - with prayer,  weeping, and trembling, they were told to do God's pleasure and put away those wives! It is all recorded in detail in Ezra 10. YES THERE IT IS! READ IT, MARK IT!

If the meaning in Malachi 2:16 is that ALL cases of divorce were "hated" by God, how can we explain that divorce was His "PLEASURE" in Ezra 10:11?

               

Obviously, each passage must be understood WITHIN ITS CONTEXT!

In the book of Ezra, Jewish men had married foreign wives, contrary to the law that said:

"Neither shall you make marriages with them (foreigners who

worshipped other gods): your daughter you shall not give unto

his son, nor his daughter shall you take for your son. FOR they will turn away your son from following me, that they may serve OTHER GODS" (Deut. 7:3-4). This issue was NOT racial as it was RELIGIOUS, or PAGAN, or ATHEIST!

In Malachi's day, a similar situation existed in that Jewish men had contracted marriages with foreign women, and had FORSAKEN THEIR WIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS! The women these men were marrying were DAUGHTERS OF A STRANGE GOD! Notice verse 11.

"Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel ... for Judah ... has married the daughter of a strange god."  I recommend you  read verses 11-17 in such translations as the AMPLIFIED BIBLE, MODERN LANGUAGE, LIVING BIBLE, and REVISED STANDARD VERSION. 

Men were forsaking their wives for young, foreign women who worshipped other gods! It was THIS KIND of divorce that God hated. Taking verse 16 in context clarifies the entire passage. We must not take this text out of its context and conclude that ALL divorce is sinful, for (as we have seen) divorce was permitted under the Old Covenant, and in some circumstances it was commanded!

                           A VARIANT READING

There is another aspect of Malachi 2:16 that has commonly been overlooked. This verse happens to have a variant reading in the oldest manuscripts. Where the text says, "For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that He hates putting away" the KJV margin (which gives the variant reading) says, "For the Lord, the God of Israel, says, if he hate her, PUT HER AWAY"

Needless to say, this puts a different slant on the whole

thing!

Under the Old Covenant, if a man came to "hate" his wife, he

was to give her a "bill of divorcement" and then she could be another man's wife (Deut. 24:1-4). According to Josephus, under Jewish law a woman "could not of herself be married to another, unless her husband put her away." Apparently what had become a common practice at the time of Malachi was that a man would merely CAST ASIDE his wife - cast her out without granting a bill of divorce, for she was still referred to as his "companion, and the wife of thy covenant" (verse 14). This verse could have meant that if a man hated his wife, he should at least put her away LEGALLY as prescribed by Moses. She could then go and become another man's wife.

                      A NOTE ON STUDYING THE BIBLE

As we endeavor to apply the words of any verse within the context, there will be those who feel we are trying to "explain away the Bible." They may claim that THEY take the Bible "just as it is written"! But in taking the Bible just as it is written, one must bear in mind that one verse can make a GENERAL statement, and another verse may clarify or explain EXCEPTIONS to that general statement. A few examples will make this plain to see.

A person could read Luke 1:37, "With God nothing shall be IMPOSSIBLE," and consider it an absolute. But another verse say it is "IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). Each statement is true, of course, but each must be understood WITHIN ITS PROPER SETTING.

According to Matthew 17:1, it was "six days" after Jesus taught certain things that he took Peter, James, and John up to the Mount of Transfiguration. Luke's account says it was "about an EIGHT days after these sayings" that this occurred (Luke 9:28). Was it six days or eight days? Taking only Matthew's verse, a person might insist it was after SIX days. A person reading the verse in Luke might dogmatically say it was EIGHT days. Each would claim to be taking the Bible "just as it is written," of course. Both these verses are correct - Matthew records that it was AFTER six days, and Luke says "about" eight days. This illustration is given to show that CONCLUSIONS should not be based on PARTIAL evidence.

   True doctrines must be based on "every word of God" (Mat. 4:4) - not on isolated verses, but on ALL verses relating to that subject. Take, for example, the time the Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign. According to Mark's gospel, Jesus said, "There shall NO sign be given unto this generation" (Mark 8:12). Taking this verse ALONE, it would be easy to conclude that NO SIGN WHATSOEVER was given. But turning to Matthew's account, it is clear that the statement was indeed GENERAL. "There shall no sign be given to it [this generation], BUT the sign of the prophet Jonas" - the sign of three days and three nights (Mat. 12: 39, 40).

All scriptures must be found that pertain to a particular topic before the TRUTH can be ascertained.

                    CAN ONLY DEATH SEVER A MARRIAGE?

Those who would have people believe the Bible absolutely forbids divorce and remarriage, rush to Romans 7:1-3 to reinforce their claim that only DEATH can sever the marriage bond. "Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the LAW has dominion over a man as long as he lives. For the woman which has a husband is bound by the law to her husband SO LONG AS HE LIVES; but if the husband be DEAD, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, 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."

   Bear in mind that Paul's illustration here was FROM THE LAW. Paul is referring to the LAW. That this statement was only GENERAL in nature is evident, for under the LAW (first five books of Moses) a woman was NOT bound to her husband IF HE DIVORCED HER! In that case, she COULD remarry and was NOT called an "adulteress" while her former husband lived. She COULD "go and be another man s wife" - a WIFE, not an adulteress (Deut. 24:1-4).

   Another exception under the law was that a woman was not bound to her husband IF, because or polygamy, he neglected her. She was allowed to go free (Ex. 21:11). Paul knew these things, and so did those to whom he wrote "who knew the law." But in making his BASIC point, he simply did NOT  GO INTO DETAILS WITH THE EXCEPTIONS, AS THEY WERE NOT RELEVANT TO HIS POINT [mentioning "Polygamy" - there is a full in-depth study on the subject on this website - Keith Hunt].

   

Paul's GENERAL thought that he wanted to convey to his readers in Romans 7:1-4 was that we were once bound to the law - bound to die because the law had condemned us. But we died when Christ took our death upon himself, and since the law only has dominion over a person as long as he lives, we are now free to "be married to another.....unto God" (verse 4).

 To illustrate this point Paul used the GENERAL analogy of a woman being bound to her husband until death. Paul cited a general principle of the law to explain his teaching. To have included wording about possible EXCEPTIONS would have detracted from the point he was making.

                          GENERAL STATEMENTS

Language permits the use of GENERAL STATEMENTS such as Paul made without branching out to all explanations or exceptions that might be possible. Many examples could be given, but the following should suffice.

In contrast to the REPEATED sacrifices of the Old Testament,

the apostle says Christ  "ONCE appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men ONCE to die.....So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many" (Heb.9: 26-28). The emphasis is on the word "ONCE" in this familiar passage. Christ appeared ONCE to put away sin. To illustrate this point the apostle likens it to the fact that it is appointed unto men ONCE to die. In using this example, he does not digress from his OVERALL POINT by explaining EXCEPTIONS. But there were exceptions! ALL men did not die only once, for people in the Bible who were raised from the dead and later died,  TWICE! And, according to Paul, there will be others who will not die even ONE time, if they are alive at the coming of Christ! (I Cor. 15:51; I Thes. 4:16,17.) But to have included all of this information in Hebrews 9:27 would only have clouded the general point that was being made.

This same principle applies to Paul's statement to the Corinthians: "The wife is bound by THE LAW as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (I Cor. 7:39). Paul was giving a general statement only, as "the LAW"  did allow her to marry again if divorced, as we have seen. But Paul was not dealing with this side of the topic.

The Corinthians, in questions they had written to Paul, had asked if it was better for a person to be single, if a believer should leave an unbeliever, and if a virgin should marry.

Apparently, they were even questioning whether a woman whose husband was DEAD should remarry. Adam Clarke says that Paul's statement "seems to be spoken in answer to some question of the Corinthians to this effect: 'May a woman remarry whose husband is dead?'......To which he replies, in general, that.....if the husband die, she is free to remarry, but only in the Lord." (Clarke s Commentary, vol. 6, p.228).

The understanding of the use of "general statements" in the Bible is one of the keys to correctly dividing the word of truth, so we can be as Paul said, "a workman that needs not be ashamed" studying to show ourselves approved unto God (2 Tim.2:15). 

Another example of "general statements" is found in Ecc.11:5.

"As you knowest not what is the way of the spirit (breath, wind, air) nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so you knowest not the works of God who makes all."

That this is a general statement is seen from what we read in Deut.29:29, "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the works of this law."

Solomon in Ecclesiastes was merely pointing out that generally speaking there are MANY things not revealed to us about the way and workings of the Lord. As Paul put it, "we look through a glass darkly" on many things about the Lord. But what God wants us to know at this time is given to us, and revealed to us. But generally speaking many things of the Lord we know not.

The book of Proverbs in LOADED with "general statements." 

Take for example the verse that has given many a parent and many a minister much trouble in trying to explain it, when it does not seem to work in this life time: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." I've heard this bent into all kinds of ways to try and uphold that it always works. The truth is that many children, after being taught the ways of God or how they should live as respectful people, do not follow those ways, and DIE the physical death in this life-time before they ever follow the way they were taught.

   The problem is solved when you understand the key of "general statements" as used in the Bible. GENERALLY speaking, in MANY (but certainly not all) cases, a child will be a respectful person, living as a respectful member of society, when he/she grows up, if the parents have taught them correctly from a child.    

                             CHAPTER THREE

                                                  

                        JESUS MAGNIFIED THE LAW

Jesus Christ came to magnify God's law (Isa. 42:21), to make it more binding by enlarging it from the physical letter to the spiritual principle. He said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"(Mat. 5:17). He came to perfectly fulfil and expand the meaning of God's law. He did not destroy, loosen or water down God's law. Christ is THE EXAMPLE. We are to live our lives the same way He lived His (I John 2:6).

The Sermon on the Mount summarizes the principles of Christian living. Jesus magnified God's law, making it more strict, more binding, and giving it a much broader application. For with God's Spirit, as promised under the New Covenant, His laws are to be kept IN THE SPIRIT, not just in the letter.

He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Mat. 5: 27,28).

The Seventh Commandment was much more difficult to obey in the spirit. Not only the physical ACT of adultery but also the THOUGHT of adultery was forbidden. Instead of relaxing God's laws, Christ made them more comprehensive, more inclusive.

 In Matthew 5:31,32, Christ addresses the subject of divorce and remarriage. As He did with the other laws of God, He revealed that the marriage laws were more strict and more difficult to keep than under the Old Covenant of Moses' economy. "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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."

                   JESUS, THE PHARISEES, AND DIVORCE

In addition to His statement regarding divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus again explained the spiritual intent of God's marriage law in Matthew 19:3-12.

 We need to study this section of Scripture in some detail to understand the situation in Jesus' day and His answer to the Pharisees. I shall quote from various Bible Commentaries.

"THE PHARISEES ALSO COME UNTO HIM, TEMPTING HIM, AND SAYING UNTO HIM, IS IT LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO PUT AWAY HIS WIFE FOR EVERY CAUSE? What made our Lord's situation at present so critical in respect to this question was: At the time there were two famous divinity and philosophical SCHOOLS among the Jews, that of SHAMMAI, and that of HILLEL. On the question of DIVORCE, the school of SHAMMAI maintained that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for WHOREDOM. The school of HILLEL taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not FIND GRACE IN HIS SIGHT; i.e. when he saw any other woman that pleased him better. See the case of JOSEPHUS, mentioned in the note on chap. 5:30....." (Adam Clarke, emphasis his).

We shall for interest record here the case of JOSEPHUS (the Jewish historian of the first century A.D.) as given by Clarke.

"Josephus in HIS LIFE, tells us, with the utmost coolness and

indifference, 'About this time I put away my wife, WHO HAD BORNE ME THREE CHILDREN, not being pleased with her manners" (Emphasis is Adam Clarke's).

Rabbi Akiba said, "If any man saw a woman handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife away; because it is said in the law, IF SHE FIND NO FAVOR IN HIS EYES" (Deut. 24:1).

The controversy between the two theological schools was how to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-2.

The most prevalent and popular interpretation was that of the school of HILLEL: DIVORCE can be given for every conceivable cause.

"Thus Jesus was being asked, 'Do you agree with the most prevalent interpretation (HILLEL'S)'?" (Wycliffe Bible Commentary.)

To give the reader an even better picture of the marital life of the Jews in Jesus' time, I will quote from the historian George F. Jowett:

"At the time of our Lord it is stated that marital conditions among the Jews were at their LOWEST ebb. Women were regarded as mere CHATTELS. Divorce was PREVALENT and declared at WILL without resort to LAW, with seldom any provision made for the divorced woman. It is recorded that it was common for a Jew to consort with SEVERAL WOMEN to the knowledge of his so-called LEGAL WIFE. It amused and angered the Romans to note the HYPOCRITICAL, puritanical attitude of the Jewish male toward adultery. A woman, be it one of his own CONSORTS or not, was apt to be stoned to death if found guilty of adultery (The Jews were not, however, enforcing the death penalty at this time in their history - Keith Hunt). The SUSPICION of it would cause her to be branded. The Jewish brand of adultery was to cause the woman to wear her hair in BRAIDS to be reviled and SHUNNED by both Jewish sexes. There was no FORGIVENESS in the Jewish male heart"

(Drama of the Lost Disciples, page 90, emphasis mine.)

   

"AND HE ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO THEM, HAVE YOU NOT READ...WHAT THEREFORE GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, LET NOT MAN PUT ASUNDER."

Instead of referring to the opinions of either party, Jesus called their attention to the ORIGINAL design of marriage, to the authority of MOSES - an authority acknowledged by them BOTH.

The argument of Jesus here is, that since they are so intimately united as to be one, and since in the beginning God made but one woman for one man, it follows that they cannot be separated but by the AUTHORITY OF GOD. Man may NOT put away his wife for EVERY CAUSE.....In this decision He REALLY decided in favor of one of the parties; and it shows that when it was proper, Jesus answered questions, from whatever cause they might have been proposed, and however much difficulty it might involve Him in. Our Lord in this, also showed consummate WISDOM. He answered the question not from HILLEL or SHAMMAI, their teachers, but from MOSES; and thus defeated their malice" (Barnes'  Notes on the New Testament, emphasis his and mine.)

"WHY DID MOSES THEN COMMAND TO GIVE A WRITING OF DIVORCEMENT.....FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. He urged Scriptural reason against divorce, they allege Scriptural authority for it" (Matthew Henry's Commentary).

    

"To this they objected that MOSES had allowed such divorces

(Deut. 24:1) and if HE had allowed them, they inferred that they could not be unlawful" (Barnes'  Notes on the New Testament, emphasis his).

"It is true, MOSES WAS FAITHFUL TO HIM THAT APPOINTED HIM, and commanded nothing but WHAT HE RECEIVED FROM THE LORD; but as to the thing itself, what they call a COMMAND was only an ALLOWANCE (Deut. 24:1) and designed rather to restrain the exorbitance of it than to give countenance to the thing itself.....He rectifies their mistake concerning the law of Moses; they called it a COMMAND, Christ calls it but a PERMISSION, A TOLERATION....Christ tells them there was a reason for this toleration, not at all for their credit; IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS, that you were permitted to PUT AWAY YOUR WIVES. Moses complained of the people of Israel in his time, that THEIR HEARTS WERE HARDENED (Deut. 9:6; 31:27), hardened against God....which way soever they took, both in their appetites and in their passions; and therefore if they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and perhaps have murdered them....The Jews it seems, were infamous for this, and therefore were allowed to put them away; better divorce them than do worse, than that the ALTAR OF THE LORD SHOULD BE COVERED WITH TEARS, Mal. 2:13....He reduces them to the original institution; BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. Note, corruptions that are crept into any ordinance of God, must be purged out by having recourse to the primitive institution. If the copy be vicious, it must be examined and corrected by the original...."  (Matthew Henry's Commentary, emphasis his).

   

"This, says our Savior, was a PERMISSION growing out of a particular state of things, and designed to remedy prevailing evil. But at first it was not so. God intended that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and they were only to be separated BY APPOINTMENT OF HIM WHO HAD FORMED THE UNION"

(Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, emphasis mine).

"AND I SAY UNTO YOU, WHOSOEVER SHALL PUT AWAY HIS WIFE, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, AND SHALL MARRY ANOTHER, COMMITS ADULTERY.....Emphasis should be laid here on the word 'I'. This was the opinion of Jesus this He proclaimed to be the law of His kingdom - this the command of God ever afterwards. Indulgence had been given by the laws of Moses; but that indulgence was to cease, and the marriage relation TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL INTENTION. Only ONE offence was to make divorce lawful ...." (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, emphasis his).

End of part one

                   ..............................

Written in 1984  ——  I was 4 years studying this subject before I put pen and ink to paper.

DIVORCE  AND  REMARRIAGE?  #2                          by Keith Hunt                         CHAPTER FOUR                    EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION                                                                                                                                                      It is clear from Matthew 19 that Jesus MAGNIFIED the marriage law and swept aside a teaching that was prevalent in His day, that Deuteronomy 24 taught that men could put away their wives for just about ANY reason. Jesus went back Before Moses' economy, showing that whatever was ALLOWED under Moses (because of the people's HARD-HEARTEDNESS) was only temporal Now marriage was to be restored to its original intent. Yet, because this was still the age of Satan's rule on earth, Christ did allow divorce for  "fornication."

    

It is now time to make an in-depth study of the Greek word "porneia" (translated here into our English word "fornication").

In our English language we have many words to describe various sexual acts, each conveying SPECIFIC meanings to our mind: FORNICATION - sex before marriage; ADULTERY - sex with someone other than your wife or husband; INCEST - sex between persons of the same family, such as father and daughter; HOMOSEXUALITY - sex between two males; LESBIANISM - sex between two females; BEASTIALITY - sex with an animal; HARLOT - someone who sells her body to another for sexual gratification. But in the Greek New Testament there are but TWO basic words used for all of our specific English words. The Greek word "moicheia" is used for our word "ADULTERY" and carries the same meaning as our English word. We are then left with only the basic Greek word "porneia" used in passages where "moicheia" is not used, or both may be used in the same passage.

The Englishman's Greek Concordance (p.647-648) will give you ALL the passages in the New Testament where this word "porneia" is used. By a careful study of these passages, we can come to understand the meaning of this Greek word and in so doing understand under what situations Jesus was allowing DIVORCE.

In I Corinthians 5:1 Paul was clearly speaking about someone in the Church who was practicing what our English word "INCEST" describes. He does not say whether the man committing this sin was MARRIED or not - INCEST could be committed by either party in a marriage. True, that would also be adultery. It was adultery as well as incest for the woman of I Corinthians 5. What Paul was saying was that this sin was more than adultery (which is also sin), so he chose not to use the Greek word for adultery, "moicheia," but the Greek word "porneia" which obviously carried a wider meaning than "moicheia," for in this case it carried all the meaning of our words ADULTERY and INCEST (on the woman's part) and FORNICATION and INCEST (on the man's part if he was not

married).

In I Corinthians 7:1-2, Paul is giving his advice on certain sexual matters and under certain "PRESENT distress" (verse 26) of the times. He advised that during those troubled times it was probably better not to marry, but if that meant people would resort to  fornication, then he said they had better marry. Naturally he would not use the Greek word for adultery as he was speaking and giving advice to the UNmarried. He used the only other Greek word he could - the one that conveyed what he meant and that conveys the meaning of our English word "fornication."

Turn to I Corinthians 10. Paul is warning the Corinthians not to practice various forms of evil, as the ancient Israelites did. Verse 8 is a reference to the account in Numbers 25:1-9, of the licentious intercourse of Israelite men with the daughters of Moab. It was common among all idolaters (Corinth was one of the main seats of idol worship) to practice sexual sin. Hence Paul's admonition not to "commit fornication ['porneia' ]."

Are we to suppose that in the account of Numbers 25 ONLY the UNmarried had sexual relations with the daughters of Moab? We could suppose such a thing by our English word "FORNICATION" used in the King James Version. It is unlikely indeed that such was the case. It is much more reasonable to believe that both MARRIED and UNMARRIED men of Israel were indulging in sexual intercourse with the women of Moab. Therefore both ADULTERY and FORNICATION were being committed. The one Greek word "porneia" is used to cover both of our English words. The Corinthians would readily understand, as the temple at Corinth employed a thousand prostitutes which were available to all men - UNmarried and married.

Now turn back to I Corinthians 6:15,16. Paul admonishes them not to give their bodies to a "HARLOT" - "porne" (from "porneia"). We find in Proverbs 2:16,17 that a HARLOT can be married. If so, she is committing ADULTERY when she sells her body, and the man is committing either FORNICATION or ADULTERY, depending on whether he is married or not.

Can we see now that the Greek word "porneia" can mean ALL that our English words "FORNICATION, ADULTERY, INCEST, HARLOTRY, HOMOSEXUALITY, LESBIANISM" and "BEASTIALITY" mean. It covers any improper sexual activity as defined by God in His Word. 

The Greek lexicons such as Thayer's are quite correct when they define "porneia" as "illicit sexual intercourse in general."

Some of the modern translations convey more clearly the meaning of this word "porneia" than does the King James Version. Such words as "sexual immorality" and "unchastity" are used for "porneia," giving a WIDER connotation, as the Greek word does.

    The AMPLIFIED BIBLE renders Matthew 19:9 as, "I say to you: whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except for UNCHASTITY, and marries another, commits adultery...."

    Jesus was very deliberate in choosing to use BOTH Greek words - the one that covered all sexual improprieties ("PORNEIA") for the "except," and the other ("MOICHEIA") for adultery (breaking the Seventh Commandment) on the part of a married person who divorced and remarried for any reason other than "PORNEIA."

Adam Clarke in his commentary on Matthew 5:32 says, "As FORNICATION signifies no more than the unlawful connection of UNMARRIED persons, it cannot be used here with propriety, when speaking of those who were married. I have therefore translated ... 'ON ACCOUNT of WHOREDOM' ...."

In both passages of Scripture - Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9, Christ is addressing the common argument of His day among the religious factions, as to the reasons why a man could divorce his wife, (the school of SHAMMAI gave only adultery, while the school of HILLEL gave almost ANY reason). The arguments were about divorces for those MARRIED - married in every sense of the word -- not BETROTHED or ENGAGED couples. Hence, as Adam Clarke recognised, our English word "FORNICATION" is used improperly, as it can only be used concerning the UNmarried. Here we are talking about the MARRIED. The dispute among the schools of SHAMMAI and how to interpret it.

These two passages in Matthew have no direct bearing on a man finding out on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, but had committed FORNICATION sometime before their marriage, and then DIVORCING her for this deceit. That circumstance and penalty was clearly given in Deuteronomy 22:13-21. There was no argument among the schools of religion about that FORNICATION law - but there was about those MARRIED and for WHAT reason divorce could be granted in Deuteronomy 24:1-2.

Jesus gave them the answer.  No divorce EXCEPT for UNCHASTITY - "PORNEIA."

                            

WHY DID CHRIST ALLOW DIVORCE FOR UNCHASTITY?

Sex was created by God - He designed it - He gave it to be one of the most beautiful experiences and expressions of love between a man and woman IN marriage. It was God who set down the law that our sexual parts were only to be shared with the one chosen to be our wife or husband. It was to be the most private and unique part of our lives. We may share other things in our lives with others, but sexual intercourse was designed to be the loving, intimate, private bond between TWO persons of the opposite sex - something not shared with any other. It is the third major element that brings man and woman together as ONE flesh - as husband and wife.

It may seem hard for some of us in our so-called FEE societies, where sexual intercourse is practiced freely among teenagers, where over 70% of married men indulge in extramarital sex, and over 50% of married women also. To understand what it would be like in a society where everyone was a virgin till his or her wedding day, and where there was no adultery after marriage. It may seem hard for some of us to imagine a society where men and women shared their sexual organs with only one other person at a time in their entire lives - their wife or husband - and where just the thought of it being otherwise would make them sick and disgusted. If we can think of that society - God's society, the way He desires it to be - so pure and holy among the married with their bodies for each other and none else.

With this in mind we can then begin to see what an absolute DISASTER it can be to a marriage when one party discovers the other is sharing his or her body with another in an adulterous relationship, or in homosexuality, lesbianism, incest or beastiality. So abominable are these sins in God's eyes, and so holy is the "two shall become ONE flesh" that He established at creation, that even when He came to this earth as Jesus Christ and was busy MAGNIFYING the law and making it honorable, He allowed DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE for sexual sins - for "PORNEIA" (FORNICATION, ADULTERY, INCEST, etc.), as the bond of "ONE FLESH" was now broken. As Paul was inspired to write, ".....he that is joined to a HARLOT is ONE BODY...." (I Cor. 6:16).

This, of course, does not mean a person MUST divorce an unfaithful mate. If the guilty partner is REPENTANT of his or her sin, then the other can accept this repentance and forgive.

                                 CHAPTER FIVE

                   THE FRAUDULENT MARRIAGE

Does God's Word have anything to say regarding FRAUDULENT marriages?  

If so, is DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE permissible under a    

fraudulent marriage?

These are the questions we shall now address and answer.

Turn to Deuteronomy 22 and read verses 13-21. I will quote from the WYCLIFFE BIBLE COMMENTARY as to the meaning of this passage.

    

"The case is that in which a husband brings an allegation of unchastity against his bride, whether falsely (vv.13-19) or justly (vv. 20,21). [I might add here, this was very shortly after marriage when intercourse had taken place - Keith Hunt]. In the first instance, the malicious accuser was to suffer corporal punishment (v.18; CF. 25:1-3), pay compensation to his father-in-law for defaming his house (v.19a), and retain his wife without ever being permitted to divorce her (v.19b). In the second case, the guilty bride who had 'wrought folly' was to suffer death by stoning before the disgraced house of her father. In societies where such evidence was legally decisive, it was customary after the consummation of the marriage to keep the tokens of the bride's virginity (v.17)."

    

The "tokens of virginity" were the underlying BED SHEETS!  If the bride was guilty of unchastity or (as we would say today) FORNICATION before her marriage, and her husband DID NOT KNOW IT till they had intercourse - he supposing his bride to be a virgin because she had led him to believe so - he could  disclose the truth and have her put to death. She had committed "folly" and also FRAUD! 

As I have said earlier, in the days of Jesus' ministry the Jews were no longer applying the death sentence for FORNICATION, ADULTERY, etc. In the case of Deuteronomy 22 above, the man did not HAVE to disclose to the authorities the truth of his bride's misconduct before marriage.  He could have mercy and forgive.

This is shown in the account of Joseph and Mary.

                       JOSEPH AND MARY

Jesus' mother, Mary, was a virgin. She had never engaged in sexual relations (Luke 1:34). She became espoused - formally engaged, or betrothed - to Joseph. But, "....BEFORE they CAME TOGETHER, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" (Mat.1:18).

"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away  "privily  (verse 19). There were at least two statutes which Joseph could have resorted to in order to put her away. Because as far as he could tell, Mary had engaged in premarital sex - fornication. These statutes are found in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4. A just and righteous man like Joseph could have put away a betrothed wife for fornication unknown to him before the betrothal. But the angel came and told Joseph in a dream, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Mat.1:20). 

                                                              

Joseph and Mary were BETROTHED - ENGAGED, as we would call it. But they hadn't yet come together in sexual relations (Mat. 1:18). Now, under Jewish civil law, ENGAGEMENT was a much more serious matter than with us, so much so that LEGALLY they were married, and if they did not consummate the marriage, DIVORCE papers would be needed to terminate the engagement. If an engaged bridegroom was killed or died before consummating the marriage, his bride was regarded as a WIDOW.

Joseph was a just (righteous) man. Suspecting FORNICATION prior to consummating their marriage, he contemplated putting Mary away (divorcing her). He would have been free to marry another woman.

If he had not found out about Mary being pregnant until after consummating their marriage, he would still have been at liberty to have applied Deuteronomy 22:13-21, divorcing her.(Remember, they were not applying the death sentence). If she had been FRAUDULENT with him, claiming to be a virgin when she was not, he would have been able to REmarry and still be within God's law.

I realize some of the above is HYPOTHETICAL (Mary would have been a virgin, as she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and not a man) but it illustrates the point, I hope, to the reader.

God recognises that there will be some who will not be marrying for the right and proper reasons. (see again "What Constitutes Marriage?"). They will be DECEIVING - committing FRAUD to the other party. He allows, when the innocent party discovers this fraud, for that party to DIVORCE and remarry if he or she chooses.

Jesus allowed for this when he used the Greek word "PORNEIA" in His "except" clause of Matthew, as  "PORNEIA"  covers any sexual impropriety. It includes what we have studied in Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

 

In principle, the law regarding sexual fraud in Moses' economy would extend to all deliberately planned fraudulent marriages: i.e., one person marries another SOLELY for his or her MONEY, and the innocent party finds out after the marriage; or a woman marries a man SOLELY for the purpose of giving her young child a home, but she does not love the man, and he finds out after the wedding. Such marriages would be FRAUD - coming under the FORNICATION law of Deuteronomy 22, and "PORNEIA" in Matthew 19.

The innocent party of a FRAUDULENT marriage would be within God's law to DIVORCE and REmarry when he or she found out the truth.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 describes the case where SEXUAL fraud (fornication) is discovered on or shortly after the wedding, and action is taken when such fraud is discovered. It would obviously be against the "spirit of the law" for someone to find out the truth, and "sit on it," so to speak, until CONVENIENT (one, five or ten years down the road), and then ask for a divorce under "FRAUD."

                               CHAPTER SIX

                 MARRIAGES BEFORE CONVERSION

There are THREE basic teachings regarding marriage and divorce: (A) There is NO divorce at all (B) There is divorce under certain circumstances - the "except" clause of Jesus (C) There is divorce for all and any reason.

We have seen that teaching "C" was NOT upheld by Jesus. We have seen that Jesus did teach that divorce is permissible under "except for PORNEIA." Now let's examine teaching  "A"  with a hypothetical (but often very real) case.

Mr. Jones has been married to FOUR women. At his time of conversion, he is married to the fourth. He wants to know who is his real wife, in the eyes of God. Let's suppose we could prove that marriage number one was FRAUDULENT - so we eliminate that one. Then we examine his second marriage and find no real God-given reason for that divorce. The teaching of "A" would say that his third and fourth marriages were ADULTEROUS unions - he must break this fourth union and be single.

Now let's see some of the problems with this. His second wife, who we claim is his God-bound wife for life (under teaching "A"), is nowhere to be found; in fact she has emigrated to Hong Kong and died there. But Mr. Jones and his counsellors cannot find out what happened to her. He is really FREE to marry - he is really FREE then (according to teaching "A" that says only DEATH breaks a marriage) to stay married to his fourth wife, but  he is counselled that he must separate, as he's living in adultery.

Can we see the MIND-BENDING problems we could encounter? Now to be sure, as we have seen, people can be bound in marriage BEFORE conversion (as the marriage law is for ALL people at ALL times), and divorce and remarry and be living in ADULTERY -they have SINNED. When they are CONVERTED, they realize they are SINNERS, and have committed SIN in their lives. They have LIED, or taken God's name in vain. They have broken the SABBATH, they have STOLEN and have been guilty of ADULTERY!

The Bible plainly teaches that ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ can ERASE those sins - we can do NOTHING except REPENT, to eradicate those sins. (Request the study "SAVED BY GRACE - The True Way of Salvation"). To be sure, it might be good to PAY BACK those we have STOLEN from, IF possible, but often it's not possible (someone may have disappeared to the other side of the earth). God does not specifically require it of us. What He wants is REPENTANCE for those sins. Upon our repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice - His death in payment of ours, as we have been under the death sentence for sinning, for our breaking of God's laws (I John. 3:4; Rom. 3:23, 6:23) - we are——

FORGIVEN. We are set FREE from sin - we are as if we had never sinned. All our sins of LYING are no more. All our sins of COVETING are no more. All our sins of MURDER (if we've murdered someone, who can bring him back to life?) are no more. All our sins of PROFANITY are no more. All our sins of ADULTERY are no more; they have been WASHED AWAY.

          

We are NO LONGER adulterers! We have been set FREE from that sin. Because of this, Mr. Jones does not have to separate from his fourth wife at his CONVERSION.

    

History tells us that at the time of the apostles the Jewish and Roman societies were sexually LICENTIOUS - fornication, prostitution, adultery and divorce were commonplace. The early church of the first century would have encountered HUNDREDS of individuals being converted and entering the church with MULTIPLE divorces and remarriages in their past lives - cases such as Mr. Jones! In actuality, we can search the New Testament in vain to find any reference about any minister or group of ministers getting together to try to figure out all these "divorce cases" and decide which woman or man a person was really married to. It is just not there! It is recorded that a conference was called to decide the issue of circumcision (Acts 15) because it became so important a dispute, but we can not find any apostles giving any time to trying to figure out all these jigsaw puzzles of past marriages and divorces of new converts.

There was NO NEED, when we understand that past sins of adultery were WASHED AWAY at baptism - the individual became "a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become NEW .... God, who has reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ ... not imputing THEIR TRESPASSES unto them ..." (2 Cor. 5:17-19).

Read Romans 6 and 7:1-4. Both chapter 6 and chapter 7 begin by dealing with the theme of man's DEATH in relationship to the law. Chapter 6 draws on the analogy of baptism while chapter 7 uses the illustration of marriage. It is abundantly clear in these two passages that EVERYTHING is left behind at the waters of baptism. A person has DIED to the law (the law claimed our life because we were sinners). The act of going under the water symbolizes our DEATH to sin. We have DIED then (Jesus died the literal death for us - thus becoming our Saviour) to the law, it has been satisfied when death has taken place. Jesus died for us in our stead, hence all past sins have been washed away (Romans 3:23-26; 5:6-10).

As far as the laws regulating divorce and subsequent remarriage are concerned, a man or a woman dies at the point of baptism, and ALL of his or her past is wiped out in God's eyes.

There is NOTHING about that life following baptism that is not completely new.

    

End of part two

                  ......................................

Written 1984

To be continued

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE  #3

by  Keith Hunt                             CHAPTER SEVEN FIRST CORINTHIANS SEVEN When an individual REPENTS, his or her PAST sins of adultery (previous marriages and divorces) together with any other sins, are WASHED AWAY - GONE. The individual stands as a NEW person.

The new Christian may have a husband or wife who has NOT become a Christian, and that mate may no longer want to be married to the one who has become CONVERTED to Christianity.

The unconverted mate may want a DIVORCE!

Where does the Christian stand now in regard to God's law on

marriage?

For the answer to that question, we must turn to I Corinthians 7, verses 10-17.

Because much of Paul's instruction in this chapter is based on the "PRESENT DISTRESS" (verse 26), the TRIBULATION of those days that the Corinthians found themselves in, some will dismiss this chapter as meaningless for us today, or will say that verses 10-17 are only talking about a SEPARATION and not DIVORCE or REmarriage.

I can not agree with the first argument, and the second has its weakness when examined closely.

THE TWO GREEK WORDS OF I CORINTHIANS 7

As some have presented a technical study of the Greek words used here for "DEPART" and "PUT AWAY" to uphold their teaching, I must of necessity do the same.

The Greek words are "CHORIZO" and "APHIEMI." Please note carefully: "CHORIZO" is used in verses 10, 11, and 15 for "depart."  The word  "APHIEMI"  is used in verse 11 ("put away"), verse 12 ("put her away") and verse 13 ("not leave").

Let's look at the word "APHIEMI."

The ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE, pages 97-98, gives all the verses where this word is used.

It is translated as "LEFT" "LEAVE" and "FORSAKEN" in a number of places, with the sense of a COMPLETE and TOTAL ABANDONMENT (see Mat.4:11, 20, 22; 19:27, 29, 22:22, 25; 24:40, 41; 26:56).

In dozens of places it is rendered "FORGIVEN" or "FORGIVE."

Now when God FORGIVES, He does not halfway FORGIVE. He forgives COMPLETELY. Our sins are GONE, never to appear again. The blood of Jesus has broken the BOND of death that sin held over us - there is TOTAL FREEDOM. Our sins are not just SEPARATED from us and set to one side, so God can bring them up to us at some future date. No, they are DIVORCED from us, fully gone.

This word "APHIEMI" carries a strong meaning of COMPLETENESS, of SEPARATION.

Now let's look at the word "CHORIZO" in the ENGLISHMAN'S GREEK CONCORDANCE, page 805.

Notice it is used in Mat.19:6 ("put asunder"). It is used in Acts 18:1: "Paul DEPARTED from Athens ...." Paul did not halfway depart - he COMPLETELY left or SEPARATED from Athens. 

                                  

Turn to Matthew 19:3-9. The whole discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees was concerning DIVORCE - not separation or fraudulent marriages (as we saw earlier). The Greek word used here (except in ONE place) is "APOLUO," and is translated in other places as "PUT AWAY, RELEASE, FORGIVE, LOOSED, DISMISSED, LET GO, and "DEPART" (see the Englishman's Greek Concordance, page 75).

Let me prove this to you from Matthew 19:3-9. The conversation is concerning DIVORCE (in verses 3,7,and 8, the word "apoluo" is used), but when Jesus came to say in verse 6, "....What therefore God hath joined together, let not man PUT ASUNDER" he obviously meant from the context, "Let not man DIVORCE." But Matthew, in relating what Jesus said, did NOT use "apolou" but "chorizo." BOTH Greek words are used in this section a Scripture to represent our ONE English word "divorce." 

Why should this seem strange to us? In our own English language we often use different words that convey the same MEANING to avoid boring repetition. It was no different for the writers in the Greek language world.

We need to be very careful, in studying Greek words, that we do not try to FORCE isolation on words that were never meant or never used as "an island unto themselves," or we may find ourselves on an island God never intended or wanted us on. We will now see this demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul, speaking to Christian COUPLES (he speaks to other couples, where only one is a Christian, in verses 12-16), says in verse 10 that the COMMAND is from the LORD, "Let not the wife....."

Paul is quoting Jesus! Where is that quotation found? Why in

Matthew 5:32; 19:6,9; Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. Read those passages - they are plainly talking about DIVORCE. Paul is quoting Jesus about divorce (putting away) where the word "APOLUO" is used, but he chooses not to use "APOLUO" but "CHORIZO" as he reiterates what was the Lord's command. Paul's quotation meant exactly the same as Jesus' command, as he was telling the Corinthians what Jesus had said.

Because of the TRIBULATION the Corinthians were enduring (verse 26), some thought it best to divorce their Christian mates (be unmarried and serve the Lord, verses 32, 33) and be single. Paul gives them Jesus' answer (verse 10) - no divorce for that circumstance.

There is a PLAY on words by Paul in these two verses, as "CHORIZO" can mean either SEPARATE or DIVORCE.

I will paraphrase, "And unto the Christian couples I command, yet not I but the Lord commands, 'Let not the wife divorce (CHORIZO) her husband.' But if she chooses (under this present tribulation) to separate (CHORIZO), she must remain single or be reconciled again to her husband. And the husbands should not divorce (APHIEMI) their wives."

I suppose "CHORIZO" in verse 11 could be rendered as "divorce." Then we would understand Paul as giving instruction to the Christians who were either PRESUMPTUOUS or IGNORANT of the Lord's command. They were to remain as single or be reconciled again to their Christian mates.

Having studied the words "APHIEMI" - "CHORIZO" and "APOLUO" we are ready to answer the question: "What if the UNconverted mate wishes to divorce the Christian?" Read verses 12-16. "APHIEMI" is used in verses 12 and 13, and "CHORIZO" in verse 15, again showing the interchangeability of these words. Paul is talking about the same thing in all three verses.

TO THE REST

In verses 1-9, Paul was speaking to the UNMARRIED and WIDOWS; in verses 10 and 11 to the MARRIED with BOTH partners in the church; in verses 12 to 16 to "the rest" of the married - those with an UNCONVERTED mate.

 

I will now take the time to record various comments on these verses (12-16) from a number of Bible Commentaries.

BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, emphasis his and mine).

" 'I have spoken in regard to the duties of the UNMARRIED and the question whether it is right and advisable that they should marry, verses 1-9. I have also uttered the command of the Lord in regard to those who are married, and the question whether SEPARATION and DIVORCE were proper. Now in regard to THE REST OF THE PERSONS AND CASES referred to....' THE REST, or remainder, here referred to, relates particularly to the cases in which one party was a Christian, and the other not..."

    

THE INTERPRETER'S BIBLE

"Verses 12-15. The reader might wonder who the 'rest' might

be. The apostle at once makes clear that he has in mind MIXED MARRIAGES, where only ONE partner was a Christian. Obviously, Jesus could have had no occasion to make a pronouncement on THAT situation.....If the UNBELIEVING PARTNER DESIRES TO SEPARATE, THE CHRISTIAN IS NOT BOUND. It is recognized that Christian faith brings new standards of life. A heathen partner should not be compelled to continue under the new circumstances

unless he or she is ENTIRELY WILLING to do so........

Paul grounds the permission to separate.......GOD HAS CALLED US TO PEACE.......Some apparently wanted to hold the unbelieving partner in the hope of leading to his or her conversion. Paul wisely reminds them that there is no certainty of such a result; marriage is not a sphere for missionary work.......If the believer is divorced by the unbelieving partner, what then?.......Do we have the one scriptural ground for the remarriage of divorced persons? Some commentators have thought so......."

THE ABINGDON BIBLE COMMENTARY

"The grave problem of mixed marriages Paul has no dictum of the Lord to cite, but gives his own judgment (vv 12-16). The Christian husband or wife whose heathen partner is WILLING TO SHARE the home is not to sever the tie .... If, on the other hand, the heathen husband or wife DISSOLVES THE UNION, this situation is to be accepted, for in such conditions the Christian wife or husband is in no slavish subjection to marriage; for God called us to a life of peace. It would be a dangerous presumption to hold that the heathen partner must inevitably be saved by the forced attachment of the other."

A NEW CATHOLIC COMMENTARY ON HOLY SCRIPTURE

"15. If the unbeliever 'desires to separate,' the believing

partner is no longer bound by the marriage....."

THE DAILY STUDY BIBLE (William Barclay)

"I Cor. 7:8-16.  This passage deals with three different sets

of people:

I)  Those who are unmarried or who are widows.....

2) Those who are married.....

3) With the marriage of BELIEVERS and UNBELIEVERS. On this Paul has to give his own judgment, because there is no definite command of Jesus to which he can refer them. The background must be that there were those in Corinth who declared that a believer must never live with an unbeliever; and that, in the event of one partner of a marriage becoming a Christian and the other remaining a heathen, separation must at once follow.......Undoubtedly, mixed marriages produced problems.......Paul dealt with this problem with supreme practical wisdom. He knew the difficulty and he refused to exacerbate it. He said that if the TWO COULD AGREE to live together, by all means let them do so; but if they wished to separate and FOUND LIVING

TOGETHER INTOLERABLE, let them do so, because the Christian was never meant to be a slave......."

MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMENTARY

"He brings the general advice home to the case of such as had

an unbelieving mate (v. 12). But to the rest speak I, not the

Lord; the Lord had not so expressly spoken to this case as to the former of divorce. It does not mean that the apostle spake

without authority from the Lord......He closes this subject with

a declaration to the contrary (v. 40), I think also that I have

the spirit of God ....

To the advice itself - which is, that if an unbelieving

husband or wife were PLEASED TO DWELL with a Christian relative the other should not separate .... If the unbelieving relative desert the believer, and no means can reconcile to a cohabitation, in such a case a brother or sister is not in bondage (v. 15) .... Bound servilely to follow or cleave to the malicious deserter, or not bound to live unmarried .... In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage covenant as death itself .... It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate. In such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed ....."

    

THE LITTLE WORD "IF"

The Corinthian converts had apparently asked something like this: "What about some of us, Paul, who are married to unbelievers? Must a Christian put away an unbelieving mate?"

If the Christian position was that NO putting away was EVER allowed, these would be strange words indeed. Why would Paul say NOT to put away an unbelieving wife "IF she be pleased to dwell with him," if NO divorce was EVER permitted? If putting away was out of the question, whether she was "pleased" or "not pleased" would be beside the point! The fact that Paul used the word "if" shows there was an option. If the unbeliever was not pleased to dwell with the believer - if the unbeliever departed - the believer was NO LONGER UNDER BONDAGE!

NOT UNDER BONDAGE

The word "bondage" here is translated from the Greek word "DOULOO" used to describe one who was bound as a slave. The terms "under bondage" and "not under bondage" were established legal terms that were used in slave trade. If a slave was no longer under bondage, he had been set free - completely. The slave owner had no further claim to him. So here, applied to marriage, a person who was no longer "under bondage" was free from that marriage. Let us further prove that. 

The Greek word "DOULOO" signifies: "TO MAKE A SLAVE, BRING INTO BONDAGE." It comes from the Greek "DOULOS," a SLAVE, which in turn is from the verb "DEHO" - to BIND, KNIT, TIE. These three Greek words are closely KNIT or BOUND together, as we can see.

In Romans 7:2, the word "DEHO" is used for "BOUND." In I Corinthians 7:15 the Greek is "DOULOO" for "BONDAGE."

Using a general point of the law as an illustration, Paul said a woman "was BOUND by the law to her husband so long as he lives" (Rom. 7:2). But, in different circumstances, the same

apostle says that a wife is NOT BOUND, NOT UNDER BONDAGE to an unbelieving husband who leaves her. If being "BOUND" in the one case meant she was NOT FREE from the marriage (as those teach who hold that only death severs a marriage), it is certain that her being "NOT UNDER BONDAGE - NOT BOUND - in the second case, means she was FREE from the marriage. If it does not mean she is free to remarry, words have lost all meaning.

Is Paul saying that a Christian can REmarry if the UNconverted partner wishes a divorce?

I do believe this is exactly what Paul is saying.

Here are additional reasons why I understand that Paul is

giving a God-given ground for REmarriage if desired:

1. All have sinned (Romans 3:23). All are under the death

penalty (Romans 6:23). The whole world is deceived (Rev.12:9).

2. No one can be a Christian UNLESS God the Father DRAWS him (John 6:44). The Father desires all to LIVE and not perish (II Pet. 3:9). All will be taught God's truths (John 6:45).

3. Not all are being CALLED to Christianity today (I Cor.

1:26).

4. Jesus knew that some individuals in a household would be CALLED while others would not, some households would be SPLIT UP! (Mat. 10:34-38).

5. God is SUPREME ruler - nothing happens unless He ALLOWS it. Read Job 1 and 2.

6. God is RESPONSIBLE for all things (Isa.45:7).

7. If He is responsible for CALLING one individual and not

another (which He is), then He knows that it could cause a SPLIT   between husband and wife.

8. God CHOOSES us when He decides and in whatever situation we are at the time (I Cor.7:17-24).

9. If the UNconverted wishes to DIVORCE the Christian - and it happens - God is ultimately RESPONSIBLE for that circumstance.

As God is responsible for WHEN a person is CALLED, and his or her mate is not, and a divorce ensues, it is certainly not in the nature, mercy, or love of God to demand that the Christian remain SINGLE for the rest of his or her life, because of a situation beyond the Christian s control.

These situations arising within the growth of Christianity - not being there before - it was only fitting that God would lead someone like Paul to declare his judgment on the matter.

Paul, having the Spirit of God (I Cor. 7:40), wrote his judgment, which in turn, became a part of the inspired WORD of God, which is now the LAW of God for this age.

BEING PLEASED TO DWELL WITH

Can an unbeliever PHYSICALLY abuse his or her mate and claim he or she is still "pleased to dwell" and so the believer must submit to the bondage of the union?  Can the un-Christian man refuse to provide for his mate and still claim the union is to be unbroken? Can the un-Christian refuse to perform conjugal duties with his or her partner, and claim he or she is "pleased to dwell"?  Can the unbeliever "run around" with or "date" others of the opposite sex and still say to the mate, he or she is "pleased to dwell"?  Can the unbeliever live as he wants, talk as he wants, shout, rant and rave, verbally abuse, and do other hurtful deeds against his or her Christian partner; and still claim he or she is "pleased to dwell"?  

Must a believer endure the bondage of someone who claims he or she is "pleased to dwell with the Christian," but is a child beater, wife beater, habitual drunkard, fighter, or someone who is not upholding his or her responsibilities as husband or wife?

    

The marriage union and vows demand that each partner be responsible for certain undertakings. They are to love and respect each other's personal rights as human beings. It should still be a partnership - consisting of sharing, giving, understanding, kindness, serving, and loving respect.

Paul is telling the Christian that IF an unbelieving mate is pleased to carry on the union in this manner of love, respect and responsibility, the Christian should not leave or separate; BUT IF NOT, the Christian is not under bondage to endure war - he has been called to peace.

Anything less than love, respect and responsibility is not being "PLEASED TO DWELL" and the Christian is not under bondage in such cases.

It is quite possible that two people start out as Christians together, belonging to the same Christian denomination, but for various reasons and through the process of time, one partner moves to another denomination church, no longer believing and practicing the same religious beliefs. They are both STILL professing to be Christians. Does this situation come under what Paul is talking about here? 

NO, IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT!  Such people are STILL "believers" in Christ and the Christian faith.  What Paul is talking about is the situation where one in the marriage is an un-believer, or becomes an un-believer, by walking away from God and Christ and the Christian faith, fully and completely. He is not talking about someone in the partnership who merely "changes" church affiliations.

Then, to digest this a little more. It could well be that one in the marriage partnership does give up the Christian faith fully and completely, making them an un-believer. Does this "automatically" mean that the other Christian partner to the marriage SHOULD or CAN immediately "divorce" the one who has now become an un-believer?  NOT AT ALL!

The Christian may now find he or she is married to an un-believer. This then puts them in the situation that Paul was here discussing and giving his judgement on. IF the now un-believer of the Christian faith is "pleased to dwell" with the Christian, then the Christian is NOT to "put away" or divorce the un-believer. But if the now un-believer is "not pleased to dwell" with the Christian believer, then the Christian believer can be free from the marriage and free to re-marry if they so desire....but as Paul said elsewhere, "only in the Lord."

SAVING YOUR MATE?

Some Christians believe they are required to remain indefinitely in a bad marriage because they may be able to save their unbelieving husband or wife. They think this is based on the following verse: "For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? or how do you know, O man, whether you shall save your wife?" (I Cor. 7:16).

Notice, the question in this statement of Paul's.

It is true that a believing wife can have a positive and godly influence on an unbelieving husband (I Pet. 3:1-2). But staying with him does not guarantee that he will be saved. It has also been stated by Paul previously that if an unbeliever is pleased to stay with a Christian, then a believer should not seek a divorce. Yet on the other hand, Paul was NOT saying one should stay with an unbelieving mate simply because the possibility exists of his or her conversion. After just saying IN THE VERSE BEFORE that if the unbeliever departs, "Let him depart," he was not turning around in this verse and saying "Don t let him depart!" Also notice that the word "FOR" introducing this verse links it with what he had previously said. Paul was saying, in effect, that the Christian is no longer bound if the unbelieving mate wants to depart.. The Christian should not feel he or she must try to remain in the union. There is no way to know for sure if a mate will ever be converted in this life time.

    

The LIVING BIBLE, though a paraphrase, gives the intended sense: "For, after all, there is no assurance to you wives that your husbands will be converted if they stay; and the same may be said to you husbands concerning your wives." Paul was telling the Christian whose marriage ends in divorce, because the unbelieving mate wants to leave and is no longer pleased to continue the marriage, that he or she should not feel guilty about this, thinking that the unbeliever might have eventually been saved.

MENTAL CRUELTY

"If the unbelieving depart....." (I Cor. 7:15). 

We normally think of this only in its primary meaning - someone who literally leaves, packs his/her bags and heads out. But is it not also true that some may depart in mind, affection, attitude and other ways?

This kind of "departure" can be just as real, and often worse than the other! Some couples have departed from each other, though they still live under the same roof. Perhaps you have heard of or known couples who have separate bedrooms and only speak to each other through their children. I once gave counsel on marriage problems to a young man who told me he grew up with parents who did not speak to each other except through their children. They were in their hearts divorced - it just had not been done LEGALLY. They had departed from each other but still lived under the same roof. There can be little doubt that such departures constitute being "not pleased to dwell" and fall within the spirit of what Paul was saying.

If divorce is inevitable, who actually files for the divorce or who actually DEPARTS is really beside the point. If a man treated a woman so badly that he, in effect, drove her out, his claim that SHE  "departed"  would not make him innocent. The basic point that Paul was making is that the Christian should not be the CAUSE of the divorce.

GOD HAS CALLED US TO PEACE

The reason a believer was not bound to an unbeliever who was not "pleased" to remain in a marriage is this: God wants the Christian to have PEACE. "Let him depart .... God HAS CALLED US TO PEACE." Peace was given priority in Paul's teaching.

Divorce was not the original ideal, but neither was marriage if it was unpeaceful. "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work" (James 3:16). True, a Christian should do all he can to live peacefully with an unbelieving mate, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to tango." If a man is married to a woman who destroys the harmony of marriage, tears up his Christian literature, causes no end of troubles, turns the home into a living hell, and finally wants to depart and divorce, then Paul says LET HER DEPART. The man is no longer bound.

A woman who supposes - contrary to what Paul taught - that God never permits divorce, might refuse a divorce to an unbelieving husband who wants one. He may leave for months at a time, returning now and then for a week or so. This would be upsetting not only for the wife but also for any children, if they had children still at home. There could be the possibility of another pregnancy. It is degrading to the woman to be married - and yet not married. This is definitely not God's plan. God has called us to PEACE. The peace of the marriage is the real issue here, divorce being permitted when this peace is no longer present. To insist that ALL people who are married stay together in ALL circumstances is not the teaching of Paul.

                             

LOOSED FROM A WIFE - IF YOU MARRY?

"Are you bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. BUT AND IF YOU MARRY, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned" (I Cor. 7:27,28).

The words "bound" and "loosed" in the first section present a sharp contrast to each other. The Greek for BOUND is "DEHO," the same as in Romans 7:2. The word "LOOSED" is the Greek "LOO-O" which means to loosen, break up, destroy, dissolve, put off. In the second question the word "LOOSED" is "LOO-SIS" (which is from "LOO-O") and means a loosing, a release.

Both phrases, "Are you bound" and "Are you loosed" in questions one and two of verse 27, are in the PERFECT INDICATIVE tense, which conveys the notion of an action terminated in past time, but continuing its effect to the present.

Together with Paul's thought in verse 26, let me amplify these verses we are looking at. 

"Are you bound (through a past marriage that is still in effect) unto a wife? seek not to be loosed (put off, dissolved, divorced - do not make the present distress and tribulations an excuse to divorce and leave your wife). Are you loosed (through a past divorce that is still in effect) from a wife? seek not a wife (for the present, while this tribulation is upon us). BUT and IF YOU MARRY, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned" (verses 27,28).

A man who has gone through a divorce from a wife either before he became a Christian or after (because the unbeliever was not pleased to dwell (verses 12-15) CAN REMARRY if he chooses. HE DOES NOT SIN by doing so, any more than a virgin (one never married) does by getting married.

Those who believe only death can release a person from marriage, say the man in this verse was "loosed" from the marriage because his wife had DIED. If being loosed meant his wife had died, what could the expression "seek not to be loosed" mean - that he was seeking her death? This could hardly be the meaning of what Paul was saying to the Corinthians.

THE UNMARRIED AND WIDOWS

"I say therefore to the UNMARRIED and WIDOWS ... if they cannot contain; let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn (with desire)" (I Cor. 7: 8, 9). 

It is doubtful that Paul, speaking here of the "unmarried," meant only those who had never been married before, "virgins," for he began to talk to them in verse 25: "Now concerning virgins ..." The term "unmarried" here probably has reference to people who had been married at one

time, but who were now single (because of a divorce some time previous to becoming a Christian or because they became a Christian). The term "unmarried" can apply both to a virgin (verse 34) and to a woman who has left her husband (verse 11). In whatever circumstances these were single, it is clear that celibacy was not required of them.

Paul instructs that "for the present distress" (verse 26) it would be better to remain single, but if they could not contain their desire, it would be better to marry. Is it not just as great a sin to burn with thoughts of desire toward someone, as to have thoughts of hate towards a person? We are flesh, and we were created male and female - it was not good for man to be alone, said God. Whatever sins may have been committed that resulted in being "unmarried" (if such was because of sin) are completely FORGIVEN and FORGOTTEN upon repentance and baptism. Paul understood this when he wrote that if the unmarried could not contain, "Let them marry."

    

Now let's turn our attention to the word "widows." It is plain to see that Paul answers the question about MARRIAGE for widows who have lost their husbands through death, in verses 39, 40. Is Paul just repeating himself here in verse 8 ? I think not.

A point that has often been overlooked is that, Biblically speaking, a widow was simply a woman who had married a husband at one time but had since lost him. Her husband MAY have died, or he may have just DESERTED her, and she became a widow. This we shall now prove.

WIDOWS WITH HUSBANDS

In our English language we say a woman who has lost her husband by death is a widow; and a woman whose husband has separated from her by absence or divorce is termed a "grass widow." But the Bible uses only the one word "widow" to describe either situation.

Turn to Isaiah 54:1-10. God is telling Israel that He will restore her to her former glory and freedom. She had been "refused" and "forsaken" by her God because of her sins, but now she would be redeemed. Israel would forget the "shame of (her) youth," and "not remember the reproach of (her) WIDOWHOOD any more" (verse 4).

Notice 2 Samuel 20:3: "And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines ... and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in WIDOWHOOD."

These women, now separated from their husband David, became widows while David was STILL ALIVE! 

God made provision in Israel for those who were "fatherless and widows" (Deut. 24: 17-21). Now if the "fatherless and widows" were only those cases in which the father and husband was DEAD, what about all the other children  and wives who needed assistance because the man had DESERTED them? Surely these were also included in the phrase "fatherless and widows," which would mean any family where there was no husband or father because of either DEATH or DESERTION. The law of Deuteronomy covered BOTH situations.  

Paul, in I Corinthians 7: 8, 9, tells the UNMARRIED and WIDOWS that if under the present tribulation, they could not refrain from marrying, it was better to marry than to burn with desire.

DESERTION - BREAKING THE MARRIAGE BOND

Under "WHAT CONSTITUTES A MARRIAGE," we saw the three basic requirements that God wants in a marriage as given in Genesis 2:24. One of those is SEXUAL union. Paul upholds this in I Corinthians 7:3-5. Sexual union is not to be denied by either partner, except for a time of FASTING.

Christian men or women should think twice before accepting a job assignment that would take them away from their mate for long periods of time - it is not the Lord's desire, "lest Satan tempt you (to sin) through your lack of restraint of sexual desire" (Amplified Bible).

In DESERTION, the sexual bond of marriage is BROKEN - therefore making that marriage VOID, according to the plan that God instituted for marriage. This kind of desertion - sexual - can and does often take place, while the deserting party stays under the same roof for convenience. Some couples have lived under the same roof for years together without any sexual contact at all.

Such WIDOWS are just as much a widow, as far as marriage goes, as the widow who has lost her husband through death.

 

IN SUMMARY

It is human nature to go to EXTREMES. Saying that the Word of God teaches NO divorce and remarriage - WHATSOEVER - is one side of an extreme. Teaching that the Word of God says you can divorce and remarry at your will and pleasure, is the other extreme. Both are incorrect in the light of the totality of divine inspiration.

Marriage is a SERIOUS undertaking - it should not be entered into without serious thought and planning. 

One of the biggest problems in our marriages today is COURTSHIP! Our societies of the Western world, from parents to schools to universities, have chosen, in the main, not to teach the young HOW to date, WHY they should marry, and WHAT to look for in a prospective mate. Many are finding out AFTER marriage that they have married the wrong person.

Divorce is hardly pleasant. If you can, try to save your marriage - try to solve the problems. Seek good professional help, especially from those who hold the Word of the Eternal God as their foundation.

We are living in the age of MAN and SATAN - this is NOT God's world yet. But the time is coming soon when God's age will be here - when His KINGDOM will be established over ALL the earth (Isa. 2:1-4). Then will take place the "RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS" (Acts 3:19-21). All will be CALLED to Salvation during that glorious 1,000  year reign (Rev. 20:1-4; Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:27-34).

Then in that age all the world, all the nations of the earth will be under the rule and laws and commandments of the eternal God. The Holy Spirit will be poured out on all peoples, and they will walk in the ways of the Almighty God. Then the institution of marriage will be as God originally intended when He first created Adam and Eve and brought them together as husband and wife.

Let's continue to pray, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

                       .................

Written in 1984