Scriptural
References Pro and Con
Is There Conflict Within New Testament Teaching?
Reconciliation
of New Testament Teaching
In an article entitled "A Call For Purity of Faith and Walk" (Christadelphian Advocate, November 1965, p. 241), the undersigned called attention to the impact being made upon the Brotherhood by present-day divorce and remarriage practices in Western civilization. We also called upon the Brotherhood to re-examine the teachings of the Scripture on the subject and promised to give consideration to the publication of a pamphlet dealing with the question.
This exposition is brought to you in fulfillment of that promise. It is being mailed without charge to all subscribers to the Christadelphian Advocate and to Christadelphian Recording Brethren throughout the world. This effort has been made possible by the generous support of other believers who, like ourselves, are concerned with the direction in which Christadelphian thinking on marriage and divorce has been trending in recent years. Please feel free to copy or distribute this work in any manner you would like. This booklet was originally published by the Christadelphian Advocate Committee. The exposition is divided into two parts: Part one is a detailed analysis of Scripture teaching on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, and is the result of a collaborative effort by three respected Canadian Brethren whose work has been carried on without consultation with the Advocate Committee.
Part two is a summarization of Scripture teaching on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage which has been drawn up by a class of interested younger brothers and sisters in Worchester, Massachusetts, who began to systematically study the question several years ago and who have produced this outline of the result of their studies. Neither group of authors collaborated in any way. That both have arrived at identical conclusions is, we feel, convincing evidence of the soundness of their deductions.
In commending this work to the reader, we would like to offer the following analogy: In the first four centuries of the Christian era, Christians with a philosophical bent endeavored to introduce some of their favorite worldly ideas into the Christian community of that day by the simple expedient of lifting out of context such Scripture quotations as seemed best suited to lend support to their ideas. This is the manner in which the early church became apostate with such doctrines as the immortality of the soul, reward of the righteous in heaven, the trinity, etc.
In the 19th century, Christadelphian pioneers rediscovered the lost truths in the Bible by the sound procedure of identifying the fundamental teachings of the Scripture and then using these to correctly explain the numerous texts which had been misinterpreted by a Christendom that had gone astray. For more than 125 years the mainstream of Christadelphian thinking has held fast to sound doctrine by continuing to follow this mode of reasoning.
Unfortunately, the changing moral standards, which the Scriptures predicted would occur in these last days, have caused some to desert this method of sound reasoning and to attempt to justify divorce and remarriage and misinterpret other vital teachings in certain cases. Observing friends and loved ones enmeshed in the divorce and remarriage customs of our 21st century civilization, they are moved with pity and seek to justify some remarriages by rationalizing procedures similar to those used by the ancient Christians.
The authors of this work uphold Christian moral teaching by the same sound, logical procedure used by the Truth's 19th century pioneers: that is, by applying fundamental Scripture teaching to explain wrested Scripture properly.
We hope the brotherhood will be strengthened by the counsel offered here. For if it is not, then those who defend the supposed rights of the flesh by rationalizing procedure must expect to be held accountable by the Lord for the discord, heartache, and division which the brotherhood is experiencing on account of this problem.
Faithfully,
In Israel's Hope,
James W. Goehring
Alex T. Kay
L. E. Parker
Paul L. Safford
MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE
As we enter the 21st century, we are constantly impressed with the shift in social consciousness with respect to that which is morally acceptable. Today men and women of the Western world are openly adopting a casual attitude toward promiscuity in their sexual activities which involves both premarital and extra-marital relations. This is shocking to those who endeavor to follow the admonitions of the Lord.
The prophecies of Jesus and the apostles are being rapidly fulfilled before our eyes. As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it also be in the days of the Son of man. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30). There are many signs that we are living in the days which shortly precede the coming of Jesus, the Son of man. The looseness of attitude toward immoral sexual activities and the relative indifference to the marriage vows is certainly one of the most prominent signs.
As a community of believers in these latter days, this gives occasion for both sorrow and joy; sorrow that man is again turning to gross wickedness, and joy that the near return of the righteous judge is confirmed by the signs which have been prophesied. Nonetheless we must recognize that we, too, are still very much in the human state and that we are not immune to the influence of the loosening attitudes of our fellow men. In addition, this downward trend provides a continuing threat to the integrity and moral consciousness of our young people who are beleaguered with it on every side while they are in the difficult process of growing to maturity.
Unfortunately, the Christadelphian body itself is not without its problems in the matter of divorce. Marriage vows have not always been kept intact, and complications resulting from such problems appear to be on the increase. It behooves us, therefore, to look to the admonitions of the Spirit Word on these matters, to discern them clearly, to speak with assurance our goal being healing through admonition, and to adhere without wavering to the moral standard which God has established for us.
We are not without instruction on marriage relations. Much can be found in the Scriptures commencing at Genesis and continuing through the epistles. There is no doubt that individual understanding of God’s requirements has differed to some degree and this has complicated the matter. Nevertheless it should be possible, with careful study, to discern the will of the Lord. Wherever difficulties arise, the established practice of comparing scripture with scripture is the surest course, and it is the course we shall attempt to follow in this study.
It will be readily apparent to all who have studied the problem that the laws of the land, under which contentions are legally decided, are of recent birth, while the Divine Law is both the oldest and the only righteous law in existence. It is our duty, then, to approach our problem with minds willing to allow the Word of God to lead us into all Truth. Surely we can all agree that the Divine Law must govern the saint of God. The principles taught by Jesus and his disciples embodied the spirit that underlies the Mosaic Law.
In his Sermon on
the Mount, Jesus repeated many times, "Ye have heard that it hath been
said by them of old time. . . but I say unto you. . ." He did not come to
destroy the law but to fulfill the law, and when we remember that Paul said,
"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (II Cor. 3:6), we
see that the laws of God are far above the laws of man; also, we must never
allow the laws of man to supersede, or even compare with, the laws of God. So
then in our dealing with the deportment of one of our troubled members, it is
the Law of God that must be applied.
Just as so many laws of God have been marred by meddling man, so God's law relating to marriage has been marred in the "kingdom of men." God knows our attitude toward one another, and He knows that the unjust do not hesitate to break the vow to love and cherish "until death us do part." Marriage is a vital factor in the human society of the world and is of major importance to the true believer. Unfortunately, the history of marriage includes a record of worldly disregard for the marriage arrangements created by God, and, slowly but surely, this disregard has been creeping into the behavior of brethren and sisters.
Let us not be deceived into thinking that peoples and nations are a law unto themselves--all are amenable to God's law for righteousness. Peter tells us that when God punished the nations, they were made "an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly" (II Pet. 2:1-10). It will be apparent, then, that the law of marriage was given to mankind in general~ and NOT to a single section of mankind; it was given to those who were "in the beginning" created male and female--all mankind--long before Israel's time. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).
This rule, was established at the very beginning of man’s history and has never been repealed or modified by God, continues to be in force over all mankind. There can be no departure from it anywhere or at any time without doing violence to it. If we pause to think, we will realize that this ruling could not fully apply to Adam since he had neither father nor mother. It, therefore, is intended to apply to Adam's posterity, and it is clear that marriage regulation for mankind was to continue to be subject to the original Divine ruling.
It is quite evident that the sanctity of the marriage bond was recognized widely and in different nations long before the law of Moses was given. Although Abram was a nomad, and therefore in a weak position relative to the Pharaoh of Egypt, Pharaoh recognized that Abraham’s wife was not to be taken as a wife for Pharaoh. We find him upbraiding Abraham for misleading him, "And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her and go thy way" (Gen. 12:18-19). Pharaoh recognized that even he was not at liberty to marry another man’s wife. A very similar situation occurred when Abraham feared for his life before Abimelech. Again he represented Sarah as his sister so that Abimelech would not murder him to obtain his wife. In this case, Abimelech reprimands Abraham for the deception. "Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? Thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done" (Gen. 20:9). So we find that both Pharaoh and Abimelech were aware that there was a law concerning marriage. It was not to be violated. Abimelech identifies such violation as “a great sin.”
This principle of a husband and wife becoming "one flesh,” which was pronounced at the very beginning, was given as the ultimate in intimate, harmonious and cooperative existence. No other relationship between humans could possibly provide such an opportunity for influencing, strengthening, supporting and assisting the other partner. Goals and ideals should be held in common, and it is, therefore, of primary importance that a mate be chosen who holds the same goals and ideals. This is particularly true with respect to spiritual goals and a common dedication to the Lord’s service.
The Scribes and Pharisees were heavily inclined to add their own traditions and give them preference over God's law. Jesus condemned them for this and stated that they taught for doctrine the commandments of men, thereby making the Word of God of none effect through their traditions. It was in relation to such practices that they were questioning Jesus on the occasion recorded in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Jesus, however, was not confused by their sophistry and proceeded to set forth the basic principles involved in marriage. He stated the law of marriage in Mark 10:6-9, also Matthew 19:4-6, which reads: "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." There is a rebuke for the Pharisees in the pointed question: “Have ye not read? God, having created human beings male and female, had in mind the express purpose of matrimonial union that they might glorify their Maker in indissoluble partnership, having become "one flesh.” For this cause a man would forsake his parental ties for the more intimate and binding tie of matrimony: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
This, then, is
the law of marriage. It was Divinely given. Moreover, the reason for the
law is given, namely, that "they shall be one flesh." It is not
merely an idealistic goal -- a desirable state if it can be achieved -- It is a
Divine ruling given by God and confirmed by Christ.
It is necessary that some thought be given to the effect of baptism on the laws and regulations which were in force prior to baptism. Some have contended that the slate is wiped clean since, by baptism, we become new creatures in Christ Jesus. As Paul has pointed out in Romans, chapter 6, we are, if our baptism has been valid, new creatures. This newness, however, is a matter of change in our way of life, of dedication to the Lord, of service to God, which is obedience unto righteousness in opposition to continuing to serve sin unto death. There is no suggestion that the laws of God established and in force for the guidance of men are changed or cancelled by our baptism. We should change in our attitude toward these laws, striving to obey them more fervently, but the laws do not change.
Our sins are washed away by baptism into Christ. Our life changes in a spiritual sense. It would be a great mistake, however, to think that by baptism we are released from all obligations, contracts, and duties. Obviously no one would expect, as a result of baptism, to have his mortgage cancelled, his note stamped paid and returned by the bank, or his agreements to deliver goods in commerce affected in any way. All contracts made prior to baptism continue in effect after baptism, and any marriage contract established before baptism continues in full force following baptism. Marriage is not a sin and, therefore, the marriage contract cannot be washed away by baptism.
There is no question that mankind has always been under the laws of God. Following creation, Adam and Eve were given laws while still in Eden. When they were expelled from Eden, different laws were in force, but mankind was obviously given laws by God for their guidance. The incident of Cain and Abel bringing offerings to the Lord is a case in point. The fact that the great majority of men chose to ignore and neglect God’s laws had no effect whatever on the force and intent of the laws. The laws continued to be in effect. The transgression of God’s laws was sin and resulted in wickedness, which was displeasing to God wherever it occurred. Thus we find that nearly all men were wicked and displeasing to God by the time Noah and his family had come upon the scene. In Genesis 6:3 we read: “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh. ,. Further, in verses 5-7, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth. . .
The righteousness or wickedness of an individual is determined according to the laws of God. Divine law is the only true moral standard, and the righteousness or sinfulness of every act is rightly determined by that law only. According to God's law, the people of Noah's day were grossly wicked and were destroyed by God because of their wickedness. Similarly, in the days of Lot the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were grossly wicked by the standards of God and were ripe for punishment and destruction. So were the Amorites when their iniquity had become full. It is, therefore, obvious that all men are judged according to God’s law even when they are not in covenant relationship, and in cases where they have lost the knowledge and understanding of the law which their ancestors at one time must have had. There is no time at which man is free from God's laws. He is always liable to God's judgments even though God, in His mercy, may for a time choose to wink at some events because of man's ignorance.
The law of
marriage which was established in the beginning has, therefore, always been in
force for all mankind. In addition, it is a contract which is accepted with
great solemnity in all civilized lands and is, therefore, binding in the sight
of both God and man.
There is no doubt that this has become a complicated question. It is, therefore, desirable that the problem be approached with a minimum of passion and emotion. We need to sit back and meditate upon the subject after we have carefully considered all salient passages which bear directly on the subject. Those passages which have most direct application to the question are: Genesis 2:23-24; Malachi 2:14-16; Mark 10:6-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-6; I Corinthians 7:1011,39; Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew 5:32 and 19:3-12.
The first six passages are consistent in their support of the indissolubility of the marriage contract while both partners remain alive, in opposition to either party to the marriage "putting away" the other party, and in opposition to the adulterous practice of remarriage after divorce. There has been some difficulty in reconciling the last three passages with the first six. Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 has been taken as justification for divorce, according to the law through Moses, where the man can provide reason for divorcing his wife. It was this passage in particular which the Jews in the time of Jesus used as justification for divorce. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 both contain what is known as an "exceptive" clause, and these have been used to justify divorce action by the "innocent" party of the marriage in modern times. We must look at all these passages carefully and try to understand the original intent. Moreover, it is essential to a correct understanding that we find a way to harmonize all scriptural teaching and avoid conflict and apparent contradiction between passages.
The verses upon which the Pharisees based their questioning of Christ were Deuteronomy 24:1-2. Here it is recorded: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.”
Paul states on two occasions that the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. Marriage with another party while the first mate still lives is adultery. We must accept Paul's statement as correct and as a Divinely guided pronouncement. How then are we to understand Deuteronomy 24: l-2?
To begin, we should recognize that the Jewish leaders interpreted this passage as permission to divorce and remarry. They were, therefore, in disagreement with Paul on the application of the law. Also we shall see that when the Pharisees questioned Jesus about this portion of the law, he did not endorse their thinking and he did not approve of their putting away their wives. He referred them to the original, fundamental law of marriage and said that Moses "suffered,” i.e. tolerated, this arrangement because of the hardness of their hearts. It is obvious that this putting away of their wives was displeasing to Christ.
In Malachi 2 we find the prophet upbraiding the Jews in very strong terms. Verses 14-16 read: "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou has dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant, And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Here the prophet puts on record the Lord’s indictment of the hard-hearted Jewish husbands who had dealt treacherously against the wives of their youth. God declares that He "hateth putting away. "
In the second chapter of Jeremiah we see reference to the people of Israel represented as the beloved of the Lord when Israel first came out of Egypt. This was the nation in its youth, freshly espoused to God with the covenant just established (Exod. 19:5-8), when "all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." But Israel had not remained faithful to the Lord. She had turned from Him to worship strange gods, and this false worship termed adultery in a figurative and spiritual sense. Jeremiah 3 opens with a question which has obvious reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Before looking into this in a detailed way, we should recognize that it is not possible to fully equate this figurative representation of marriage between the Lord God and His chosen with the natural marriage of a husband and wife in the flesh or with conditions described in Deuteronomy 24. In the first place, there was not an actual marriage. Secondly, the nation was not a single personality but was a collection of individuals, some of whom were righteous and faithful, and many of whom were not. Furthermore, the Lord had not put away Israel with a writing of divorcement in order to take another (nation) unto Him. In any case, Deuteronomy 24:4 forbids the first husband to take the wife back after she has been defiled by another man. Yet God took Israel back many times in spite of her waywardness and has declared that He will take her back again although she, figuratively, has had many other men following her marriage to God.
It is, therefore, quite impossible to draw a complete parallel between Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and God's figurative embracing of Israel. Yet, in broad terms, the type of marriage is a good one. God chose Israel for His own, He cared for her tenderly and faithfully, and jealously. He has continued to remember her in spite of her faults and will do her good in her latter end.
Now, what is the real significance of Jeremiah chapter 3? The chapter opens with a question: "If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again?" The answer is obviously no, for it was expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy 24:4 because such an arrangement would be an "abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin. . ." "But," says God, "thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me" (Jer. 3:1). And God took Israel back repeatedly when she turned away from her idolatries and returned to the true worship of Him. In this the Lord showed His great mercy, longsuffering, and willingness to forgive. But the time had come, because of her much-repeated forsaking of the Lord, to let her go, and we see in verse 8 that the Lord is represented as having given her a bill of divorce. This was not, however, a permanent putting away, and we find God, even at this very time, appealing to Israel, through the prophet Jeremiah, to turn back and repent (verses 12-13), and stating in verse 14, "for I am married unto you.” It is worth noting that this was an appeal to individuals, "and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” By this time Israel had been captive to the Assyrians for a hundred years. Although God had taken away His protection from her and allowed her to reap the reward of her sinfulness, He still regarded her (Israel) as married to Him. This seems paradoxical following verse 8, but it is a definite indication that God did not regard this as a permanent putting away. She was to be taken back again. God continued faithful toward His "wife" and left the way open for her to repent and return unto Him. This same portrayal is set forth again in verses 20-23, "... truly in the Lord our God is the salvation of Israel.”
This same figure is used in Isaiah 50 and again in the prophecy of Hosea. Israel is represented as a wife who played the harlot. To the children of Israel He says, “Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband; plead with her to change her sinful ways, lest I (God) slay her with thirst.” (Hos.2:2- 3). “When her lovers forsake her,” he says (verse 7), “I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.” But it is necessary that she be punished for a time (verses 9-13). Later the Lord blesses her (verses 14-23) and she again becomes His wife (verse 16), “And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi (my husband); and shalt call me no more Baali (my Lord)." The reestablished marriage will never again be broken (verses 19-20), “And I will betroth thee unto me forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord.”
It is, therefore, abundantly clear that if we fully consider this figurative portrayal of marriage and divorce, it does not support in any way the idea of divorce followed by a second marriage. The very opposite is true. The husband waits patiently, with great longsuffering, for the wayward wife to return to Him. When she does turn back, she finds that the way of repentance has been kept open. This is a lofty concept. This same principle was evidently in Paul's mind when he wrote, "Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" (I Cor. 7:10-11).
The Jews and particularly the school of Hillel, had come to use Deuteronomy 24 as an excuse for divorce on trivial grounds, showing extreme hardness of heart. The reply of Jesus and the record of the prophet Malachi show that God would have been much better pleased with the Jews if they had refrained from exercising their own questionable interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-2. It was, therefore possible to continue the marriage even where conditions existed as described in these verses. Divorce under these conditions was not mandatory. There was always an opportunity to extend grace and mercy, rather than exact harsh punishment.
What was the original intent of Deuteronomy 24: 1-2? In the first place, the law given through Moses had both spiritual and social provisions. When it was given, the Israelites were recently come out of Egypt. They had not maintained strong contact with the instructions of God, and their attitudes and practices left much to be desired. Quite probably marriage relations had become loose, and Deuteronomy 24: 12 in such case would serve to restrain and regulate rather than give license. We know that the great majority of Israel was not spiritually minded, and on at least one occasion they quickly fell into sexual promiscuity when the opportunity arose with the Moabite and Midianite women, as recorded in Numbers 25. The Deuteronomy passage could, therefore, be considered restraining and regulatory rather than permissive.
The Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 24:1-2 supports the restraining and regulatory understanding of these verses. It reads: "And if anyone should take a wife, and dwell with her, and then it shall come to pass if she should not have found favor before him, because he has found some unbecoming thing in her, that he shall write for her a bill of divorcement, and give it into her hands, and he shall send her away out of his house. And if she should go away and be married to another man; and the last husband should hate her and write for her a bill of divorcement; and should give it into her hands, and send her away out of his house, and the last husband should die, who took her to himself for a wife; the former husband who sent her away shall not be able to return and take her to himself for a wife, after she has been defiled; because it is an abomination before the Lord thy God, and ye shall not defile the land, which the Lord thy God gives thee to inherit. "
The Revised Standard Version sets these verses forth in much the same way as the Septuagint and reads: "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance." In both cases the material set forth in verses 1-3 sets out a premise upon which the prohibitive command in verse 4 is based. In other words, the original man who chose the woman and then rejected her "shall not be able to return and take her to himself for a wife, after she has been defiled. "
These versions do not provide permission for the giving of a bill of divorce which might indicate that divorce was approved by God. Rather, they appear to recognize practices which were already in use and to regulate them so that the woman will be left with some degree of decent status in the society, however humble. Moreover, men are forbidden to capriciously take a woman a second time to wife in a manner which would degrade even further the marriage principle. Secondly, Deuteronomy 24:1-2 may very well refer to a situation which arose on the bank of marriage, in which case the marriage would never become established, and the application of Deuteronomy 24:1-2 would, in effect, be an annulment because of discoveries made by the man on the nuptial eve.
The reason given in Deuteronomy 24:1 for the man's displeasure, i. e. "she find no favor in his eyes, " was "because he hath found some uncleanness in her." The marginal rendering is: "because he has found some matter of nakedness in her. "
According to Strong's Concordance and Hebrew dictionary, the Hebrew word translated uncleanness is ervah, which is derived from the root arah meaning to be bare. Hence, ervah means nudity in the literal sense (especially the pudenda). In the figurative sense it means disgrace, blemish.
We know that scripturally, nakedness is associated with sinfulness, and particularly with unlawful sexual activity. Thus, Israel and Judah are figuratively stripped naked to reveal their adulteries and whoredoms. See Hosea chapters 1 and 2 and Ezekiel 16:35-41.
While it is difficult to know exactly what was intended in Deuteronomy 24: 1, it seems to be apparent that the matter of uncleanness discovered by the husband had to do with intimate sexual matters, and in this area he found the woman unsatisfactory to him. It does not necessarily follow that she had been an adulteress who should have been stoned. She could have been a damsel such as described in Deuteronomy 22:25-27, who had been forced and was therefore innocent before God. Nevertheless, the man who insisted that his wife be a virgin would have reason to refuse her upon discovery that she was not a virgin, and Moses in such case recognized his determination to put her away with a bill of divorcement and "suffered" it. Since she was still an acceptable woman before God, "there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death" (Deut.22:26), she was still suitable to be the wife of a man who was willing to accept her as she was.
Deuteronomy 22:13-19, which describes the action of the man who began to hate the woman he had taken and of whom he wished to be rid and the actions of the woman’s parents who defend her, clearly shows that the issue swung on the matter of the woman's virginity or lack of it. It is evident, therefore, that the intention of the law was to define a basis of acceptance or rejection of the new wife at the initiation of the marriage. The basis was the matter of chastity of the woman. The woman was not established as a wife in conditions described in both Deuteronomy 22: 13 -19 and Deuteronomy 24: 1-2, and therefore was not bound to the man. To use Paul's terms, she did not yet have a husband and was, therefore, not as yet "bound by the law to her husband.”
None of this is surmise, for the law provided for such cases. These cases, however, were quite different from promiscuous sins of fornication and adultery. Such an application under the law of Moses would be quite consistent with the fundamental law of marriage (Genesis 2:24) and with all other firm statements of the indissolubility of the marriage state.
The Jews interpreted Deuteronomy 24: 1-2 in a way which gave them license to put away their wives and remarry, but Jesus did not approve their arguments and Paul flatly contradicts them when he states that a wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives.
Deuteronomy 24
does not provide any firm ground in support of divorce in the modern sense. The
indications point, rather, to a provision for a man to refuse a woman who was
not a maiden, i. e. who had lost her chastity before she came to him. Such is
not equivalent to divorce after long years of marriage. It is, instead,
equivalent to annulment before the marriage has become established. Such a view
supports the consistency of scriptural teaching and the consistency and justice
of God, who is described by James as "the Father of Lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning. "
Is There Conflict Within New Testament Teaching?
A quick review of the New Testament teaching on the subject shows the preponderance of the teaching to be opposed to the breaking of the marriage bond, without exception. In each of the two Matthew references, however, an exceptive clause is found. We should be aware that there are real difficulties here which need careful consideration. We are
firmly committed to the defense of the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures and therefore must reject any thought of one passage contradicting another. If there appears to be contradiction it is our obligation to search for a proper reconciliation.
The following is a brief survey of New Testament passages. It is followed by a more detailed study.
Matthew 5:32 records Jesus as using in this context the phrase "saving for the cause of fornication,” and by so doing he introduces an exception. Matthew 19:9 records Jesus' use of the phrase “except it be for fornication" in the context of marriage, divorce, and adultery. This also introduces an exception. It should be carefully noted, however, that these exceptive clauses, as found in the Authorized Version, do not have the same significance. They are not identical in their application. They do not apply to the same party in each case. In Matthew 5:32 the exceptive clause is concerned primarily with the resultant action of the woman who is put away by her husband. In Matthew 19:9 the exceptive clause is primarily related to the effect on the subsequent action of the husband. There is no reference to the effect on the woman. The two passages as found in the Authorized Version are therefore, not mutually supporting, and a careful consideration of them will reveal this quite clearly.
In addition, the account found in Mark 10 is undoubtedly recording the same occasion as Matthew 19, but Mark's account opposes any breaking of the marriage bond and is without qualification or exception. Mark's account condemns remarriage after divorce as adultery.
The statements
of Paul, in Romans 7:1-6 and I Corinthians 7:39, are of vital significance when
we come to consider the allowance for divorce under the law. Paul says, “The
woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he
liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband'
(Rom. 7:2). In I Corinthians 7:39 he restates the same principle, "The
wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be
dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
We have in these two passages an identical pronouncement which is very firm and
unequivocal. This is Paul's pronouncement concerning the ruling of the law.
There appear to be clear indications in the 7th chapter of Romans that Paul was
referring to the law of Moses. In verse 1 we see "for I speak to them that
know the law." Since Paul deals to a very large extent with the comparison
of the new order in Christ Jesus and the Mosaic order in the first eleven chapters
in an attempt to counteract the effect of the teaching of the Judaizers, this
seems to be a clear reference to those who know the law of Moses, probably in
great detail. Secondly, we see in verse 6 reference to "the oldness of the
letter," which can hardly refer to anything other than the law of
Moses. Moreover, of Moses, and thirdly, the description of the law in
verse 12 as "holy and just and good." This has been accepted as
describing the law of Moses. Moreover, we must accept the pronouncement of Paul
as having Divine authority since he was an inspired writer, and not regard it
as merely the opinion of another man. These firm statements must be taken into
account as we try to understand Deuteronomy 24:2. We have suggested an approach
under OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING which should be borne in mind when we come to the
whole matter of reconciliation.
Reconciliation of New Testament Teaching
Let us now attempt a reconciliation of the New Testament passages. It is these passages which have particular application to us, since we are living in the Christian era. It is, therefore, appropriate that we look for our guidance primarily to those instructions given by Christ and the apostles, for it is of paramount importance that we understand the position taken by them on this subject.
The New Testament passages which have a direct bearing on marriage and divorce are considered to be: Matthew 5:32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:6-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-6; I Corinthians 7:10-11,15,39. Only one of these references appears to indicate that divorce is permissible under any circumstances whatsoever. This is Matthew 19:9 where the exceptive clause occurs, and if there is any easing of the otherwise rigid ruling that marriage is for life, it is by implication or inference. There is no direct statement to the effect that divorce is permissible.
The Matthew 19 account portrays the Pharisees tempting Christ by questioning him on the contentious issue of the in interpretation of the law of Moses regarding divorce. "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" There were two schools of thought among the Jews at that time. The school of Hillel applied the law in a very broad way and allowed a man to put away his wife for many causes, some of them quite trivial. The school of Shammai was less broad and allowed the putting away of a wife for adultery only. Apparently the Pharisees hoped to have Jesus declare himself in support of one or the other of the schools. Jesus, however, gave no support to either school of thought. Rather, he indicated that he disagreed with both of their positions and drew attention to the law of marriage which was established "at the beginning,” and therefore prior to the regulations set down by Moses. This was the principle and purpose of the creation of male and female, that they might cleave together and become one flesh and replenish the earth. Christ confirmed, then strengthened, the principle by adding, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Up to this point it is obvious that Christ was stating that once a marriage was consummated, it was to continue unbroken because the man and woman had become one flesh and had been joined together by God. No man had the right or privilege to break such a union.
In verse 7 it is apparent that the Pharisees recognized Christ's position against divorce, for they refer to the "command" of Moses by way of argument and question the position taken by Christ, citing the writing of divorcement and putting away of the woman as found in Deuteronomy 24: 1-2. In verse 8, Jesus states that Moses "suffered" them to put away their wives "because of the hardness of your hearts." It is obvious that God was never pleased with the hardness of heart shown by many of the Israelites. He states many times throughout the prophets that they will be punished and destroyed because of this characteristic. Nevertheless, the hardness of heart did exist, and we have good reason to believe that the majority was in this category since only a minority in any generation has been acceptable to God, and in Moses' generation only two men of responsible age were regarded by God as worthy to enter the promised land. Moses was in a position of responsibility where he was called upon to govern the people. The laws which were given to him by God provided for both civil regulation and order of worship. There were many men who were not spiritual and for whom civil regulations were necessary. This appears to have been one of them. The word "suffered" is significant. It indicates a tolerance of an existing situation which was unsatisfactory. Certainly there is no evidence to suggest that such a course was commanded or recommended. It was always possible for a man whose heart was not hard to extend grace and mercy. Jesus refers again to the higher concept by stating, "but from the beginning it was not so. "
He goes on to state, verse 9, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." It is the exceptive clause, "except it be for fornication," by which some have justified divorce for the "innocent" party and have considered remarriage permissible. The difficulty in this position lies in the fact that such an interpretation requires that Christ should suddenly change from a position in which he was strongly contending for the indissolubility of the marriage bond to the reverse position in which he is pictured as stating that the marriage may be broken because of fornication and that another marriage may be entered into. We should be aware that the account in Mark 10:2-12 covers precisely the same ground as Matthew 19:3 -12, but there is no exceptive clause included. The account in Mark forbids the breaking of the marriage bond by either husband or wife. No qualification or ground for license is given. Remarriage is declared to be the committing of adultery by either of the separated parties. In Luke 16: 18 we read, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." Again, this account allows for no exceptions. Luke is very brief on the matter but very firm, direct and unequivocal.
We must, however, still deal with the Matthew passages. It is not unusual for one gospel writer to include detail which is not given by the others. At the same time we must recognize that the added clause in this case is more than trivia. It is the introduction of a different principle, and if interpreted as shown in the foregoing, is either in opposition to the other gospel accounts and the writings of Paul, or else opens up a very important area which they entirely failed to recognize or mention.
The fact that Matthew 5:31-32 contains an exceptive clause is of significance. This passage also deals with divorce and the possibility of consequent adultery and does so within the setting of the Sermon on the Mount. There is no record of questioning or tempting by the Pharisees here. Christ himself elects to deal with the matter. It is Matthew only who records an exceptive clause. "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.” We see here again the gravity of the consequences of divorce. To remarry is to commit adultery. Jesus is saying that the man who puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery if she remarries. As stated earlier, this exceptive clause is in a different setting than that found in Matthew 19:9. It has a different significance inasmuch as it applies to a different person, namely, the wife who would be caused to become guilty of adultery. Matthew 19:9 refers to the effect on the husband, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery...” In Matthew 5:32 Jesus refers to a possible situation which involves the husband's hardness of heart. In actual fact, many of the Jews in Christ's day were doing just this. In his "Antiquities of the Jews," Josephus himself records his own action against his wife in this kind of a divorce. The Jews had been putting away their wives regardless of God’s principle of marriage established in Eden. This putting away of the woman left her vulnerable. She would be sorely tempted to marry again as a matter of livelihood, if nothing else, and her first husband, by his infidelity, would be a prime cause of her subsequent immoral union. If, however, the woman had already committed fornication, apart entirely from any action of her husband, she herself bore the responsibility, and the husband in such a case would not be the one who “causeth her to commit adultery.” The introduction of this warning to the husbands against hard-hearted action in no way countermands Christ's condemnation of divorce nor does it provide a loophole. It has to do with the husband's responsibility in case the wife’s behavior becomes immoral because of remarriage.
If we carefully examine these two verses (Matt. 5:31-32), which incidentally is the first pronouncement on the subject in the New Testament, we find another very significant fact. Verse 32 refers to two types of women. The first type is the one referred to in the main statement, “Whosoever putteth away his wife. . . causeth her to commit adultery. . .” This is a woman who was not guilty of fornication but was put away in any case by her hard-hearted husband. This woman was, therefore, an innocent victim. The second type of woman is indicated by the exceptive clause, "saving for the cause of fornication,” and this woman was guilty. The rest of the verse, however, covers both types: “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” It becomes apparent, therefore, that a man who marries either the innocent put-away wife or the guilty put-away wife "committeth adultery." It is clear that there is no possibility of permission for the one who is called “the innocent party" to remarry. This should be understood, after which the rest of the New Testament teaching is found to be consistent and without conflict.
We have purposely set forth this comment on Matthew 5:32 before concluding the consideration of Matthew 19:9 because it may very well have a bearing on the correct understanding of that verse. Reference to the wording of Matthew 19:9 in the many recent translations does not reveal any significant variation except in the Revised Standard Version where a very interesting alternative occurs.
Before looking into this, we should note the manner of treatment of those verses where alternative renderings are given. This is set forth in the preface of this version where
the Committee refers to the vast quantity of ancient manuscripts which has become available since the King James version. They state: "Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain. Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we have given an alternative rendering in a footnote. If, in the judgment of the Committee, the meaning of the passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note." The particular verse which seems to be out of harmony with the rest of the teaching, namely, Matthew 19:9, has two footnotes attached to it. In the considered opinion of the Committee of 32 scholars and their 50 advisory assistants, this verse then falls into the category of those which are "particularly difficult or doubtful" or "quite uncertain or obscure." It should, therefore, be immediately obvious that this verse is a poor and weak foundation upon which to base our interpretation of conduct and moral action, particularly where the sinful practice of adultery is the hazard.
Now let us consider this verse as given in the Revised Standard Version together with its footnotes. Matthew 19:9 (RSV) reads: "And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." The first footnote reads: "Other ancient authorities, after UNCHASTITY, read MAKES HER COMMIT ADULTERY." The second footnote reads: "Other ancient authorities insert AND HE WHO MARRIES A DIVORCED WOMAN COMMITS ADULTERY." With the first alternative applied as shown in the footnote, Matthew 19:9 would read: "And I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, makes her commit adultery." This rendering is parallel to Matthew 5:32 in meaning. It states that the husband who divorces his wife, except when she is already unchaste, is the cause of her adultery. Again this is a warning to hardhearted husbands that they will be regarded as responsible for the adultery of their "put away" wives except in cases where she is already unchaste. It is dealing with hard-heartedness, not giving a ground for divorce. (The putting away for unchastity has been dealt with under Deuteronomy 24: 1-2.) This alternative rendering is helpful in the reconciliation of Matthew 19:9 with the rest of the teaching in the gospel accounts where we find a consistent unqualified opposition to the breaking of the marriage bond. Moreover, the statements of Paul on this subject in Romans and Corinthians are extremely firm and unbending. To apply an interpretation which permits divorce and which is based only on the uncertain statement of Matthew 19:9 creates confusion and conflict on the teaching.
The commentaries
in dealing with Matthew 19:9. differ in their explanations. Some use the verse
to support the privilege of divorce because of adultery. Others, however, take
the opposite viewpoint. The Abingdon Bible Commentary, after commenting
on the division of thought between Shammai and Hillel, states:
“A similar division is found among modern scholars. Wellhausen, R. H. Charles, and H. G. Wood, while they regard the exceptive clause as an interpolation. . . Gore and Box, on the other hand, claim that the exceptive clause was introduced by the early Palestinian church to secure divorce for proved adultery and the remarriage of the innocent party. There seems no doubt that the original words of Jesus expressed the prohibition of divorce in its absolute form.”
In the Dummelow
Commentary it says:
"Christ restrained the excessive licence of divorce which existed at the time, and declared marriage to be (with possibly a single exception) absolutely indissoluble. Since Matthew alone mentions the exception, and all other NT passages speak of Christian marriage as absolutely indissoluble, it is maintained by very many. probably the majority, of recent critics, that the words 'except for fornication' both here and in (Matt.) 19:9 are an interpolation, introduced by Jewish Christians to modify the excessive strictness of the original utterance, and that Christ Himself forbade divorce altogether. On the principles of criticism now generally accepted, this view is highly probable. "
From the International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
“A critical examination of the whole passage in Matthew has led many scholars to conclude that the (exceptive clause is an interpolation due to the Jewish Christian compiler or editor. Certainly much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Matthew is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard."
However we view these various opinions, we must recognize that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to the proper rendering of Matthew 19:9. The translation of this verse cannot be regarded as firmly established. It would, therefore, be very unwise to support our case for the justification of divorce (and remarriage) on this one quite doubtful passage which is in direct conflict with other passages.
All other New Testament
teaching is in agreement and is firm in (1) forbidding the breaking of a
marriage, and (2) stating that divorce and remarriage make those involved
guilty of adultery.
Paul refers to the ruling of the law on the firmness of the marriage bond in Romans 7: 1-3. He is unquestionably referring to the law of Moses and emphasizes that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives. As an example, he refers to the marriage bond and states (verse 2), "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." This is of particular interest because Paul makes a firm statement concerning the meaning of the law with respect to marriage. We must keep this in mind when we examine Deuteronomy 24:1-2. In writing to the Corinthians, we see' the enunciation of this same principle, which Paul takes from the Law. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (I Cor. 7:39). In Romans 7:3, Paul goes on to apply the principle already stated, “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
Thus we find Paul, too, emphasizing the importance of the marriage bond and the extremely serious and sinful consequences of divorce followed by remarriage. It is true that the following verses (Rom. 7:4-6) apply the figure in a spiritual way to show that the fulfilling of the law freed the Jews so that they were at liberty to embrace Christ. The application of the figure in a spiritual sense, however, does not in any way abrogate the principle of marriage in the natural sense. H such were the case, every incident, character, religious and moral principle taken from the Old Testament and used as a basis for figurative teaching in the New Testament would become suspect and subject to question.
In the seventh chapter of I Corinthians, Paul deals with many phases of the marriage relationship. In verses 10 and 11 he says, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” These instructions were written to a Christian community where, judging from Paul's epistles, the influence of Judaism was not as strong as in centers like Galatia and Rome. There does not seem to have been much Jewish background in Corinth. Nevertheless, the instruction to maintain the marriage bond is still firm and is commanded by the Lord. If the disagreement between wife and husband becomes so sharp that they cannot continue together, they may separate, but the wife must remain unmarried. No thought of divorce is entertained. If the woman later finds that the married state is needful, she is to return to her husband, and the husband is instructed: "let not the husband put away his wife.”
The verses which follow are the instruction of Paul, an inspired writer. They contain counsel for those who have come into Christ but whose partners remain in unbelief. In verse 15, Paul advises the converted one to let the unbelieving partner depart, i. e. leave the home and live separately. In such a case, says Paul, a brother or sister is not under bondage. It has been thought by some that Paul allowed a believing partner to divorce an unbelieving mate, based on this passage. The word "bondage" means enslavement, and to say that a deserted partner is not enslaved is not to say that he or she may be remarried. Paul has already ruled this out as shown in the foregoing paragraph. "And unto the married I command, yet not I~ but the Lord~ Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” There is no exceptive clause here. The teaching that precedes this verse and the statement that follows (verse 39), "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord,” makes no provision for divorce.
In our own day no divorce is possible unless the parties go into the civil courts to seek the divorce. In the previous chapter Paul had upbraided the Corinthians regarding their use of the courts. "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" (I Cor. 6:1,7).
Thus we find
that throughout his teaching on the subject, Paul is consistent in opposing
divorce, while at the same time insisting on the indissolubility of the
marriage bond.
1. The law of marriage, as recorded in Genesis 2:24, was established in Eden; was endorsed and emphasized by Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9), and therefore carries the authority of a Divinely given precept.
2. This law, which was designed to govern the relationship between man and woman, applies to all mankind.
3. This law requires that a man and a woman become "one flesh” when married and that this binding together in marriage be maintained while they both shall live.
4. The law of Moses made provision for a man to put away his bride if he found her to be unchaste at the time of marriage, but at the same time required the man to give the woman a writing of divorcement to establish her legal status and prevent the development of worse practices such as promiscuity.
5. The putting away of wives by the Jews was termed hardheartedness by Jesus and by Malachi, who indicate that God is not pleased with such action.
6. Jesus consistently upheld the principle of marriage for life. If the marriage was broken and either party remarried, he taught that such action was adultery.
7. Mark and Luke record this teaching of Jesus without any qualification or exception.
8. Matthew's account of this teaching is of the same general import but contains an "exceptive clause.” This exceptive clause is in doubt as to meaning, translation and authenticity by many scholars, both ancient and modern.
9. Paul's writings are very firm in opposition to any breaking of the marriage bond.
10. All New Testament writers agree that a divorced person who remarries commits adultery, and the one who marries a divorced person commits adultery.
11. Going to the courts of the land to settle differences between believers is condemned.
12. Grave
warnings are given against the slackening of attitudes on the part of believers
regarding adulterous practices.
In the consideration of this very important aspect, there is much scripture which bears on the duty of the elders, bishops, deacons, the presbytery, and the entire body of the
ecclesias in areas which have to do with the general welfare of our brethren and sisters. One of these scriptural passages which bears closely on our subject is found in Hebrews 12: 12 - 29. We would recommend that all who are in the position of elders read this thoughtfully:
"Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight the paths for your feet, Iest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. . . . But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh …Wherefore we receiving a Kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.”
In the messages to the seven ecclesias, Christ severely upbraided the elders because they had not properly controlled the affairs of their eccIesias. Speaking to the elders (the angel) of the church at Pergamos, he said, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else J will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" (Rev. 2: 14-16). They had permitted spiritual adultery, which is the introduction of false doctrine into the ecclesia, and the committing of fornication.
To the elders at Thyatira he said, "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols" (Rev. 2:20).
It is evident,
as we read through the seven messages, that in a number of cases, notably those
quoted above, those responsible for the maintaining of decency and order within
the ecclesia had failed to do so. They not only had allowed evil influence and
example to creep into their ecclesias, they had allowed it to remain there to
seduce God's servants into sinful practices. They had not discharged their
responsibilities.
Jesus said that since they had not opposed and controlled such influence, he would come to correct matters himself "with the sword of my mouth, " which is the word of God (He b. 4: 12 and Eph. 6: 17).
Similarly, Paul reprimanded the Corinthians, specifically concerning the problem of fornication and adultery. In I Corinthians 5, we find Paul criticizing the ecclesia because they had allowed the fornicator (adulterer) to remain in the ecclesia. He enjoins them to "purge out" such a bad influence and example, and further, "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators... not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. . . . Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”
It is abundantly clear that Paul is requiring the expulsion of the wicked adulterer from the ecclesia. He does this in emphatic, straightforward, forceful instruction, and in so doing leaves no doubt as to what action is to be taken by the elders. As we have seen in our study of the New Testament teaching on divorce, one who (a) divorces and remarries, or (b) marries a person who has been previously married and divorced, becomes an adulterer or an adulteress by such action.
In many of our ecclesias the clearcut instructions on these grievous matters have been overlooked and ignored. We, therefore, find the body generally in a state very much like that described in the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor. In actual fact, these messages are prophetical of that which was to come and, as set forth by Dr. Thomas, they have a manifold fulfillment. The firm position which should be taken against the evils of divorce and remarriage is being eroded away by the loose attitudes which surround us, by the deteriorating moral standards in our societies, and by the social acceptance in all of our communities of many things which were condemned and rejected even a generation ago. Of these, divorce and remarriage are among the most prominent.
While in this area of thought, we must not overlook the warning of Ezekiel in chapters 3 and 33. The warning is to the watchman. It is his duty to warn the people against threat of danger so that they may prepare themselves. If he discharges his duty, he stands clear of responsibility before God. If he fails to sound the warning, he will be held to account for the lives of the people for whom he was responsible.
Our greatest danger is the threat of sin and everlasting death. As elders, we are watchmen over spiritual Israel in a more particular sense than the average brother and sister, and we must be sensitive to this responsibility. "So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand" (Ezek.33:7-8).
The evil of divorce and remarriage has been creeping into our ecc1esias for too long without sufficient opposition. It is time we found the courage to speak out! We must be very careful to maintain a good spiritual environment guided by straight thinking, particularly for the sake of those who are among the less strong. "Make straight the paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way. II We are warned to be diligent in these things lest any man fail, and warned particularly against the defiling influence of any root of bitterness, any fornicator or profane person. The responsibility of the elders is especially great, and they have a duty to guide properly the matters concerning the ecclesia lest the high calling which all have received be lost. We are not to refuse "him that speaketh” It is God who speaks through Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles.
Finally, having received such a great hope, we must be faithful, for we shall have to answer in the day of judgment.
W. E. Henning
K. G. McPhee
K. P. Moore
(A Summary)
Some time ago several brothers and sisters formed a study group to consider the subject of scriptural marriage and certain problems related thereto which presently are causing such concern in the Household. This group held many sessions over an extended period, and we offer here a brief summary of our studies, hoping that it may be of help to others.
The servants of God (those covenanted to Him) are said by the Apostle Paul to be "the temple of the living God" (II Cor. 6.;16), and those who defile it shall be destroyed (I Cor. 3:17). The first and greatest commandment, said Jesus, is: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (Matt. 22:37). This requires that one be a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:1-2).
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (II Cor. 5: 17). We now have a mental picture of that new creature -the faithful and sincere servant of God. It is his objective to live on the highest possible spiritual plane. He will set his "affection on things above, not on things on the (earth" (Col. 3:2), always seeking to glorify his Creator, that he may be considered as "true, and no unrighteousness is in him" (John 7:18). Because there can be no fellowship of righteousness with unrighteousness, no communion of light with darkness, or the believer with the infidel, he separates himself from the world, he eschews the world's ways and philosophies. (See II Corinthians 6:14-17). Whatever he does, it "heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men" (Col. 3:23).
We here define certain words used in this study, the meanings of which are essential to the proper interpretation of the Scriptures.
Marriage - A mutual contract, covenant, or agreement resulting in the moral, physical, and spiritual union of man and woman; to join in affinity; dwell together; cohabit.
Fornication - Sexual intercourse of unmarried persons.
Adultery - Sexual intercourse where one or both parties are married to another.
Incest - Marriage, fornication, or adultery of persons closely related as commonly understood, such as father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, etc.
Divorce - To separate; cut off; drive out; expel; put away; dismiss. In the Scriptures, the original Greek and Hebrew carry no connotation, denotation or inference of giving the right to marry another.
Bondage - As used in I Corinthians 7:15, from the Greek, douloo, meaning to enslave; be under bondage, make servant.
Sins - As used in Ephesians 2: I, from the Greek harmartia meaning offense; to miss the mark, to err.
Impute - Bring into reckoning; account; regard; charge.
Repent - To think differently; reconsider; reform; one's way of life; contrition; compunction; feeling of guilt or sorrow for past sins.
1. Marriage is a Divine institution (Gen. 2:23 -24).
2. Marriage, per se, is not sinful. ( I Cor. 7:28).
3. The Divine law of marriage applies to all people, covenanted or not (Gen. 23-24). Note: This principle was annunciated before there were two classes: covenanted and noncovenanted people. Note too that marriage of noncovenanted people is recognized in the Scripture as, for example, Potiphar the Egyptian in Genesis 39:1-9; Heber the Kenite in Judges 4:17; Abimilech in Genesis 20:17; Naaman the Syrian in II Kings 5:1-2; Haman in Esther 6:13; and Pilate in Matthew 27:17-19.
4. Marriage is for life, not to be set aside by man (Matt. 19:4-6; Rom. 7:2-3).
5. Physical (sexual) union does not in itself constitute marriage. (I Cor. 7:2; John 4:18). Jesus noted that the Samaritan woman had had five husbands, but the man with whom she was presently cohabiting was not her husband. The Apostle says that to avoid fornication let a man and a woman marry, thus they cannot be the same thing. If sexual union constituted marriage, there could be no such thing as fornication. If such were the case, the first instance of sexual union thereafter with other than one’s mate would be adultery. While under the Law of Moses (Exodus 22: 16-17) a man guilty of fornicating was obligated to marry the woman, this was so only if the father of the woman approved. It was not, therefore, the act of fornication that established the marriage.
6. Incestuous marriages are forbidden. (Lev. 18:6-18; Deut. 27:20-23; I Cor. 5:1).
7. Fornication and adultery are odious in God’s sight (Gal. 5:16-19; Col. 3:5-6; I Cor. 6:18). Alien marriages are forbidden (II Cor. 6:14-18; I Cor. 7:39). This testimony is very clear that the believer should not be unequally yoked together with an unbeliever; that Christ has no concord with Bellial, the believer with the infidel, the clean with the infidel. The Jews, who were forbidden to take strange (Gentile) wives or husbands, would be corrupted by so doing and turn to idolatry and immortality (Deut. 7:1-4; Ex. 34:12-16). Solomon was a case in point (I Kings 11:1-8). One of the evils of Noah's generation was the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men; i. e., the believer with the unbeliever or unrighteous (Gen. 6: 1-3). The Law of Moses which prohibited the yoking of an ass with an ox (a clean with an unclean animal), is a type of the union of a believer with an unbeliever (Deut. 22:10; Lev. 10:10, 20:25). For additional testimony in substantiation, refer to I Corinthians chapter 7; Ephesians 5:1-11; Ezra 9:14; 10: 1-17; Nehemiah 13: 23 -27.
It is treacherous and contrary to the proper spirit to put away one’s wife. It would seem to be equally true of a woman who puts away her husband.
8. To put away one's mate and marry another constitutes adultery (Mark 10:4-12). Here in verses 11 and 12, Jesus is talking to his disciples. He makes it plain that for one to put away a mate and marry another is wrong-it is adulterous. He makes no exceptions nor does he qualify his statement.
9. Under the law of Christ, a believer is not permitted to put away an unbelieving mate. If, however, the unbelieving mate chooses to depart, he or she is not to be prevented (I Cor. 7:12-15).
There is no indication here that the believer is free to marry if the unbeliever depart - only that the believer is absolved of further responsibility for the unbelieving mate. See Definitions for the meaning of the word bondage as used in this passage.
10. The unbelieving mates of believers and their children are sanctified and holy-meaning set apart (I Cor. 7:14). The two terms, sanctified and holy, are practically synonymous. The children enjoy a special relationship to God because of a believing parent. This is also indicated in Proverbs 20:7 and Psalms 103:17. There is no basis for the claim that if this were not so, the children would be illegitimate. The word unclean is from the Greek akathartos, meaning unclean, impure, but with no connotation of illegitimacy.
11. Divorce and remarriage to another under the Law of Moses was permitted for one reason only (Deut. 24). It is probable, though not certain, that this refers to the case of a woman being subjected to forced fornication (rape) before marriage, as recorded in Deuteronomy 22:25-29. Even in this case, it was permitted only because of the "hardness of heart" of the Jews, as Jesus notes in Matthew 19:8. In Matthew 19:3 -9 and 5:31-32, Jesus is addressing himself to Jews who were subject to the Law of Moses and who had not accepted Christ.
It is relatively unimportant as the principles are not affected, but it seems apparent that the word fornication in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, in the A. V., is a correct translation from the Greek porneia. Had adultery been intended, the Greek word moicheia would have been used. Both words, porneia and moicheia, appear in these two passages, in the Greek MSS, indicating two separate things. In Galatians 5: 19 is enumerated the works of the flesh as "adultery (moicheia), fornication (porneia), uncleanness, etc." If, as some claim, porneia should be translated adultery, this passage would then read: "adultery, adultery, uncleanness, etc.” The absurdity of such rendering is apparent. Some Greeks maintain that porneia expressly excludes adultery.
12. Unbelievers (noncovenanted) can, and do, sin against the laws of God. Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to the state of a beast (Dan. 4) because of his "sins" and his "iniquities" (verse 27). The Ephesian brethren, before they accepted Christ, were "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2: 1). See Definitions for the meaning of the word sins as used here.
When the Scriptures state that sins are not imputed, it does not mean that one is without sin--rather, that God does not hold such an one accountable for his sin (Rom. 4:7-8; 5:13).
13. Upon acceptance of Christ, one must forsake his past sins (Rom. 6: 1-2, 11-14, 17 -19).
"Depart from iniquity," says the Apostle (II Tim. 2: 19). "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (John 8:34). The sincere believer should make every effort to cleanse himself "from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (II Cor.7:l).
14. Baptism wipes out sin--that which is against one, that which alienates from God (Acts 2:37-38; 3:19; 22:16; Luke 24:46 -47; Ephesians chapter 2). Nowhere in scripture is there is evidence that all the past is wiped out at baptism. Man is a new creature only in the spiritual sense. His obligations, responsibilities, indebtedness, and such, to family, friends, neighbors, employers, creditors, do not end at baptism, but, rather, his sense of responsibility is increased upon his acceptance of Christ. Therefore, marriage contracted before immersion is not invalidated.
15. Repentance involves both reformation and contrition (Romans 6:1-4, 18-23; Acts 2:37-38). Sorrow. or grief for past sins leads to reformation and salvation (see II Cor. 7:9-10 RSV and Emphatic Diaglott). The Lord is nigh to the contrite and humble (Psa. 34: 18; 1sa.57:15; 66:2).
16. The law of Christ prohibits "going to law"; i. e., recourse to legal action to right a (real or fancied) wrong (I Cor. 6:1,6-8). Jesus taught to “resist not evil”; to return good for evil (Matt. 5:38-42).
Conclusion
Those who violate these principles jeopardize their eternal welfare. Those who sincerely seek to serve God faithfully, to dedicate themselves to Him, to please Him and glorify His Name, will be guided by these principles which state His Will. Knowing what He requires of them, they will take no contrary action. They will not knowingly or willfully, for temporal or personal advantage or reasons, wrest the Scriptures to their destruction. No believer will ever be rejected at the Judgment Seat because he or she adhered to these principles.
"Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are they that keep His testimonies, and that seek Him with the whole heart" (Psa. 119: 1-2).
WORCESTER MASS. STUDY GROUP
Olin and Marilyn Rogers
Paul and Edith Safford
Roscoe and Susan
Starratt