Truth Magazine

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Several times in what we identify as Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians (there probably was a previous letter, 1 Cor. 5:9), the apostle spoke of having firsthand information concerning their problems and questions. For example, those of Chloe’s household had reported contentions in the church (1 Cor. 1:11), the brethren had written to Paul (1 Cor. 7:1), and Paul had visited with Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17-18). In chapter seven, Paul specifically responded to their written inquiries about domestic relationships. Among Christians today, assertions have been made by different ones who think they find justification in this chapter for second marriages in cases other than those described in Matthew 19 and Romans 7.

The “Present Distress”?

First, their letter and Paul’s answer were written in the midst of a “present distress” (v. 26) when Christians who married could expect “trouble in the flesh-” (v. 28). Paul was concerned that the cares of married life might keep some from serving the Lord “without distraction” (vv. 32-35). He, therefore, cautioned against marrying. Some have discounted much of the apostolic instruction in this chapter because of those circumstances. It should be observed that when Paul appealed to the “present distress,” the issue was only whether to marry or not and, even then, the disciples were given freedom to make the choice (vv. 8-9). If they married, all those responsibilities God placed on mates were to be observed (vv. 1-5) and they were not allowed to depart (vv. 10-16). Neither were any divine regulations governing married life changed during or because of the “distress.”

Paul Versus The Lord?

Second, in conjunction with questions raised about the impact of the “present distress” there is another issue concerning the relation between what Paul was presently saying and what the Lord had said while with the apostles. Some have argued that Paul’s instructions are optional because they represent his opinions and were not guided by the Spirit. Careful reading of the text should dispel this notion:

(a) In verse six, Paul says that the authorization for temporary relief from the responsibilities of mates (v. 5) was granted as a “concession,” not a “commandment.” The “concession” was from the Lord and it was intended to provide time for prayer leading to reconciliation. The apostle was not, however, “commanding” a separation. Nothing in the text indicates that Paul’s words here were not inspired.

(b) In verses ten and twelve, the apostle first stressed what Jesus had himself initially taught, namely that a wife must not depart from her husband (v. 10); and then he presented the later specific instruction now given to him by the Lord that the Christian living with a non-Christian should not leave the mate (v. 12). Again, there is no contradiction between Paul and Jesus, and there is no indication that Paul was speaking on his own apart from inspiration. The statements simply call attention to the fact that Paul’s directive was an application growing out of Jesus’ own words. That fact is further emphasized in v. 17 when Paul gave “order” (authoritative command) concerning the things taught in the passage.

(c) Toward the end of the chapter, Paul affirmed that he had been allowed to write his “judgment” on the advisability of marrying under the present circumstances (vv. 25,26,40). If we were to grant that Paul was expressing purely human judgment, we would be forced to recognize that he clearly declared it to be judgment and that he spoke only about a matter in which God allows Christians to make a decision. It is optional whether one marries and Paul also clearly stated that his judgment was not compulsory. The truth is, however, that Paul was not simply expressing his own humanly fallible opinion. He was, instead, expressing apostolic judgment guided by the Spirit of God. He said, “I give judgment as one whom the Lord in his mercy has made trustworthy” (v. 25). Paul spoke often of having been given grace or mercy to teach faithfully God’s will (Eph. 3:7-8; 1 Cor. 3: 10; 2 Cor. 4: 1 f; et. ao. The fact that this “judgment” is concerned with a permissive matter does not in any way argue that it was uninspired. You might ask yourself, “If Jesus himself had been advising people who were contemplating marriage under those conditions, what other possible advice could he have given?” Surely he would have told them it was better not to marry unless being unmarried posed such a stumblingblock to their moral purity that they stood in danger of becoming unchaste. It should also be observed that Paul concluded the chapter by saying, “I think I also have the Spirit of God” (v. 40), and thus, at the least, he indicated divine compliance in the judgment.

Divorce, But Not Remarriage?

Third, Paul repeated the “command” of “the Lord” that ‘,’a wife is not to depart from her husband” (v. 10). Some have found comfort in Paul’s next phrase, “even if she does depart.” The Christian, they say, may divorce without sin for cause other than fornication if there is no subsequent sexual activity. Among these some go on to say that if the former mate commits fornication, the “innocent” party is free to put him/her away in the heart and marry again, whatever the cause of the original divorce.

The statement “but even if she does depart” (v. 11) does not free one to disobey the command of verse ten. Actually, Paul was only stating what the Christian must do who has left a mate in ignorance of or in spite of the command 9 $not to depart.” This passage is like many others in which an inspired writer “plains provisions made or what to do or to avoid after sin has occurred. In another place Paul said, “Do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you” (Rom. 11:18). Remembering does not justify boasting. John said, “My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). Certainly the provision of an Advocate does not make it all right to sin. James said, “But if you have bitter envy and self seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth” (Jas. 3:14). The prohibition against going further to boast and lie against the truth does not soften the bitter envy and self-seeking.

The truth that God does not condone divorce was clearly reinforced when Paul returned to the original command. He said, “And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (v. 11).

Remain in Your Calling?

Fourth, when Paul addressed these Christians who were married to non-Christians, he told them not to leave their mates but instead to stay in their marriages. “God has called us to peace,” he said (v. 15). We are not to seek freedom from circumstances in which we find ourselves when we are called into Christ. Such circumstances as circumcision and slavery were used by Paul as illustrations (vv. 17-24).

This passage has been used to teach that Christians who are “married” a second, third, or fourth time may stay with the mate they have at the time of conversion despite the causes of former divorce action. Reasoning thus affirms the thing to be proved and argues in a circle. No preacher I know would declare that the professional thief or contract murderer may remain in his “calling.” I have not talked with one who will proclaim that the homosexual or polygamist may remain in the sinful relationship. All must affirm that repentance requires leaving sinful practice (1 Cor. 6:9-11). What these persons are claiming is that the relationship is not sinful and/or that activity shared in the relationship is not sinful. That is the thing to be proved! If one argues that because the sins of the past are forgiven the relationship may continue, by what line of reasoning would he not be forced to argue that two unmarried people living together are forgiven and thus may continue in a relationship God did not previously approve? If they argue that these persons are not under the law of Christ prior to baptism, by what reasoning could he ever point to the homosexuality, polygamy, and multiple marriages of the worldly rich and famous as sinful? Some, in my humble and perhaps simple view, have become educated beyond their intelligence!

Remarriage in Verse 15?

Finally, some have found another cause for divorce and remarriage in the phrase “not under bondage” (v. 15). That is the subject of another article and, therefore, I will simply call attention to the fact that only by implication based on one’s own opinion concerning the interpretation of the verse can he assume that it authorizes remarriage. Paul says nothing of remarriage in this section of the chapter. In fact, he only approaches the subject of remarriage twice in the entire chapter, once directly and once indirectly. In verse 39, he says that he woman whose husband is dead may remarry. In verse 11, the commanded the woman who had left her husband to remain unmarried.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 11-12
January 4, 1990

By Bill Cavender

I have read that the divorce rate has reached fifty-two percent of marriages in our society. Hardly a family and/or congregation of Christ anywhere, anymore, has not been affected by this problem with all of its attendant feelings, emotions, sadnesses, sufferings, heartaches, disruptions, displacements, bitternesses, and, in many cases, soul damning, eternal consequences. A recent article says that by the turn of this century possibly seventy-five percent of first marriages will end in divorce.

Most congregations now have within their memberships and fellowship people who have experienced the trauma and tragedy of divorce, and some who have subsequently remarried. As society changes and divorces increase, churches of our Lord are destined to confront these problems more often. All of us who teach and lead others are having to spend more time in calling attention to our Father’s will in the Scriptures. In forty-three years of preaching the gospel and in some years of serving as an elder of a congregation, many, many times have I taught on these subjects. In every protracted meeting I have a part in, I preach on marriage, divorce, remarriage and family relationships. I have been in many meetings with brethren and fellow-elders, talking with people regarding their marriage problems, and with divorced and remarried people, some seeking to obey the gospel of our Lord and some desiring membership in the local church. In reading and studying the Scriptures with such ones, the results have been that some obeyed the gospel, believing they could so do and maintain their present marriage. Some did not obey the gospel, believing they must repent of and cease an obvious, unlawful, adulterous union and were not willing to do so (Matt. 14:1-12; Mk. 6:14-29). Some, in second (or even third) marriages, claimed and affirmed scriptural grounds for their previous divorce(s) and remarriage(s) and were received into fellowship in the congregation by the elders and/or conscientious brethren. In some cases fellowship was denied to divorced and remarried people on the bases of their statements and histories as conveyed in their own words, brethren believing such ones were in an obvious adulterous, unscriptural union. From time to time I have participated in withdrawing congregational fellowship from a brother or sister believed, by overwhelming evidence, to be involved in an adulterous marriage. From time to time I have had to determine my own personal fellowship and relationship with a brother or sister as regarding their conduct, teaching and practice. These are the only two areas of fellowship existing between brethren in Christ (i.e., congregational and personal). Both are areas of judgments, governed and exercised through our knowledge and understanding of our Father’s will in the New Testament, and in the light of our knowledge and understanding of the facts, events and circumstances of the people involved. We must always deal with others in such matters in a sincere, impartial, kind, just and brotherly manner, insofar as is humanly possible.

In spite of our best efforts, errors are and will be made. Sometimes people do not speak the truth, deceiving those who are listening, teaching and trying to help. No doubt there are people in fellowship in some local churches who should not be fellowshipped and are, in fact, living in adulterous unions. No doubt there are cases where people should have been received into fellowship and were not. None of us is omniscient in these matters. None of us can know all of the events, thoughts, words, attitudes and deeds which have made marriage(s) to be happy and permanent, and, to the contrary, which have destroyed marriage(s). Only our God and Father in heaven knows all and understands all that transpires in anyone’s marriage. None of us is authorized to be detectives by our Lord. There are no God-ordained brotherhood investigative agencies nor agents. There are no official boards of biblical interpretation nor brotherhood regulatory bodies, authorized by Jesus the Master, to tell us what we must believe, teach or practice. There is no man or group of men who are empowered to tell a local congregation or an individual Christian who may be fellowshipped and who must not be fellowshipped. Our Lord and the inspired apostles of Jesus were the only revealers, interpreters and enforcers of God’s truths. No man or group of men are authorized to hang “the yellow tag of quarantine” on any brother or congregation, as was done to many of us in the fifties, sixties and seventies by the Gospel Advocate hierarchy in Nashville, Tennessee. In the local church the elders watch for souls, feed the flock, and make those judgment decisions regarding the individuals who are fellowshipped or disfellowshipped by and in the congregation (Acts 20:28-3 1; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). All we can know and do in dealing with one another is by what we see hear and are truthfully told by those who have marital problems. And all any one of us can do is to turn people to God’s word, for he is the authority and Lawgiver in such matters and his word is the law. Each person must obey that law by faith to be acceptable to the Father. Each one of us must give account of himself to the Judge at the last day (Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Rom. 14:10-12; Acts 17:30:31).

The first covenants and compacts made between God and man, and between man and his fellow-man, were made in Eden. Man’s relationship to God was established as one of man’s faith in and obedience to his Creator (Gen. 2:8-9,1517). Man’s relationship with his fellow-humans was first established with his companion, his wife (Gen. 2:18-25), as one of total unity, union, communion, commitment, love and loyalty (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Jesus reaffirmed these two basic relationships (Matt. 22:35-40). When men, and nations of men and women, forsake the commandments and covenants of the Almighty, they are compared to adulterers, guilty of spiritual adultery. “The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah, the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? She is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returneth not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord. And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah” (Jer. 3:6-11). When individuals forsake their covenants and commitments in marriage, they are said to be guilty of adultery (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Col. 3:5-6; Eph. 5:3-5; Rom. 7:1-3; Prov. 6:20-35; 7:6-27).

Under Moses’ law the adulterer and adulteress were to be executed (Lev. 20:10; 18:20; Deut. 22:22). Such ones had already come under the sentence of spiritual death, separation from God (Exod. 20:14; Isa. 59:1-2; Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 5:12-14). In the New Testament of God in Christ Jesus (Heb. 1:1-2; Matt. 28:18; 26:28; Heb. 9:15-17), adultery is clearly condemned as sin, as in the Old Testament, and the adulterer or adulteress will not go to heaven (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rev. 21:8,27; 22:15; Heb. 13:4). Adultery is said by Jesus the Lawgiver to be the only cause whereby a man may divorce his wife (or a wife her husband) and marry another (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9). The guilty adulteress (or the guilty adulterer, as the case may be) is not at liberty to remarry. No concession is given by our Master to the immoral person. The innocent partner in a marriage which has been dissolved because of adultery may remarry. But that “innocent party” must be sure that he or she is really innocent and did not by temperament, evil words, ugly attitudes, hurtful deeds and a malignant spirit, drive his companion to distraction, distress, unhappiness, and then unfaithfulness. People violate the fundamentals of God’s will regarding a happy and enduring marriage relationship, fail to cultivate that sweetness and goodness which a marriage must have, and then claim innocence when their companion is unhappy, and then immoral. Adultery, immorality, is never justified, is always sinful, but is sometimes understandable by human wisdom when people have been abused, mistreated and evilly-dealt-with by their marriage companion.

In teaching people regarding the permanency of marriage, I use Genesis 2:18-25; 6:2,5,11-12; Exodus 20:14,17; Leviticus 18:20; 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22; Numbers 25:1-9; 2 Samuel 11:1-27; 1 Kings 11:1-8; Ezra 9:2; 10:2-3,1014,17,44; Nehemiah 13:23-27; Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 5:28-32; 14:1-2; 19:3-9; Mark 6:14-30; 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:10-24; Hebrews 13:4. A marriage is for a lifetime, one man for and with one woman, with death as the only honorable way and reason for the union to be dissolved, and with adultery as the only sinful, dishonorable way and reason for divorce, the innocent partner having a concession to remarry but the guilty may not. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-17, the deserted companion “hath been called to (in) peace” (v. 15). “As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk” (v. 17). “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called” (v. 20). “Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, there in abide with God” (v. 24). 1 have never been able to understand that the apostle is granting another reason for divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:12-17, for the cause of desertion, which almost invariably presupposes adultery on the part of the deserter by those who hold the opinion that desertion is a scriptural ground for divorce and remarriage, in addition to that stated by our Master (Matt. 19:3-9). From the beginning of my Bible studies as a Christian, I have believed the only cause for a divorce is that stated by Jesus our Lord in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, and that his words are a restatement, re-establishment, and a re-affirmation of the Father’s original intent, will, law and purpose in ordaining and permitting marriage in Eden, this most basic of all human relationships.

All other human relationships grow out of this basic one, whether it be families, nations or churches. Where the laws governing this basic and fundamental union are ignored and violated, then all relationships between human beings are affected and deteriorate. Strong, stable, law-abiding nations, families and churches cannot be built upon divorce, division, fornication, adultery, all kinds of immoralities, sins against God’s laws and crimes against the laws of men. Marriage ordained of God is designed for God’s glory and the happiness of human beings. It is instituted by God and not subject to alteration and/or interpretation by men. We cannot separate from our companion at leisure or at our pleasure. It is an offence against God to commit adultery and to destory our marriage. Divorce defeats the wisdom of the Eternal God and the entire purpose of marriage, i.e., the purity of the individual and the honorable introduction of children into society (1 Cor. 7:1-5; Psa. 127:3). God hath joined them together, they are one flesh, and man with all his wisdom, laws, and opinions cannot put them asunder. The holy, permanent relationship of love between two people pledged to each other for life exemplifies and becomes an illustration of the union between Jesus Christ and his redeemed body and saved souls, the church (Eph. 5:22-33). This union between a husband and wife is worthy of the wisdom and knowledge and justice of him who cannot err. It is for the comfort and happiness of those who enter into it. Marriage purifies and perpetuates the tenderest affections of which humans are capable. It inspires, hope, prompts virtue, gives strength to endure hardships of fife, and gives contentment to the souls of those who participate in it as our Father has taught us. Peace, moderation, kindness, compassion, patience and understanding are some of the fruits of a good marriage. Yet there are those who will lightly and unscripturally teach and tell people that their marriages may be dissolved at will, without any heart-felt remorse and repentance, and can enter into a union with someone else, when everything that our Father and our Savior, Jesus, taught us militates against the very idea.

Adultery and divorce mean fraud, deceit, seduction, wicked villainy, and inflict the greatest injury which an innocent husband or wife can experience this side of the grave. The prospects of happiness and comfort in this present world become overcast with the blackest darkness. Life is changed to a lingering death. A house is turned into an empty, premature tomb. Despair replaces hope, and peace and trust expire. “A singular and agonizing procession follows this funeral of departed virtue. Tears stream which no hand can wipe away. Groans ascend which no comforter can charm to peace. Bosoms heave with anguish, which all the balm of Gilead cannot soothe. The object of lamentation is gone forever, and all that remains is living death. Ah, how shall we paint the evils of adultery? The social compact, through every fibre, trembles at its consequences: not only policy, but law; not only law, but nature; not only nature, but religion, deprecate and denounce it: parents and offspring – youth and age – the dead from the tombs – the child from its cradle – creatures scarce alive, and creatures still unborn – the grandshire shivering on the verge of death – the infant quickening in the mother’s womb – all, with one assent, re-echo God, and execrate adultery!” (Charles Phillips, in the case of Brown vs. Blake)

There are such marriages as “adulterous” marriages. Jesus said so (Matt. 5:32; 19:3-9). There is such a sin as “living in adultery.” Paul said so (Col. 3:5-7). These were not single, unmarried people “living in” these sins. King Herod and Herodias were “living in” such an adulterous marriage and it was not lawful (Matt. 14:1-12; Mk. 6:14-29). They are not the only and last ones to do so! If people are to repent, they must change their minds, quit “living in” sinful relationships, and engage only in true, pure, scriptural activities (Matt. 3:2,6,8,11; 4:17; 11:21-22; 12:38-41; 21:28-32; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 13:1-5; 24-46-47; Acts 2:37-41; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30-3 1; 26:20; Rom. 2:1-16; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 2:6-8; 7:8-12; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 6:6; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 2:5,16,21-22; 3:3,19; 9:20-21). If we will not repent, we will perish. Repentance involves renewal of the mind, reformation, restitution and restoration, insomuch and insofar as is humanly possible (Lk. 19:8; Exod. 22:1,3,4,5,6,7,9,12,14; Prov. 6:31).

There are brethren who are now beginning to find room for questionable and/or adulterous marital unions, and for teachers and doctrines which uphold and give credence to such unions, in Romans 14. This is an abuse and a major misuse of this chapter. This chapter deals with matters of opinions, personal scruples, customs, and views which will neither save nor damn the soul in God’s sight. Matters of Romans 14 are not to be disputed about and made tests of fellowship (v. 1; 15:1-4): Eating or not eating certain foods (v. 2-3); observing or not observing certain days (vv. 4-5); circumcising or not circumcising (Acts 16:3; Gal. 5:6); taking vows or not taking vows (Acts 18:18); conforming to custom or not conforming to custom (Acts 21:18-30). The meeting in Jerusalem settled once for all matters of indifference (Acts 15:1,5-6,24,28), and essential matters necessary to the salvation of the soul (Acts 15:19-20,29). Paul’s principles and practices, as delineated in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, are entirely consistent with Romans 14. Every child of God is to quietly observe his conscience (vv. 22-23). We are not to cause a brother to stumble by our scruples (vv. 20-21). God accepts his children and will make them stand (vv. 3,18). We shall all give account for our opinions, scruples, etc. (vv. 10-12). We are to be peaceable, build up the body of Christ, and not tear it down (vv. 13,15,19-21). Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit characterize our service and citizenship in God’s kingdom. To “all speak the same thing, and there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10) is the ideal to strive for, and each of us is to endeavor to think this way and work for that unity which such thoughts and practices produce (Eph. 4:1-3; Phil. 2:2-4,14-15; Col. 3:12-15; Rom. 14:17-19). The cause of truth would better be served if there were no opinions, scruples, conscientious convictions, customs, and matters of human judgment as are regulated in Romans 14. But such problems have ever been present among brethren, and, I suppose, ever will be. They are always a hinderance, not a help, to the cause of Christ. Romans 14 governs and regulates such conditions and circumstances.

Adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, uncleanness, idolatry, denominationalism, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Mariolatry, Popery, sprinkling for baptism, infant church membership, instrumental music in worship, centralization of churches in super-centralized boards and elderships, human institutions as adjuncts to the Lord’s churches, the social gospel, etc., along with marriages which violate God’s revealed will, can never be acceptable areas of inclusion and discussion as lawful and legitimate matters regulated by principles of Romans 14.

Would to God that all of us could and would speak as one mind and one voice, according to God’s revealed will, on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. If ever there was a time when the world needs clear, unvarnished, plain truth of the New Testament, it is now. If ever there was a time when churches of our Lord need to be pure within, and set forth an example of righteousness in word and deed, it is now. If ever there was a time when sinners could find rest and peace to their souls through the power of God in the gospel, and comfort of the Spirit in fellowship with godly men and women, it is now. If ever God gave humans the privileges and opportunities of preaching the gospel to all the world of lost souls, it is now. But if our sounds be uncertain, and if we believe and/or think that God’s word cannot be understood, on marriage as well as any other vital subject, then we are destined, as a body of people, to degenerate into a warring, factious, fractious, sect which has nothing to offer a sin-cursed world but confusion and chaos. Let us discuss the truth among ourselves, if need be, in brotherly kindness and patience. No one of us knows everything and no one of us has all the answers. God does. So we must, each of us, try to study, learn and understand his will. Then each of us will have to determine who we will fellowship, and each local congregation will have to determine who will be fellowshipped and who will not. And then we shall all answer to our Father and our Judge, Jesus Christ, at the last day for all that we thought, said, taught and practiced while here we lived, trying to do his will as best we could. May he be merciful to us all now – and at that last great day.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 1, 33-35
January 4, 1990

By Elmer Moore

The meaning of words is of prime importance when these are used as a means of communication. If one does not know the meaning of words used in a discourse or manuscript, he does not know the thought of the speaker or writer. The Bible is a document that is made known through the medium of words (Eph. 3:1-5). It behooves every earnest student of the Scriptures to endeavor to understand what a writer meant by the word or words he used. Especially is this true of words over which controversy has arisen. To illustrate this fact I call attention to the word baptism. Every student of the Bible knows the importance of understanding this word in the way it is used in the Bible.

Men who are interested in the truth will want to know what a word meant when it was used by a certain writer, and how it was understood by those addressed. Then, and only then, is one qualified to make an application. I believe that it is a foregone conclusion that we must endeavor to understand what a writer (of any document) meant when he wrote, and how those to whom it was written understood. We have witnessed in our generation failures at this point (for instance, the attitudes of the Supreme Court and the Constitution of these United States). I am convinced we have seen men decide a matter on the basis of present interest and need rather than on the actual intent of the Constitution. Brethren, are we doing this very thing regarding the marriage and divorce issue? Are we interpreting Q) certain passages because of a present interest and need rather than the actual intent of the passage? If so, we are making a tragic mistake by interpreting Scripture from sinister motives. With this in n-dnd we approach a study of words used in regard to the “marriage” question. It shall be our purpose to learn how those words are used in the Scriptures.

There are seven words that this article will address. They are: (1) Marriage, (2) Divorce, (3) Bound, (4) Loosed, (5) Bondage, (6) Adultery, and (7) Fornication. We shall note them in this order.

Marriage

Marriage is a family relationship that has been established by a covenant. In discussing the marriage relationship involving husband and wife, God said, “. . . yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant” (Mal. 2:14). Marriage is a covenant that involves terms, promises, and ratification. The terms involve those who have the God-given right to enter into this relationship (the specifics of which will be discussed by others). This covenant involves promises to love, and remain faithful to a mate. This covenant is ratified when whatever is legal in society has been met (Rom. 13:1). The New Testament reveals that there are those whom God identifies as married that “committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9), because they are still bound to another. The New Testament also reveals the fact that one may be unmarried but still bound to a mate (1 Cor. 7:11). Hence, marriage involves a man and woman who have entered into this covenant relationship. This may be with or without God’s approval.

Divorce

A divorce takes place when this marriage covenant has been dissolved. In our present society a divorce occurs when a legal decree has been issued. This seems to accord with the Bible use of the term (Deut. 24:1). The word basically means to “to let loose from, let go free” (W.E. Vine, p. 331). Like the marriage covenant, this may be with or without God’s approval.

The words “put away” describe what takes place when a divorce occurs. The original for “put away” is “used of divorce, as to dismiss from the house” (J.H. Thayer, p. 66). The King James Version agrees with this. “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32). Jesus uses the terms put away and divorce interchangeably. In this passage, the one who is put away is the one who is divorced. In other words to put away means “to set free, let go” (W.E. Vine, p. 918).

Bound-Loosed

I shall take the liberty of discussing these two words together. They are used in the same passage and are set in contrast to each other (1 Cor. 7:27); a contrast where opposites occur. When such is the case one can know the meaning of both words if he can learn the meaning of either; for the one would be the opposite of the other. The word “bound” is used three times with reference to marriage (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:27,39). The word is defined to mean, “to bind, i.e., put under obligation, sc. (to wit, e.m.) of law, duty etc.” Also, “to be bound to one” (J.H. Thayer, p. 131). Thayer cites the three passages listed above with reference to a husband and wife. Thus the word “bound” carries with it the idea of being under obligation to a mate with respect of law and duty. Please note that this is the way that Paul is using the term in the above passages. Compare Romans 7:2, “For the woman that hath a husband is bound (under obligation to her husband regarding duty enjoined) by law to the husband while he liveth.” To be “loosed” is the opposite of being bound. The term “loosed” is used in 1 Corinthians 7:27 as the opposite of being “bound”; hence, it means not under obligation regarding duty enjoined in marriage.

Bondage

The word translated “bondage,” which occurs in 1 Corinthians 7:15, is listed by J.H. Thayer in the following passages: Acts 7:6; 2 Peter 2:19; 1 Corinthians 9:19; Romans 6:18,22; Galatians 4:3; Titus 2:3. Thayer defines the word to mean “to make a slave of, reduce to bondage.” He lists Acts 7:6 and 2 Peter 2:19 under this definition. He further notes: “b. Metaph.: To be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter, 1 Cor. 7:15” (p. 158). It is of importance to note that Paul did not use the same word that he did in vv. 27,29, translated “bound.” He certainly knew this word and had he intended to describe the marriage bond, he would have used it. In order to get remarriage in this passage, I am convinced that some have interpreted it in view of present interest and need! However, this verse will be discussed in another article.

Adultery-Fornication

This brings us to the words “adultery” and “fornication.” One would have difficulty in showing any significant difference in these words. Fornication is a term that includes all kinds of illicit sexual relationships. Thayer defines the term to mean “properly illicit sexual intercourse in general.” He goes on to show that the word included those who sell their bodies for sexual uses, whether male or female (pp. 531-532). He defines the word “adultery” to mean, “to have unlawful intercourse with someone else’s wife, to commit adultery.”

In 1 Corinthians 5:1 a married person is said to be guilty of fornication. Hence, the idea that the word “fornication” means only sex on the part of the unmarried is incorrect. I have no intention to enter upon a discussion of the age old controversy about the technical difference between these words. They are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes are distinct. That both of these terms involve sexual intercourse in their literal meaning is undeniable. It appears that the word “fornication” is a more inclusive term than adultery, including all sins of an illicit sexual act.

The idea that “adultery” describes the act of entering an unlawful marriage, and not that of continuing in it and sexually cohabiting, is without scriptural foundation. We are supposed to believe by this reasoning that the sin involved is that of entering a marriage rather than sexual cohabitation. According to this theory, one may obtain forgiveness for entering this marriage and then he may remain in it, and the actual sexual acts are not involved. My friends, one has to re-define adultery to come up with such an idea. I suppose that the woman of John 8 who was taken in the act of adultery was actually involved in finalizing a marriage ceremony!

I have tried to look at how these terms are used in the New Testament, to understand what they meant at the time they occurred in the sacred text. I only ask that you examine the text where they occur and see if I have succeeded.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 2, 32
January 4, 1990

By Jack L. Holt

In Romans 7:2, the Holy Spirit tells us that “the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies she is released from the law concerning her husband.” The Holy Spirit is not teaching a lesson on the marriage bond as such, but is merely using the marriage relationship to teach the Jew a lesson on his relationship to the law and to Christ. The law by which the wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives is the universal law of marriage given to the world in Genesis 2:22-24.

Jesus confirms this truth in Matthew 19:1-9. In his teaching on marriage and divorce he turned to Genesis 2:22-24 and proved that the marriage law given by God in the beginning is the law for all men for all time. That blessed law has never needed, nor does it now need, revision. It needs to be accepted, highly honored, esteemed (Heb. 13:4) and obeyed by all men. Divorce and putting away has never been the will of God for any people at any time. Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” (v. 8).

There is no power or authority on earth that can really part what God hath joined together. The “one flesh” statement in Genesis 2:24 forbids divorce. This was understood by the Jews in Moses’ day. If God’s marriage law as given in the beginning didn’t forbid divorce, why would Moses need to grant permission to divorce? The Jew could have asked, “Where is the law that forbids it?” When God gave the law of Moses, he didn’t give a new law on marriage and divorce. The marriage and divorce law given in the beginning was still God’s law for the world as well as for the Jews. A question, “What marriage law were the Jews under while they were in Egypt?” Did that law permit divorce? If it didn’t permit it then, since the world is still under that law does it permit it now? The fact that Moses gave a law permitting divorce shows that it was not permitted before! Those who divorced violated Genesis 2:24. Jesus taught that divorce as permitted by Moses was not that way in the beginning.

Jesus said, “For this cause (that is, to become one flesh) shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5). This is the law that binds a married woman to her husband (and vice versa) as long as they both shall live. What God joined together, let not man put asunder. The only way that one flesh relationship can be put asunder is by immorality which frees the innocent party to marry again without committing adultery. There is no human court or legislative body that can actually part what God joined together. This act of God in joining a male and female together, the only joining together that can be truly called marriage, can’t be repealed by man.

When God in his infinite wisdom thought it better to create than not to create, he employed his wisdom and power to bring to pass what he willed (Rev. 4:11). In his mind the world stood complete as a habitation for mankind that he would create and place upon the earth. In creating mankind God had the sexual relationship in his mind before they were created. So mankind was created male and female. But God placed the sexual relationship within the bounds of “holy matrimony.” His law for all mankind for all time is stated in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.”

It is to this law given in the beginning that God refers in Romans 7:2, “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband.” The expression, “is bound,” refers to an action that has already taken place with the results continuing. God says the married woman is bound by his marriage law unto her husband until he dies (the exception mentioned in Matt. 19:9 is not included in Paul’s illustration).

This is the one flesh marriage law God gave in the beginning. God gave an exception to his marriage law, but he exempts no one from it. God alone has the right to amend his laws. Only God can speak for God. God the Son, gave the exception to the “one flesh” binding of Genesis 2:24. Jesus placed his teaching on the exception “except it be for fornication” in the scriptural context of God’s marriage law given to the world. What right do men have to take it out of that context and limit it to the church? This humanly devised imposition on the text of God’s holy word is a pretext!

But nowadays, men arrogate to themselves the right to amend God’s holy law of marriage so they can fit it into the changing times and ideals of a sinful world. They sit in judgment on the holy laws of the eternal God, declare that they are obsolete and unmerciful for the modern age, and then try to bend the Scriptures to fit their theory. God’s laws and God’s servants don’t bend! Man’s immorality will not unsettle God’s settled laws, nor cause them to pass away and the Scripture still cannot be broken (Psa. 11:89; Matt. 24:35; Jn. 10:35). God says, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.” The Son says, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” Do you hear him or man?

The only way God joins a man and woman together in the one flesh arrangement is within the marriage relationship given in the beginning. As all mankind were under that law then, so are they today. The first polygamist mentioned in Scripture came from the rebellious family of Cain (Gen. 4:19). Then as men multiplied upon the earth, the “sons of God” saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took wives of all they chose. They ignored God’s marriage law, but God didn’t ignore their sin. One of the sins that brought on the flood to cleanse a world guilty before God was a violation of God’s marriage law.

Any nation that holds in contempt the Creator’s law of marriage given in the beginning invites ruin. Nations stand or fall in respect to their attitude towards God’s marriage law. The life of Israel in the land of Canaan was conditioned upon their fidelity to God’s marriage and divorce laws that protected the home (Deut. 6).

Marriage is a holy institution given by God to the world in a pure state. As only God, by his law of marriage can join male and female together, only God by his law can put that one flesh relationship apart. Men may play God and grant separations but human laws can never put asunder what God joined together. One may as well try to unsave one God has saved.

One good thing about this teaching that says the world is not under the marriage and divorce laws of God is that the world in general doesn’t believe it! And I am glad that the brethren who do believe it don’t preach it to the world for that teaching is subversive to society and will encourage the breakup of the home.

One has written these words that set forth very clearly the fact that “marriage should be held in honor among all men and the bed undefiled. ” After quoting Genesis 2:24, he wrote, “This marks the divine origin of the home, that institution upon which the greatness or baseness of every nation must eventually rest. As is the home so is the nation. Let the ideals of the home be high, its morals clean, its conduct chaste, and the nation will be noble and honorable.” (How so, if aliens can marry and divorce as they please with no guilt?) Further, “In the divine plan there was one man with one woman created as his companion and counterpart. It was always (all emp. mine, JLH) God’s intention that there should be one woman for one man and one man for one woman while both were alive (so bound by law as long as liveth, Rom. 7:2). It was and is God who joins the two, thus making them one in their purpose, ideals aims and work. . . The final word regarding this sacred permanence and unity was spoken by Jesus Christ when he said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). . . Throughout the Bible (thus in every age, JLH) God’s displeasure is manifested against unchaste behavior of husbands and wives, against divorce and the sins that lead to divorce. (Are aliens included in this?) Lack of respect for the divine origin of marriage and for God’s standards for the home have led to broken homes, untold sorrow, suffering and demoralization throughout the history of mankind. Here is a point all the world needs to consider in this present age. ” (Why, since as some claim the world is not subject to God’s marriage and divorce laws?) “Where can a higher or more noble standard be found than the one established by the Bible? Nowhere, for there is none. (But now some say that standard is only for the church!) Marriage came from God and back of it is a divine purpose. To accomplish that purpose marriage must be regulated by God’s divine laws – laws enacted for its permanence and our happiness” (Homer Hailey, From Creation To The Day Of Eternity, pp. 23-24).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 9-10
January 4, 1990