Truth Magazine

By Ron Holbrook

What regulations on divorce and remarriage were given in the Mosaic legislation recorded in Deuteronomy 24? What role did these regulations play in the teaching of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12? In answering the Pharisees as to whether it is “lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause,” Jesus reminded them that “at the beginning” God made one man for one woman for a lifetime. When God ordained the marriage relationship, he did not intend for a man and a woman to be “put asunder” after he joined them together. Jesus indicated that the Pharisees could have learned all of this by reading the book of Genesis.

At some point, as the discussion continued, Jesus asked, “What did Moses command you?” “‘And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away,” referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Thinking that this legislation somehow countered what Jesus taught and put themselves in a more favorable light, the Pharisees pressed Jesus to explain why Moses commanded it. The answer further exposed their ignorance and put them, rather than Jesus, into a more difficult position. Jesus said that “because of the hardness of your hearts” Moses wrote “this precept.”

For the Hardness of Your Heart

Jesus meant that many of the Jews of this time were like their forefathers in that they stubbornly resisted God’s original ideal for marriage and the home. That ideal was 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.” The rule one man for one woman for a lifetime excluded homosexuality, bestiality, all forms of bigamy and polygamy, concubinage, and all cases of divorce (except where the one-flesh union was violated and desecrated).

Suffered You to Put Away Your Wives

The marriage institution was nearly in shambles when God brought his people out of Egypt, Adultery, polygamy, and wide-open divorce were common. Women suffered many abuses without recourse or protection. God reinforced the original ideal of Genesis 2:24 by condemning adultery with capital punishment for both parties involved. “The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 20:14,17; Lev. 20: 10; Deut. 22:22). In such cases, God required the bond of Genesis 2:24 to be broken whether the innocent partner wished it or not, and he made certain the guilty parties would never take another victim either in marriage or in adultery.

Polygamy and divorce fell short of Genesis 2:24 but God dealt differently with these abuses because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. Like a zoning board does at times, God allowed a variance, yet he regulated and hedged the variance with severe limitations. God tolerated their hardness of heart with grief. Their stubborn practices contributed to the moral weakness and national decline of Israel, just as such practices affected other nations. The monarchy illustrates this process. “I gave thee a king in mine anger; and took him away in my wrath.” By letting them suffer the consequences of their own folly, God taught his people to trust in himself alone and not in the arm of flesh (Hos. 13:9-11).

Polygamy. When a man took “another wife,” he could not diminish his obligations to the first wife (Exod. 21:10). This financial burden tended to limit polygamy to a few of the wealthier people. If a less favored wife bore the man’s firstborn, “the right of the firstborn is his” and could not be transferred to the son of a more favored wife (Deut. 21:15-17). Other complications arose out of the experience of polygamy, including bitter rivalry, jealousy, and provocations among the wives taken (Gen. 29:30; 1 Sam. 1:4-7).

Divorce. Deuteronomy 24:14 was God’s way of curbing the divorce craze. Men took women and sent them away at will. Woman was treated as property and the pawn of man’s unbridled passion with no recourse or protection. God certainly did not initiate the longstanding custom of loose divorcing but he determined to restrain their reckless practices, to regulate their stubbornness, and to soften the abuses suffered by women. Deuteronomy 24 was the inspired order, command, or precept of God through his prophet Moses. This revelation did not demand divorce but was permissive, variance, or contingency legislation (cf. Matt. 19:7-8; Mk. 10:3-5). As with polygamy, if a man was determined to divorce his wife in spite of God’s ideal for marriage, it would be permitted only within severe, prescribed limitations. The passage said,

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that he 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. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance (King James Version).

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. This would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance (New International Version).

This passage does at least four things to circumscribe and discourage divorce. The variance was tolerated with very stringent restrictions.

1. It decreased the reasons for divorce to matters of shameful indecency. The exact expression used in Deuteronomy 24:1 is very rare, being used in 23:14 of human excrement. The famous Old Testament scholar S. Driver said, That the indecency denotes something short of actual unchastity may be inferred from the fact that for this a different penalty is enacted, viz., death (22:22); in 23:25 (14), also, the same expression is used, not of what is immoral, but only of what is unbecoming (Commentary on Deuteronomy in International Critical Commentary series).W.L. Alexander in the Pulpit Commentary and C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch in their well-known commentary concur. Matters of shameful indecency short of adultery might include the suggestive, seductive, and vulgar conduct which leads to adultery (Prov. 7).

2. To give the wife a document of divorce was to permit her to become another man’s wife. The original husband could not alternately send his wife away and then demand her return according to his moods, whims, and fancies. The terms for divorce emphasize the abuse and injustice perpetrated against her – “hewing off, cutting off, sc. from the man, with whom the wife was to be one flesh” (Keil & Delitzsch). Her recourse of marrying another man would cause her husband to think twice before sending her away.

3. It prohibited the man from ever having her back after she remarried. Even if her second mate divorced her or died, the first man could not call her back. God by this provision encouraged his people to rise above their hardness of heart so as to avoid rupturing the marriage tie. This caused the man to reconsider before divorcing even when provoked, or to be reconciled before his divorced wife married another man. His wife would more readily be modest and submissive “to avoid furnishing him with an inducement for divorce” (Keil and Delitzsch).

4. The whole nation would collapse if men defied God’s prohibition by taking their divorced wives back after the second marriage. The insistence on divorcing their wives in the first place worked against the moral stamina of the nation. The wife’s permission to remarry gave her some recourse but also left her in a position which fell short of God’s marital ideal. The men who caused their wives to suffer the stigma of a second marriage were forbidden from having them back upon pain of national destruction. Her defilement in this situation anticipates and approaches the teaching of Christ which stated that a man who puts away his wife in the absence of adultery causes her to remarry into an adulterous union.

Additional Laws and Limitations. 1. Deuteronomy 21:10-14. A woman taken in war could be married, but “if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will” (as per Deut. 24). She could not be a Canaanite (7:3).

2. Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If a man reported that his wife was not a virgin when he married her, the tokens of virginity could be produced in her defense. Among other consequences, “he may not put her away all his days.” In other words, a man who shows he is looking for a pretext to put away his wife could not utilize Deuteronomy 24. If no tokens of virginity were produced, she was put to death. This shows that the “uncleanness” of 24:1 was not the discovery that she was not a virgin at marriage.

3. Deuteronomy 22.28-29. A man who raped a virgin was expected to marry her, “and he may not put her away all his days.” The provision of 24:1-4 was not designed to accommodate every whim and passion of men with abusive attitudes toward women.

4. Numbers 5:11-31. In order to execute a man and a woman for adultery, witnesses had to be produced, and they must cast the first stones (Deut. 22:22; 17:6-7; 19:15; Jn. 8:5). If a man suspected his wife of adultery but found “no witnesses against her,” the priest gave her “bitter water” to drink. If she was innocent, nothing happened. If guilty, she suffered a horrible death by the miraculous rotting of her entrails (cf. Acts 12:23). The Jews may have resorted to the use of Deuteronomy 24 to put away a suspected adulteress rather than to face the ordeal of the bitter water (Albert Barnes). Such circumventing of the Law would in some cases release immoral women to remarry and in other cases leave a cloud of suspicion over innocent women who could have been easily cleared of unfounded charges.

Summary

God hated adultery, polygamy, and divorce as falling short of his ideal of one man for one woman for a lifetime. The Law of Moses insured that the parties guilty of adultery were severed from their marriage, barred from remarriage, and prevented from repeating their immorality. The death penalty opened the way for the innocent party to remarry but made certain the guilty never could. God did not institute polygamy nor initate the custom of loose divorce, but he severely regulated and restrained these practices until a time when he could eliminate them.

I Say Unto You

By his own authority Jesus reaffirmed the ideal of Genesis 2:24 in such a manner as to eliminate both polygamy and divorce (except where the sanctity of the bond is violated). All such practices are excluded by the rule of one man for one woman for life.

As Jesus announced his coming kingdom in Matthew 5-7, he spoke of its blessing, the character of its citizens, and his law for mankind. His teaching was purer than that of the scribes and Pharisees who made loopholes in the Law of Moses; he taught a proper respect for the Law. More than that, his teaching made the highest ideals of the Law clearer andplainer in practical application than they had ever been before. Moreover, he went in advance of the Law itself, speaking with the personal authority of a prophet like unto Moses in stature. He did not speak as a mere interpreter of Moses like the rabbis and scholars of the Law. “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28-29).

Some incorrectly suggest that Jesus referred to certain garbled misinterpretations of the Law and not to the Law itself when he said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time.” Plummer notes in his commentary on Matthew that Jesus addressed a mixed and unlettered crowd who depended for “their knowledge of the Law” upon “public instruction in the synagogues, where the letter of the Law was faithfully read.” “When he is addressing the educated classes, Pharisees or Scribes or Sadducees, Christ says, ‘Have ye not readT (12:3,5; 21:16,42; 22:31).”

Jesus made a succinct reference to Deuteronomy 24 and then rescinded its provision, speaking as one who had authority equal to and higher than that of Moses:

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 (Matt. 5:31-32).

The law of Christ would no longer allow the variance tolerated under Moses’ Law. If a man puts away his wife for any reason other than fornication, he causes her to commit adultery when she marries another. The differences between Moses and Christ can be summarized as follows:

Moses

1. Fornicator put away by death penalty – not marry another.

2. Man permitted to put away wife for conduct short of fornication.

3. Woman put away for cause other than fornication not said to be in adultery if marries another.

4. Man she marries not said to be in adultery.

5. First husband barred from ever getting her back if she remarries.

Christ

1. Fornicator put away by divorce – not marry another.

2. Man not permitted to put away wife for conduct short of fornication.

3. Woman put away for cause other than fornication said to be in adultery if marries another.

4. Man she marries said to be in adultery.

5. First husband barred from ever getting her back if from ever getting her back if she remarries.

Alluding to Deuteronomy 24 in the light of their own sectarian controversy, the Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matt. 19:3) Jewish rabbis and sects had so perverted the Mosaic regulation as to practically nullify God’s law on marriage. The school of Hillel broadened “uncleanness” to include anything the man considered displeasing. Following this school, Josephus said that a man can “be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men),” leaving her “at liberty to marry another husband” (Josephus, W. Whiston, transl., “Antiquities of the Jews,” Book IV, chapt. VIII, Sec. 23, p. 99).

The school of Shammai explained “uncleanness” as adultery. Both schools taught that the one put away could remarry. Thus Hillel nullified the restraints enacted by Deuteronomy 24 and Shammai nullified the death penalty of 22:22.

Jesus said neither school understood God’s original institution of one man for one woman for life. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4-6). When the Pharisees asked why Moses allowed a variance, Jesus said that God did not institute their easy divorces but only regulated their stubborn abuses. “From the beginning it was not so.” From the beginning until now, God’s ideal and intentionsfor marriage have never changed. On this basis, Jesus announced by his authority the end of the Mosaic regulation with its temporary concessions (vv. 8-9).

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 (Matt. 19:9).

God wants no divorces. He makes one exception where the sanctity of the marital union is desecrated by fornication – any form of unlawful sexual intercourse. In that case, the innocent party may put away the immoral person and marry another without committing adultery. The guilty party is given no such authority to marry another.

God does the joining together only when a marriage is approved by his law. When a man puts away his wife without the one scriptural cause, and marries another, it is marriage only in a human sense but is not the marriage of Matthew 19.4-6. So long as they continue in this relationship, it is adulterous. Likewise, when a man puts away his wife without cause, God does not release either party from the bonds and obligations of marriage by which he joined them together. When there is a divorce for the one scriptural cause, then and only then does God dissolve the union he joined together. God set the conditions for joining and God sets the conditions for dissolving. Among the class of those who are divorced, God authorized only the innocent mate who divorced a fornicator to remarry, thus excluding all other persons and cases, including the divorced fornicator.

Conclusion

By returning to the original foundation laid in Genesis 2:24, Jesus taught that marriage means one man for one woman for a lifetime. His teaching rises above all the abuses and perversions of the past, and above even the temporary variances which tolerated polygamy and divorce for a cause short of adultery. Two people joined by God in marriage are bound for life, the only exception being that an innocent partner may put away a mate guilty of fornication and remarry.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 3-6
January 4, 1990

By H.E. Phillips

“Does baptism wash away past unlawful marriages?” That is the subject assigned to me for this special issue. I first heard of this idea many years ago, but not much was said about it until the last few years. Some men have always done what they wanted to do, regardless of what the Lord said. Any practice that transgresses God’s word and involves a lot of people will somehow be “justified” by those who want to continue in it. A complicated research program will begin amassing “evidence” to prove that the Bible does not mean what it obviously teaches. Thus, justification is found to do that which God’s word does not allow.

The Nature of Marriage

“Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13:4). In the beginning God instituted marriage and regulated it by his word. He did not plan for marriage to be dissolved except by death. Marriage is a physical, fleshly union; it is not a spiritual union. They are no more twain but one flesh (Matt. 19:6). Death ends all marriages (Rom. 7:3). Baptism has nothing to do with our marriage, but it is essential to our spiritual bond in Christ.

Adultery and fornication are sinful just as lying, stealing, murder and idolatry are sinful. These sins are equally applicable to those in Christ and those in the world. Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage results in committing adultery. If a man puts away his wife for fornication, she is guilty of sin (adultery). If he puts her away for any other cause and marries another, he commits adultery; and he causes her to commit adultery. Any man who marries that one who is put away, commits adultery, and there is no exception clause (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11, 12; Lk. 16:18). Any twist or perversion of Scripture that contradicts, modifies or invalidates these plain statements of Jesus is false doctrine.

Now some are teaching that baptism “washes” away all previous unlawful marriages, and the one with whom he/she is married at the time of baptism is the scriptural spouse for the rest of their lives. There is no way that can be true.

What Is Baptism?

The New Testament teaches that baptism is a condition for the forgiveness of sins. Peter and the other apostles told the multitude of people on Pentecost to “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Ananias said to Saul, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). The only thing that baptism “washes” away is the past sins of the penitent believer! Baptism does not provide for forgiveness of future sins – sins not yet committed.

Baptism does not change any human relationship on earth. It changes man’s relationship to God. We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27); into the one body, which is the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22,23). Baptism saves us (1 Pet. 3:21). In baptism we are made free from sin, and become servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:16,17).

All deeds, words and thoughts that are sinful before baptism, are equally sinful after baptism. If a man and woman should engage in sexual sin before baptism, that same act is as sinful after baptism. One who engages in prostitution cannot continue in that sinful conduct after baptism. He/she cannot continue the practice of any sin (Rom. 6:1-18). In like manner, one who puts away his/her spouse for any cause other than fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whosoever marries the put away one commits adultery. Now if that is an adulterous relationship before baptism, it is an adulterous relationship after baptism.

Faith Is Essential to Scriptural Baptism

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew and Greek (Rom. 1:16). The gospel is addressed to all nations alike, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). That means that all men are amenable to the law of Christ, which is the gospel. Hearing the gospel produces faith, which is essential to be baptized (Rom. 10:17).

Repentance Is Essential to Scriptural Baptism

Repentance is a command of God for all men, Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 17:30). One must repent before he can be baptized (Acts 2:38; Lk. 24:47). All men must repent or perish (2 Pet. 3:9). Godly sorrow for sin leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7: 10). The knowledge of the goodness of God leads to repentance (Rom. 2:4). The judgment of God causes men to repent (Acts 17:30,31; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Repentance is a function of the will that resolves to abandon all sin and diligently pursue the will of God. It begins with a knowledge of sin and the conviction that one is a sinner. It is a sincere regret for sin; a resolution to stop sinning nowfl- a reformation of life and a restoration of all things possible to righteous conduct before God.

True repentance does not ask what price is to be paid; there is no desire to save face; no self-justification. The worth and value of past deeds and present standing are worthless. His sins become loathsome and revulsive. He is willing to do anything God requires of him, no matter how painful. Only God’s word will produce true repentance.

A man and woman who are in an unlawful marriage must repent before they can be baptized. What will repentance require of them before they can be scripturally baptized? They must cease the sinning, which means to dissolve the adulterous marriage. Their sin is adultery. John the Baptist told Herod, who had married his brother Phillip’s wife, “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mk. 6:17,18).

Some argue that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is the act of marrying and does not refer to sexual sins. That is not so! Jesus said if a man “looks” on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery already with her in his heart (Matt. 5:28). That is not marriage; it is the act of sexual sin in the heart with the spouse of another.

If baptism washes away unlawful marriages, and makes them right, what about the man who is married to two wives at the same time, may he keep both of his wives after he has been baptized? If not, why not? Which one should he keep, since he had both when he was “baptized”? Does repentance demand that he put away one wife? If unlawful marriages are made right by baptism, why would not the homosexuals who “marry” each other be made right by baptism so that they could continue to live together? Would you baptize two homosexuals who intended to continue living together? The further down this road one goes, the more unbelievable it becomes. Baptism will wash away polygamy and homosexual marriages. It is no wonder that the advocates of this unholy doctrine claim that aliens are not amenable to the law of Christ. If the alien is not amenable to the law of Christ, he is not a sinner. Where there is no law, there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). Sin is the transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4). If he is not under the law of Christ, he does not sin and does not need baptism, and there is no need to talk about what his baptism will wash away. Marriage is not a function of the church, and baptism does nothing to marriage.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 13, 16
January 4, 1990

By Jerry R. Earnhart

Who can treat lightly or with indifference the trauma of divorce? Hearts ache and break. Bearing one another’s burdens, in such cases, is a must (Gal. 6:1). Beyond the inevitable pain of a failed relationship, divorce can also affect one’s future right to remarry. Jesus says, “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 committed adultery” (Matt. 5:32).

By and large, the Jews throughout their history were “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Acts 7:51; cf. Jer. 6: 10). In their blind perversion of many a commandment (cf. Mk. 7:13), they managed to suppress true love for God and their fellow men (cf. Matt. 23:14). In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeatedly makes an issue of this void.

He mentions, for example, a popular male posture toward divorce only to challenge it as being devoid of real love and concern. Jesus was not the first to note this treachery and sound the alarm (Mal. 2:13-16). Having totally misconstrued Deuteronomy 24:1-5 as divine approval of divorce for practically any cause, many a husband in Israel apparently saw his responsibility toward a disfavored wife to be limited to the provision of legal divorce papers (Matt. 5:31). These self-deceived men were oblivious to the fact that they were aiding and abetting other people in the commission of crime, i.e. adultery (Matt. 5:32).

Jesus directed his warning in Matthew 5:32 primarily to the distant accomplice in this crime, namely to the husband who puts away his wife for a cause other than fornication. Nevertheless, one cannot fail to gain valuable instruction from Jesus’ description of the offence itself and of those immediately involved in it. At least three points seem especially significant.

First, the loveless act of the husband in no way diminishes the guilt of his put-away-spouse and the man who marries her. It is rather the gravity of their offence in this second marriage which so effectively demonstrates the culpability of the first husband in his calloused unconcern. However eloquently our emotions might protest, one thing remains clear here. Desertion does not justify remarriage, it can only foster adultery.

Second, one can commit adultery in the act of getting married. From the biblical perspective, i.e. in the Jewish culture of the first century, “to marry” meant to celebrate a wedding feast. The focus of that celebration, as a “natural and integral” part, was upon the coming together of the bride and bridegroom in sexual union. Getting married was not an occasion for legalities. Couples entered into binding contracts at the time of betrothal. From that point on they belonged to each other as husband and wife, although they were yet to be married, i.e., yet to be joined together sexually in the celebration of the wedding feast (cf. Gen. 29:15-30; Matt. 1:18-25). The put-away-woman of Matthew 5:32 does not commit adultery by contracting another marriage, but rather by getting married, i.e., by joining herself sexually to another man, legal formalities notwithstanding.

Third, a person can commit adultery without becoming unfaithful to a marriage covenant. Since “whoever” of Matthew 5:32 cannot be limited to divorcees, even a never-before-married-man can commit adultery in the act of getting married for the first time, namely when he marries such a put-away woman. Adultery has an inherently sexual meaning (cf. Lev. 18:20 with 20: 10 and Prov. 6:29 with 6:32). Here it denotes the sexual relationship with one who is “legally,” but not “rightfully,” a spouse according to Divine purpose.

The principles of Matthew 5:32 apply today, as they did then. However innocent such a put-away spouse might be, celibacy is the only God-approved option apart from reconciliation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:11). Neither we, nor the one in that condition can afford to ignore or deny this burden. Since truth and reality have a way of surviving without our approval, we best shoulder the burden together. Besides, we not only have the assurance of God’s staying power in bearing up under difficulties (cf. 1 Cor. 10: 13; 1 Pet. 5:7; Phil. 4:13), but also the promise of good fruits of that exercise (Jas. 1:24; etc.). Becoming a “eunuch” for the sake of the kingdom of God is not only possible but, if necessary to please God, will prove to be “good,” as well (Rom. 12:2).

Not only do the principles of Matthew 5:32 apply today, but they apply to all such put-away-spouses. This author is aware of no convincing evidence for an exception. Some brethren, however, are convinced that an exception does exist. They believe that God makes a distinction between a believer deserted by a believer and a believer deserted by an unbeliever. Does the believer deserted by an unbeliever indeed have privileges which the believer deserted by a believer does not have?

1 Corinthians 7:15

Efforts to sustain this view generally point to 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. In this passage, Paul is thought to be giving new revelation which would effectively grant the right of remarriage to a believer deserted by an unbeliever. From the perspective of this author, however, the several inferences drawn from this text to support a right of remarriage for desertion are by no means necessary. These unnecessary inferences not only fail to support the desired conclusions, but necessitate the overthrow of various biblical principles, as well.

No need exists to press Paul’s expression, “But to the rest, I say, not the Lord” (v. 12), to mean that Christ never addressed marriage relationships involving unbelievers. Neither the grammar, nor the syntax, nor the context of that statement requirement requires that we view Matthew 5:32 and 19-9 as not being applicable to mixed marriages. However reasonable such an inference might seem, it is not necessary; and if no, necessary, then it remains mere conjecture.

The Lord did in fact address marriages involving unbelievers. Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 do not limit the “whoever” of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 to believers or covenant people. Rather, these statements amplify and apply God’s general law on marriage (found, e.g., iii Matt. 19:4-6). And they do it in a particular case which, unlike the case of Matthew 19:9, Jesus did not personally address. Obviously, for some brethren at least, this case needed clarification.

Judging from the context, which reflects not only a pronounced tendency toward celibacy, even within marriages (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1,5), but also concern regarding the very legitimacy of “mixed” marriages (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14), some Corinthians may have felt a moral compunction to leave their unbelieving mates. Certainly, remarriage is not an issue in Paul’s discussion of “mixed “marriages. Unless it can be conclusively demonstrated by necessary inference, that Paul here touches on remarriage, then efforts to use this passage to support the right of Christians to remarry after desertion by an unbeliever must be abandoned.

Inferences vs. Necessary Inferences

In the context of 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, the only specific information bearing on this matter at all is found in verse 15. At least three inferences are drawn from this passage in an attempt to demonstrate the right of a Christian to remarry after desertion by an unbeliever. First, it is inferred from the phrase, “if the unbelieving one leaves,” that Paul thus describes a divorce which has been finalized. Second, it is inferred from the term “bondage” that Paul speaks of the marriage bond. Third, it is inferred from the expression “not under bondage” that the deserted Christian in a “mixed” marriage is free to remarry.

All of these inferences are crucial. If, for example, the first inference (namely, that Paul describes a finalized divorce) is either not necessary or invalid because of faulty reasoning, then (according to inferences “two” and “three”) we would have the “impossible” case of a Christian whose marriage bond has been dissolved and is free to remarry before the divorce process is complete.

Building a case around an inference which is not demonstrably necessary is risky, if not fatal business. Some infer, e.g., from so-called “household baptisms” (Acts 16:15,33) that early Christians baptized infants by divine authority. It cannot be demonstrated, however, that this inference is a necessary one. On the contrary, both the context of the accounts of “household baptisms” as well as other passages amply demonstrate that infants could not have been involved in those baptisms. Baptism is predicated upon personal faith and repentance (Mk. 16:5,16; Acts 2:38). Infants cannot believe, as all those in the household of the Philippian jailor did (Acts 16:34). Since not all households are blessed with infants, it cannot be necessarily inferred from household baptisms that infants are involved.

Having reminded ourselves of the danger in building a case upon an unnecessary inference, let us now examine the “three” inferences which some draw from 1 Corinthians 7:15. Are they necessary?

Has the Divorce Occurred?

The hypothetical case which Paul projects in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is most naturally understood as a separation in process. All standard English versions properly render the first verb (Greek, chorizetai) in the present tense: “depart” (KJV), “separateth” (ASV), “leaves” (NASB), etc. Paul does not say, “if the unbeliever has departed,” but rather “if the unbelieving one separates himself/herself” (The Interlinear Greek New Testament, A. Marshall).

Of all the translations this author checked (and he emptied a library shelf in the process), none renders “separate” in the perfect or past tense. Fifteen out of twenty-two versions, including the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, and an English translation of the Peshitta (the ancient Syriac translation), render chorizetai in such a way as to suggest that the process of separating is in its earliest stage, existing only in desire or determination. Consider the following examples from a total of fifteen similar ones:

RSV: “if the unbelieving partner desires to separate. . . “

NEB: “if . . . the heathen partner wishes for a separation . . .”

Berkeley: “In case the nonbeliever wants to separate. . . ” Phillips: But if the unbelieving partner decides to separate . . .”

Weymouth: “If separate. . . the unbeliever is determined to separate . . .”

Such translations reflect an awareness of the contrast between “If . . . he consents to dwell with her” (1 Cor. 7:12-13), on the one hand, and “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves,” on the other.

A look at the Greek grammar in 1 Corinthians 7:15 not only confirms the accuracy of the standard versions, but also adds depth to the impression that Paul is describing an incomplete process, i.e. separation in progress. The Greek word, chorizetai (rendered “depart” in the phrase “if she depart”) is present tense and indicative mood. “. . the present tense expresses incompleted action, which action in any given case may be momentary, prolonged, simultaneous, descriptive, repeated, customary, attempted, interrupted, or begun, according to the nature of the case or the meaning of the verb itself” (A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, A.T. Robertson, p. 140). Obviously, from what we have already seen, there is little, if any, evidence among translators of the New Testament that they perceive either the verb or the context to necessarily imply a completed action, i.e. a finalized divorce. On the contrary, they consistently render chorizetai in the present tense.

With these translators, also, not a few exegetes agree. Consider, for example, the following comment on 1 Corinthians 7:15 in The Expositor’s Greek Testament. “But if the unbeliever separates, he may separate – let the separation take its course” (Vol. II, p. 827). A similar note is found in Light From the Greek New Testament by Boyce W. Blackwelder: “In 1 Cor. 7:15 Paul says, ‘If the unbeliever separates himself (chorizetai, present middle indicative), let the separation take its course (chorizetai, present middle imperative). . . ” (p. 74).

There is no evidence that “separate” necessarily implies a “finalized” divorce. That being the case, it cannot be necessarily inferred, either. Without this necessary inference that Paul’s hypothetical case involves “finalized” divorce, “not under bondage” cannot possibly refer to release from the marriage bond. Otherwise, we have the case of a person who isfree to court and marry another, while the divorce from thefirst mate is not yet completed. Are brethren making an argument for remarriage on this passage ready to accept this consequence?

Does “Bondage” Refer to the Marriage Bond?

Now we turn our attention to a second questionable inference drawn from 1 Corinthians 7:15, namely that “bondage” refers to the marriage bond. Since Paul does not mention the marriage bond in this passage, such an idea can only be derived from it by inference. Of course, if this inference is not necessary, because it is not necessarily implied, then we do Paul a grave injustice by putting words in his mouth and thereby implicating him in the approval of remarriage after desertion by an unbeliever.

The expression, “is . . . under bondage,” constitutes one of several English renderings of the Greek verb dedoulotai, from douloo, meaning “to make a slave of, reduce to bondage” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 158). In a specific reference to the word’s usage in 1 Corinthians 7:15, Thayer defines dedoulotai as meaning “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter” (p. 158). According to the same lexicographer, douloo appears eight times in the New Testament, two times in a literal, and six times in a metaphorical sense. Of the five remaining metaphorical usages, none refers to marriage at all, much less to being “bound” by Divine law to a certain partner (cf. Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39).

Several considerations weigh against the inference that douloo, refers to the so-called marriage bond in 1 Corinthians 7:15. First, according to its usage in other contexts, douloo has no history which would indicate that it refers to the marriage bond here. Second, no Greek-English lexicographer suggests that douloo refers to the so-called marriage bond in 1 Corinthians 7:15. Or has this author missed one? Third, based on the nature of the term douloo, as evidenced by its usage in other contexts, the very appropriateness of using douloo in reference to a release from the marriage vow may be seriously challenged.

The word which Paul clearly uses to refer to the binding obligation of marrage vows is not douloo, but rather deo, found in Romans 7:2 and I Corinthians 7:39. Deo literally means “to bind, to tie, fasten. ” In the two passages above, Paul uses this word in a metaphorical sense which, Thayer says, means “to put under obligation, sc. of law, duty, etc.” (p. 131). Accordingly, two people can be bound (deo) to one another in this sense, i.e. by law or duty, though they live thousands of miles apart for decades.

Inherent in the word douloo, however, is the idea of active service toward that person or thing to which one is enslaved, hence requiring in the case of 1 Corinthians 7:15 (“not under bondage”), freedom from the obligation to actively service the unbeliever in some immediate way, not release from the marriage bond. What service could that be? The clue may be found just two chapters removed.

In 1 Corinthians 9:19, Paul speaks of being under bondage to Jews and Gentiles (“I made myself a slave of all,” douloo). Under the influence of the Gospel (cf. Rom. 1:14,15), Paul brought himself under bondage to the lost, not seeking his own “rights” and convenience, but constantly adjusting himself to their personal and communal peculiarities, so as to save some. When, however, these same people rejected his message, his obligation ceased, being no longer under bondage (cf. Acts 13:44-46, 51; 18:6; Matt. 7:6).

In a similir fashion and by the same Spirit, a believer in a “mixed” marriage brings himself under bondage to the unbeliever, in hopes of saving his spouse (cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-6). Concern for the salvation of the unbelieving mate definitely enters into Paul’s discussion of “mixed” marriages (1 Cor. 7:16). When, however, the unbelieving spouse is no longer content to dwell with the believer and thus initiates the process of separation, the case changes dramatically. In such cases, the believer is no longer under bondage, i.e. no longer obligated for the Gospel’s sake to adjust accommodatively to the departing mate, especially in matters peculiar to marriage.

This concept of bondage not only fits wells with the context of 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, but also accords with Paul’s usage of douloo elsewhere. That being the case, one cannot necessarily infer from Paul’s reference to “bondage,” that he has the marriage bond in mind.

In the case of an unbeliever who is content to dwell with the believer, the believer is under bondage. However, in the hypothetical case which Paul describes, namely when the unbeliever initiates the process of separation, the believer never has been and never will be under bondage in the sense of Paul’s declaration in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

Dedoulotai (rendered “under bondage”) is a perfect tense verb in the indicative mood and passive voice. It is difficult to render dedoulotai in our language because “there is no tense in English which notes the present state resultant upon a past action” (Machen’s Greek Grammar, p. 187). “Its basal significance is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination and the existence of its finished product” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, p. 200).

The perfect of douloo reaches back to that point in time when the unbeliever initiated the process of separating and states that from that time forward the believing spouse has not been enslaved so as to be in bondage now. Remember, the unbeliever is in the process either of sending his spouse away or departing himself. That process is in progress, but is yet incomplete. That being true, “not under bondage” cannot mean that the believer is released from the marriage bond so as to be free to remarry.

Conclusion

In cases of divorce, one and the same rule applies to all (Matt. 5:32). A believer in a “mixed” marriage has no privilege which a believer married to a believer does not have. It is proper to draw conclusion from inferences that are necessary, but it is foolish to build a spiritual house on those that are not. May the Lord help us to see the difference and choose the former.

If, as some conclude, believers in “mixed” marriages are, not subject to Jesus’ personal teaching on marriage and-. divorce, then there exists no scriptural grounds whatsoever for them to divorce their mates for fornication, even if those unbelieving spouses in Corinth might have visited the temple prostitutes on a daily basis. Why? Because the only scriptural instruction granting the right to divorce for the cause of fornication is found in that very source, which supposedly does not apply to them, namely in the personal teaching o Jesus (Matt. 5:32 and 19:9). Thus, the believer, having an unbelieving spouse with the daily practice of fornication, would be obligated to remain in the marriage until the unbeliever “departs.” Can you believe that?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 19-22
January 4, 1990

By Paul Earnhart

The love and relationship of marriage is so precious and vital to the human family and to God’s moral and spiritual purposes for them that it is secured behind the high walls of a radical covenant. In our sin and rebellion we have strained against it as if it were a prison rather than a refuge. The marriage covenant as God has ordained it is intended not to deny fulfillment but to make it possible, and to protect the profound joys of marriage against the stupidities of lust selfishness.

In the waning weeks of Jesus’ teaching ministry his enemies had become increasingly desperate in their efforts to publicly destroy him. The Pharisees caught him in the territory of Herod Antipas who had recently divorced his wife in order to marry Herodias and sought to put him in an embarrassing bind by a question about the lawfulness of divorce for every cause (Matt. 19:3-9). It is possible that they were seeking to put Jesus into the same moral strait that had cost John the Baptist his life, but even more likely that they simply wanted him impaled between the radical disagreements of the various Jewish sects. Perhaps, too, having heard what Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:32), they were fishing for a statement so stringent that it would disenchant the masses who had so far followed him so gladly.

What the Pharisees asked was, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” It was a hotly disputed question among the rabbinical schools, one made even hotter by the prevalence of divorce. All based their arguments on Deuteronomy 24, Shammai declaring the unseemly thing” to be unchastity, Hillel finding in the same phrase much broader causes, and Akiba, more loosely than all, resting his case on “if she find no favor in his eyes” (i.e. see a more beautiful woman). Flavious Josephus characterized the law as saying, “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife anymore” (Antiquities, IV, viii, 23).

In his response Jesus makes no reference to the teaching of the rabbinical schools but takes his inquirers directly to the Scripture. He first appeals behind Deuteronomy 24 to God’s original intent for marriage “in the beginning” (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; 5:2). God “made them male and female,” created the two of them for marriage, and destined them out of creation for each other.

The Lord’s second statement is that they become one in the closest possible union. “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” said Adam (Gen. 2:23), and God said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5).

It is abundantly clear that Jesus viewed Genesis 2:24 as a divine ordinance for a life-long union between a man and a woman. The thrust of what he was quoting from Genesis became obvious, even to the Pharisees, and his conclusion inevitable: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 9:6). Divorce by its very nature destroys the permanent bond of intimate love which God intended for every husband and wife.

Jesus had appealed from Deuteronomy to Genesis. The Pharisees appealed from Genesis to Deuteronomy (Matt. 19:7). If marriage was intended to be so permanent, they said, why did Moses “command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?” Jesus “plains Moses’ ordinance (Deut. 24) as a concession which God made to Israel’s hardness of heart, and then runs the Pharisees straight back to Genesis: “but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (19:8,9).

Their question had been, “Is it lawful to divorce your wife for every cause?” His answer was, “No, not for any cause save fornication. All other divorce leads to adultery. That’s how God intended it from the beginning.”

In responding to the Pharisees’ question about the lawfulness of divorce for every cause, Jesus spanned the ages. His answer goes to the very nature of marriage as God first designed it – not for Jews, or for Gentiles, believers, or unbelievers, but for men and women of every race and age. The covenant of marriage was given to man generally and not to Adam and Eve uniquely. It was designed to meet man’s innate need for a mate and to provide a secure haven for the children of the race to come to birth and be nurtured to maturity. The union of a man and woman in marriage was to be an intimate fusing of two personalities into a profound oneness. Jesus, in appealing to Moses’ record of the beginning of things, is answering the Pharisees in terms of God’s original purpose. Marriage, as the product of divine creation, arises from the holy nature of God and addresses the fixed realities of the nature of man. It cannot, therefore, be changed at a whim, and any effort on our part to do so puts us hopelessly at war with both the nature of God and the nature of the universe he created.

From the beginning, God’s rule of men has been universal (Psa. 22:28) and all men have been expected to worship and serve him (Psa. 22:27; 96:1,8-9; Acts 17:26-27). The basis of God’s moral rule is his own unchanging righteousness (Psa. 119:137,142; Mal. 3:6). The eternal moral principles governing marriage and sexual intimacy have been in place “from the beginning.” If for reasons of his own God has suffered some momentary exceptions to these unchanging principles, those exceptions do not invalidate the principles. They have come to absolute expression in the universal reign of Christ (Jn. 1:14,17; 17:2; 28:18). The! Son of God does not have one set of moral standards by which to rule alien sinners and another by which to govern saints. His moral expectations for kingdom citizens represent his expectations for all men. They are the standard of righteousness to which all men are called. If we submit to Christ they will guide us (Matt. 7:26), if we reject him they will judge us (Jn. 12:48; Matt. 7:26). “. . . knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other things contrary to the sound doctrine: according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:9-11). God’s original design for marriage and his consequent attitude toward divorce, must then be normative for men and women of all times.

It is on the issue of universality that the most serious effort has been made to break the force of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. This approach says that Matthew 19:9 applies only to the Christian and not to the unconverted. The fact that Jesus’ words were first spoken in answer to a question asked by unconverted Jews should raise some serious questions about such a position. The even more critical fact that Jesus appealed to God’s original and universal marriage law as the foundation for his answer ought to raise even more doubt. The truth is that the context of Matthew 19.9 serves to leave the Lord’s “whosover” just as universal as it appears on its face to be. As to the extension in history of God’s original marriage ordinance, Jesus makes clear that what God did “in the beginning” has been in force “from the beginning.” As brother Franklin Puckett once observed, “On the basis of the fact that we have found this statement appealed to under every dispensation of time, I conclude that the law was a universal aspect and in reality was the will of God unto all men under all ages and dispensations” (The Sower, 12-76).

But, it is argued, a different law of marriage must have been in effect for everyone after Adam since not only divorce but even polygamy was tolerated by God in men like Abraham, David and others. Jesus addressed that issue in his discussion with the Pharisees and found no difficulty in saying that, whatever God may have tolerated in the past, that there had never been and would not be any other answer out of God’s will about divorce than that which was given in the beginning and which he was giving now – for one cause only – fornication. This is his answer to his detractors, not because they are Jews but because they are men and subject to the rule of their Creator.

Those who use the aberrant marriage practices of Old Testament people to prove the existence of what they imagine to be a separate moral law for those who are not Christians are yet not willing to receive polygamous marriages into the kingdom of God though they want to receive the marriages of those who have been divorced and remarried for every cause. They have yet to explain what the exact parameters of this second tier marriage covenant is, whether it authorizes divorce for every cause or certain specified causes, whether it authorizes only monogamous or both monogamous and polygamous marriages. This is not an academic question. If their position is true, only by knowing exactly what God’s marriage law to the unsaved is can we know what relationships ought to be received without question when they come to the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise, we are acting merely on whim, not principle.

The central problem of this position is that at best this other, different, moral law exists only as an inference and that far from a necessary one. It appears to be a construct borne of the anguish of a tragic social problem. We are not untouched. Sin ravages. But for Jesus there never had been nor ever would be any other will of God for marriage (and divorce) than that which he stated so explicitly to the Pharisees. We need to rest confidently and trustingly in what the Lord of our lives has taught us, about his and all other matters.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 7-8
January 4, 1990