Truth Magazine

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

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