Truth Magazine

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

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