Truth Magazine

By Jerry R. Earnhart

Who can treat lightly or with indifference the trauma of divorce? Hearts ache and break. Bearing one another’s burdens, in such cases, is a must (Gal. 6:1). Beyond the inevitable pain of a failed relationship, divorce can also affect one’s future right to remarry. Jesus says, “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committed adultery” (Matt. 5:32).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 7:15

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

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

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

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

Inferences vs. Necessary Inferences

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

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

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

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

Has the Divorce Occurred?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does “Bondage” Refer to the Marriage Bond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

By Paul Earnhart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Harry R. Osborne

For over a century, Baptist preachers in debates with our ‘brethren in this country on baptism have made emotional appeals over the hypothetical man on the way to be baptized who was killed by a falling tree limb. Their attempt was to blunt the clarity of Bible teaching on the subject through the appeal to emotion. They asked, “Do you Campbellites want to send this good man to hell just because he hasn’t been dipped in water yet?” Many people have fallen for the ploy and have remained in error to the damnation of their souls.

For thirty years, our institutional brethren have wanted to focus on the support of “orphan homes” by the church from its treasury. Why? Because they desire to capitalize upon the emotional nature of the issue in order to move people to follow in their unauthorized practices without a rational consideration of scriptural principles involved. In some debates, they placed a sack of fertilizer and a baby bottle on the stage. They asked, “Why will you anti’s take a dollar out of the treasury to buy this fertilizer for the church lawn, but won’t take a dollar out of the treasury to feed a poor, starving baby?” Many brethren fell for the ploy and apostatized from the truth resulting in the division of countless churches.

During a recent lecture program, I attended an open forum at which the divorce and remarriage issue was discussed. One man recounted the case of a couple he had known long ago. It seems that the woman had been married at the age of sixteen for “a few months” before the marriage ended in divorce without scriptural cause. Later, she heard the truth and was baptized. As time went on, she “fell in love” with a Christian and married him. They had four children and were pillars in a local church. After several years, the facts regarding this woman’s first marriage and divorce were revealed. The brethren of the local church decided that they could not be in fellowship with the couple as long as they continued in their unlawful sexual union. The man recounting the story then asked, “Are you brethren wanting to break up fine families like this over one mistake made by people before they obeyed the gospel? Are you wanting to bring heartache, not just on a man and his wife, but also on poor, innocent children who need a father and mother?” No Scripture was cited, but the appeal to emotion was clear. Move over tree limb! Shove the fertilizer and baby bottle to the side! The latest ploy to evade truth is off and running and it is ready to bring division in our day!

Is it any wonder that the cases related to justify acceptance of a divorce and remarriage not in harmony with Matthew 19:9 always involve one so doing before he was baptized? Of course not, that is where the teacher of error sees an emotional appeal. However, the effort almost never has the justification of such cases as its sole end. When that is accepted, the next step will be to justify unlawfully divorced and remarried Christians. The end will be the justifying of anyone continuing in any legal marriage regardless of past’, marriages and divorces not in keeping with God’s will. Some of our brethren are already saying, “Marriage is always holy’ – no matter who – no matter when.” Some are even ready’, to apply this reasoning to polygamy in countries where such is legal! I have been present when such was justified. Though we will focus on the amenability of the alien to Christ’s law in the gospel regarding divorce and remarriage, let us never be so naive as to think the error stops there. It never does! When Pandora’s box defending the violation of Christ’s law is opened, a flood of evil will come out.

Mutually Exclusive Positions

Those seeking to justify the continuance of a marriage not in keeping with the teaching of Matthew 19:9 are prone to making mutually exclusive arguments. On the one hand, they say that the alien is not amenable to Christ’s teaching regarding divorce and remarriage because it is part of the gospel which governs only the Christian, not the alien. On the other hand, they affirm that baptism cleanses one of all sin involved in the unlawful union, thus freeing one to continue in such. They cannot have it both ways! If Christ’s law regarding divorce and remarriage does not apply to the alien, there is no sin to cleanse with regards to such marriages. After all, where there is no law, there can be no sin (Rom. 4:15). But if such marriages do involve sin, it must be as a result of coming under the scope of Christ’s regulation as stated in Matthew 19:9. Those taking both sides of the issue need to recognize their inconsistency.

Universal Reign of Christ

The idea being refuted in this article is that the alien is condemned as a sinner under one law (sometimes called “the moral law” or “the law of sin and death”) and comes under the regulation of the gospel when he becomes a Christian or citizen of the kingdom. Thus, the advocate of this position maintains that Christ’s statements of Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 are to the Christian only and are “kingdom laws” which do not regulate the fife of an alien sinner. This is the position being refuted in this article. It will be referred to as the “two law theory” and the “non-amenability theory” in this discussion.

The absolute, universal sovereignty of Christ in this dispensation is a point of clear Bible teaching. Jesus claimed all authority in heaven and on earth at the point of his ascension (Matt. 28:18). At that time, the prophecy of Psalm 110 regarding the Messiah sitting to reign at the right hand of God began fulfillment (cf. Lk. 22:67-69; Mk. 16:19-20; Acts 2:29-36). We are also told that his reign at the right hand of God will end at the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:2128). Thus, we are now living in the time of that reign.

But who is under Christ’s rule according to Psalm 110? The writer says two classes are under such: (1) his enemies and (2) his people who offer themselves willingly (v. 2). By what means does he rule these two classes? By different laws or by differing uses of the same law? We must consider both possibilities in light of divine teaching. Those believing the alien is not amenable to Christ’s rule by means of the gospel jump to the conclusion that two laws are necessitated by the fact that two distinct classes are present. That conclusion is not logical. In this state, prisoners in the penitentiary are under the law of Texas and so am I. However, the law treats those “enemies” of the state differently than it treats me – two results, but one law. Let’s see if the Scripture shows us the means of Christ’s rule and the extent of its governing power.

The Hebrew writer tells us that God spoke to rule men in various ways in past times, but now speaks solely through the Son (Heb. 1:1-3). The message he decleared by his authority is the gospel which was to be preached to every creature (Matt. 28:18 cf. Mk. 16:15). That message of Christ was declared by his apostles as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26; 16:13-14). Peter confirms this by saying that the gospel foretold by the prophets was “announced unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven” (1 Pet. 1:10- 12). These facts present a path of study we need to examine in order to aid our understanding of the question at hand. First, it is clear that Christ rules through his gospel. Second, that gospel which is Christ’s means of rule was declared by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if we can go to the Scripture and see who was called upon to obey the message announced by the Holy Spirit, we will know who is amenable to that gospel. Let’s see what the Scripture says.

The obvious book to examine in this study is the book of Acts. In chapter 2, the gospel was declared “by the Holy Spirit” and a multitude of Jews were called upon to obey. In chapter 8, the Samaritans are the recipients of the message preached “by the Holy Spirit” and they were to obey (Acts 8:4-25). The chapter concludes with the account of the proclamation of the message “by the Holy Spirit” to the Ethiopian and his obedience to it (Acts 8:26-40). Chapters 10 and 11 record Cornelius’ receiving the same gospel “by the Holy Spirit” and obeying it. Throughout the book, we find case after case where the gospel is preached “by the Holy Spirit” to Jews and Gentiles, aliens and Christians, and all alike are called to obey. The terms used denote no distinction between the message preached to the Jew and Gentile, alien and Christians. The terms “gospel,” “word of God,” “word of the Lord,” “the word,” “the faith,” “the right ways of the Lord,” “the teaching of the Lord,” “the word of his grace,” and other terms are used synonymously. They denote the message preached to both Christian and non-Christian. There is not the slightest hint of the alien being condemned under one law and living in salvation under another law, the gospel. The very book that ought to clearly show the two laws in action, if the “two law theory” were correct, is the book which shows one message, the gospel, as the means of Christ’s rule.

Nature of God’s Covenants

The proponents of the “non-amenability theory” often base much of their argument upon a false idea regarding covenants. They take the modern use of the word “covenant” as made between people in our time and assume God’s covenants with men are of the same nature. They say a covenant is that which is binding only after both parties agree to it. Without that agreement, they claim, the covenant is not in force. They are fond of citing Israel’s agreement to the old covenant and assume that this acceptance made it binding. Therefore, they reason that one must accept the new covenant (i.e. in faith and obedience) before it is binding upon him.

However, the Bible clearl y shows their foundational assumption to be incorrect. In studies examining the nature of God’s covenant, the contrast between two types of covenants in the ancient world is routinely pointed out to introduce the subject. A parity covenant was made between two parties of equal power, as in a business partnership. In this type of covenant, both parties participated in the formation of its provisions and had to agree to the finished product before it became binding. A suzerainty or vassal covenant was made between a stronger party and a weaker party, such as the conqueror and the conquered. The stronger party formed the provisions and commanded them to the weaker party. The weaker party was bound by those provisions at the point of the command. When the weaker party agreed to live by the covenant, it did not cause the covenant to become binding, but marked the commitment to obey a covenant already binding by commandment.

Which type of covenant describes the relation between God and man? God speaks of the old covenant as “my covenant” which was commanded of Israel at the point of Jehovah’s giving it to Moses while upon Mt. Sinai before the people ever heard of the provisions (Exod. 19:1-8). Deuteronomy 4:1-14 recounts that fact to the generation which went into the land saying, “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform ” (v. 13). God’s laws are given as suzerainty covenants, not parity covenants. Man has no right to negotiate the regulations or to block its binding power through rejecting the covenant. Man is obligated to live in accordance with God’s dictated regulation or suffer the consequences. It may also be noted that the new covenant was of the same type. Thus, the Hebrew writer speaks of it as a testament made by a testator becoming binding at his death (Heb. 9:15-17).

The Gospel Condemns Aliens of Sin

The whole “two law theory” rests upon the idea that the alien cannot be condemned under the regulations of the gospel. If one verse could be shown to deny that idea, the whole thing would have to crumble as just another false theory of human origin. Let’s listen to the work of God as it destroys the foundation of this theory. In a context dealing with the coming of the Holy Spirit to reveal the gospel, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit “when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (Jn. 16:8). Who will be convicted? The world! Not just the Christian, but the world. That is one verse and one would be enough, but God’s word is not through yet. Paul says that “God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel by Jesus Christ” (Rom. 2:16). Does Paul mean just the secrets of Christians? No, not according to the context. The secrets of all men are judged by means of the gospel. That is two verses and two is more than enough, but the Bible is not through yet.

The context of 1 Peter 4 provides a clear, detailed refutation of the “two law theory.” Verses one through six contrast the alien sinners (“they”) with the Christians (“ye”) repeatedly. “They” were walking in sin and thought it strange that “ye” did not act like “them,” so “they” spoke evil of “you” (v. 4). Verse 5 says that some “shall give account to him that is ready to judge the living and the dead. ” But who is it that will give account? And by what means or law shall they be judged? Verse 7 answers those questions, “For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” Peter says the gospel was preached to some who were “dead” for the very purpose of judging them while “in the flesh” that they might “live” spiritually. In other words, the gospel was preached to those who were spiritually dead calling them to spiritual life. The dead of this verse are identified with “they” (aliens) throughout the context. What is it that condemned these aliens as sinners? It was the gospel. Aliens, thus, are regulated by the law of the gospel. Those who listen to God’s word will accept its destruction of this false doctrine!

Consequences of the Error

As with most error, the “non-amenability theory” has consequences more far-reaching than its advocates would wish. They claim that the teaching of Christ in Matthew 19 is uniquely a part of the gospel, thus, only binding upon Christians. While I would deny that premise, believing that Matthew 19 merely explains God’s law as he intended it from Genesis 2, let me grant it for the sake of argument. If the alien is not amenable to Christ’s law regarding divorce and remarriage, the alien is not amenable to any regulation which is uniquely a part of that gospel.

How then can we preach against the use of instrumental music in denominational worship? Are they not aliens? How could the practice be judged sinful by aliens if the regulation of the gospel does not apply to them? How can we oppose the boards and conferences of the denominational world? How can we even show the papacy to be a sinful arrangement of organization if aliens (and I presume that these brethren agree Catholics are aliens) are not amenable to regulations regarding the organization of the church which is uniquely a part of the gospel?

The brethren pushing this false doctrine better take a long look at the grave consquences. If they are right, they bett r throw away every sermon outline they have on the errors of denominationalism. If aliens are not amenable to the gospel, such sermons are without any legitimate basis!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 14-16
January 4, 1990

By Donnie V. Rader

When a couple gets a divorce for the cause of fornication, can the guilty party scripturally remarry? While a number of brethren have answered that question in the affirmative, our Lord answers in the negative (Matt. 19:9). The idea that some have is this: if the guilty is no longer married to the innocent, then the guilty party is free to remarry. The advocates of this position think that if one of the parties is loosed, both are loosed, thus allowing a scriptural remarriage.

In this article we want to consider the basic problem that the advocates of this position have, reasons why the guilty party cannot remarry and a few of the efforts made to justify this position.

Confusion On The Marriage And The Bond

The basic problem with the position that says that the guilty party can remarry is that it confuses the marriage and the bond. I have not seen anything from any of the advocates of this position that indicates they think the marriage and the bond are distinct. They believe that the marriage and the bond are the same. Thus, if a couple is no longer married, they are no longer bound to each other. To apply it to the case of the guilty party, since the put away fornicator is no longer married, it is thought that he is no longer bound and is free to remarry.

Romans 7:2-3 shows that there is a difference in the marriage and the bond. The woman in this text is bound to her first husband even though she is married to another. This bond is the reason that the second marriage is adulterous. Marriage is a relationship entered into by agreement and ratified by compliance with civil law. The bond is a covenant with God that joins one to his mate.

It is possible to be bound to one and married to another. Such is the case in Romans 7:2-3. The woman is “bound by the law to her husband” even though she is “married to another man.” It is also possible for one to be released from the yoke and the other party not. Matthew 19:9 says that the man who puts away his wife for fornication may script rally marry another. Thus, he is loosed. However, the one who marries the woman who is put away commits adultery. Thus, she is still bound. God has loosed the innocent who has put away his mate for fornication. God has not loosed the guilty (Matt. 19:9).

When Jack married Jill, God yoked (joined) them together (Matt. 19:6). However, when Jack put Jill away for fornication, God released him from the yoke, while Jill is still yoked (bound, Matt. 19:9).

When the confusion concerning the marriage and the bond is cleared up, the fact that the guilty party cannot scripturally marry can be easily seen.

The Guilty Party Is Not Authorized To Remarry

If we have any respect for the Lord and his authority, we understand that to act without authority is a sin (2 Jn. 9). We cannot afford to be presumptuous, thinking that God’s silence is permission to act. Hebrews 7:14 illustrates the principle that God’s silence is prohibitive (there is no authority), not permissive. Jesus could not be a priest on earth for he was of the tribe of Judah “of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.”

God has authorized the innocent party to put away his/her mate for fornication and remarry (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). There is no passage that authorizes the put away fornicator to remarry! Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10: 11-12 and Luke 16:18 do not grant such a right. Nor does any other passage provide the needed authority. To use human reasoning won’t do. To say that no passage forbids it won’t work. We must respect the authority of God in this area as well as in the work, organization and worship of the church. I oppose the guilty party remarrying on the same basis as I oppose instrumental music in worship – no authority!

The Guilty Party Is Forbidden To Remarry

Not only does the Bible not authorize remarriage for the guilty party, but it emphatically forbids it.

Jesus stated that when a put away one remarries he commits adultery. “. . . and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32b). “. . . and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9b). “. . . and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18).

Carefully note that there is no exception phrase in this clause just quoted. The exception is the first clause applies to the one who puts his mate away. Obviously, when the put away one remarries, he commits adultery.

Efforts Made To Justify The Guilty Party Remarrying

It is argued that fornication severs the marriage at the point it is committed. Thus, we are told that when the marriage is dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty and the guilty is no longer married to the innocent. Thus, both are free to remarry. Lloyd Moyer, among others, argued this point. “The marriage ceases to be that which God ordained when one of the two parties of the marriage joins his body to that of someone other than the person to whom he is married” (Frost-Moyer Exchange, p. 8). Moyer developed his argument further by saying, “When a marriage is thus dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty, nor is the guilty any longer married to the innocent. No marriage exists. Where no marriage exists, the parties may marry someone else” (Ibid., p. 10).

Again, Moyer and all those that advocate that the guilty party can remarry confuse the marriage and the bond. He assumes that if they are no longer married, they are no longer bound. We have already demonstrated otherwise.

Fornication is the cause and not the divorce itself. Jesus said that a man could put his wife away “for fornication.” The fornication is committed before the divorce takes place. Otherwise, a man could commit fornication and his wife would be unmarried and not even know it. Thus, she unknowingly would be living with a man to whom she is not even married. How absurd!

Glen W. Lovelady argued that the put away fornicator could not commit adultery if he is no longer married to his first mate. “Preachers today are feeling the force of the question, how could the put away fornicator commit adultery, if he remarried, not having a spouse? . . . If he is not bound and he marries one who is free to marry, how could he commit adultery? ” (Bible Forum, November 1977, Vol. 1, no. 3, p. 11) Lovelady makes the same mistake that Moyer made which is a failure to distinguish the marriage and the bond. He assumes that if the guilty party is no longer married (because he has been put away) that he is no longer bound. Such is an assumption without proof. Since there is no authority for the guilty party to remarry and he is forbidden by Matthew 19:9 to do so, we must conclude that God has bound him and not loosed him to remarry. Yes, it is true that he is not married. However, that doesn’t mean that he is not bound. Don’t forget that Romans 7:2-3 demonstrates that there is a distinction in the marriage and the bond. Using the same logic I could argue that the one who puts his wife away for a cause other than fornication can remarry. I could reason that he is no longer married since he put his spouse away. Thus, he is free to remarry. To the contrary, Jesus said that, when he remarries, he commits adultery (Matt. 19:9).

It has been argued that if the innocent is loosed, the guilty is automatically loosed as well. Such illustrations as the following have been given. “Tie your two hands together and let each hand represent one of the two parties to a marriage. Cut the string. Which hand is freed? Both!” (Roland H. Worth, Jr., Divorce And Remarriage, p. 11) The man and his wife are not the only elements in the bond. Romans 7:2-3 tells us that God’s law (one mate for life) binds the two together. The two are bound by God’s law to each other. One mate could be free while the other is still bound by the law. So, if we want to use the illustration of a rope, we would have the man and his wife tied together, but also to the law of God. Thus, if a man is untied (due to his wife’s fornication) she is still tied by the law of God.

There has been an effort to re-define adultery to prove that those entering any second marriage can continue in that marriage and not separate. Olan Hicks argues that the word translated adultery “refers to the act of remarrying itself” (What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Nashville: 1978, p. 28). Hicks further argued, “This establishes, if we take precisely what the scriptures say, omitting human opinion entirely, that the ‘adultery’ which is to be repented of in this case, consists of two actions, ‘putting away’ and ‘marrying another'” (Ibid., p. 29). Again Hicks wrote, “Does the adultery Jesus spoke of occur when one puts away his wife and marries another or does it occur later when he cohabits with the second wife? How can we insist that it is the later when Jesus specifically said it was the former?” (Ibid., p. 28) Hicks says the same thing in his new and expanded book by the same title (What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Joplin, 1987, pp. 149-161). Truman Scott argued the same basic position in his debate with Wayne Jackson in 1982 (Divorce & Remarriage – A Study Discussion, Stockton: 1983).

This redefining of adultery lends comfort to the advocates that say that the guilty party can remarry. When he does remarry he does not commit adultery by continuing to live with that mate.

The term adultery is not used that way in the Bible. Jesus said that a man who looks upon a woman and lusts after her has committed adultery in his heart (Matt. 5:28). Was he fantasizing about breaking the covenant (divorcing and remarrying) or sexual relations? In John 8 the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus whom they said was caught in the “very act” of adultery (v. 4). Was she caught in the act of divorcing and remarrying (breaking wedlock) or in the sexual act? Ezekial 16 tells the parable of the unfaithful wife. What verse 32 calls “adultery” the context calls “fornication” (v. 15), harlotry (vv. 15-16), “whoredom” (w. 25-26), and taking “strangers instead of her husband” (v. 32). Furthermore, there is no lexicon or passage that would justify this arbitrary definition of adultery.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 17-18
January 4, 1990