Now before we go on to Jesus’ teachings, we need to consider other portions of 1 Corinthians 7:
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
This passage is sometimes referred to as the Pauline Exception. It is argued that this creates a second exception to the prohibition on divorce — the first exception being fornication, as declared by Jesus and the second being an unbelieving spouse.
Interestingly, Paul never mentions fornication nor does he speak of remarried spouses being guilty of adultery. While Paul is obviously aware of Jesus’ teaching on divorce (7:10), he doesn’t remotely speak in those terms. Paul’s teaching is simple. It’s wrong to violate the marriage covenant. And it’s always better to be single to better serve the Lord. But neither marriage nor remarriage is a sin.
Paul is not creating an exception to the command to not divorce. He is simply giving the practical advice that if an unbelieving spouse divorces the believing spouse, the believer is not a sinner and is not bound to pretend to be married to someone with whom he or she is no longer united. On the other hand, Paul plainly says that a believer must honor the marriage covenant so long as the unbeliever permits that marriage to last.
Paul is not authorizing a divorce. He is simply pointing out that a Christian is only bound to his or her unbelieving spouse so long as the unbelieving spouse is willing to remain married. The phrase “God has called us to peace” is of rabbinic origin. It’s what the rabbis said when reaching a pragmatic conclusion not necessarily dictated by the Law of Moses.[1]
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is better translated “you are no longer enslaved” (the Greek is quite clear). It’s a bit shocking for us to hear Paul referring to marriage as slavery, and so many modern translations (such as the NIV) soften the words. However, the Jewish certificate of divorce and certificate of freedom for a slave were virtually identical documents, and much of rabbinic divorce law came from Exodus 21:10-11, which is speaks of marrying a slave girl. Therefore, the metaphor is a clear allusion to a standard Jewish certificate of divorce, which always allowed remarriage. In fact, the very purpose of the certificate was to allow remarriage.
May the Christian spouse remarry in such a case? Of course. As explained above, verses 27-28 say so.[2]
[1] Instone-Brewer, p. 203. For example, an imbecile could not be prosecuted for theft but nonetheless the stolen goods were confiscated and return to their right owner “for the sake of peace” in rabbinic teaching.
[2] In Divorce, Repentance, and the Gospel of Christ (Gospel Enterprises, 1981) (hereafter, “Hicks”), Olan Hicks quotes Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of the Restoration Movement, who responded to a question about a woman who had been abandoned by her husband and then sought a formal divorce, as follows:
If in that matter she had actually erred, she is not now to be repudiated for that error any more than one who formerly was a slanderer or a persecutor, and has been brought to repentance and reformation, is now to be rejected for crimes committed before his conversion. And if the divorce was obtained after she became a disciple, in order to conform to the statutes of the state, with express reference to her marriage, it seems not to materially alter the case.
Campbell noted that Walter Scott concurred in his judgment. Scott, another Restoration leader, invented such notable slogans as the “five finger exercise” of “hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized” and introduced the use of the gospel invitation after each sermon.
Interesting also how Paul focuses this passage on being able to "live in peace."
Seems rather contradictory to our usual thinking, doesn't it?
Hello there,
I do think Paul is consistent with the teaching of Jesus, in that it is sin to initiate the destruction of a marriage (whether by adultery or other sexual sin, or abandonment), but that a person who has not been responsible for their marriage breakup is exonerated from the guilt of such.
Hence, I concur with Al Maxey's view on the 'exception clause' in Matthew 5 and 19. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is clearly exonerating a believer from the guilt of a sundered marriage, and there would be no guilt in a following remarriage if reconciliation was unlikely. The highest aim is reconciliation, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
I believe that Jesus only states hyperbolically that a woman who has been divorced from her husband wrongly 'commits adultery' with a new spouse because that new spouse in a sense is condoning the hardheartedness of the original spouse, hindering reconciliation.
Of course, for a believer who is abandoned, there is very little hope of reconciliation, and Paul cannot command such from the unbeliever, hence he uses the principle Jesus teaches to exonerate the believer.
I am always amazed that Paul never even mentions remarriage and everyone says here that he thinks it is okay and not a sin. There is not a single verse in the NT that mentions remarriage that I recall that it is NOT a sin. Here it is not mentioned at all.
Jay, you have managed to very eloquently tell the world that even when Christ makes a rule or at anytime in the New Testament when a moral rule or precept is established that when one defies it that it is not really wrong or sinful. You have put words that Paul did not say into his mouth by defying his teaching by saying that he is defying the Lords Jesus’ teaching. The reality is that to follow your wild manner of understanding Paul’s teaching basically renders Christ’ teaching vain.
If it is not morally wrong or sinful to divorce for any other cause than the “..cause of fornication” which refers to the actual physical act of sex, not just the thought of it or the act of mere intimacy, then why did Jesus say that it is. When presented with the question that exact question with which this issue deals Jesus would have simply said, “Yes, a man may simply provide a valid writ of divorcement to his wife when he decides to do so.” And, again if it is not really wrong or sinful to not abide by a moral rule set down in the New Testament of Jesus Christ then all of us can really just do what we want when we want to and we can throw out the Bible all together. Your philosophy and those of your mindset have reduced Jesus Christ to a person that went around and made a bunch of decrees that really don’t carry any weight or authority in heaven and that His heavenly Father would never really hold a person to in practice. The truth is, is that an immense amount of evil and wickedness has transpired in history as a result of the SINFUL practice of divorce without the justification of “..for the cause of fornication” as a product of the consequences for not following God’s will. The consequence is so monumental that it cannot be measured.
NOTE: The mere act of fornication does not necessarily constitute grounds for for divorce. A marriage doesn’t necessarily have to end even when physical infidelity has been committed, A married couple can always fall back on God’s rule of the guilty party confessing and repenting with godly sorrow coupled by a profound willingness to provide restitution and the innocent forgiving the guilty spouse in accordance with God’s rule on forgiveness!! and the whole matter can be avoided. This of course would make God very happy and would result in a great deal of Spiritual growth for both spouses involved and would emanate and convey a profound example to the other parties involved, like children and other family members and friends.
The spiritual law of the universe is that one receives blessings when he/she abides by God’s divine rule, and that one receives cursing when they do not. period!!! Sin comes in many forms and circumstance. Some, can be avoided from the standpoint that one can be restitute of that sin. Unscriptural divorce is something that a person has a billion and one chances to never do before it is actually carried out and even when it is, it can be reversed as long as both in the marriage are living. It’s somewhat like stealing $100 from a person and then realizing after how wrong it was. The guilty person can still make restitution for this sin by going to the victim and confessing their sin to them, promising them they will never do it again and then returning the $100 dollars to the rightful owner. This is actually practiced in our court system today, and even if the original monies have been spent. It is not like one can just say to themselves, “God I know it was wrong to steal that money from that person, please forgive me;” and make no effort to resolve the balance of the issue with the person that was originally wronged in the first place. This person must still seek forgiveness for this aught to the victim, repent of the attitude that compelled them to commit the sin in the first place, and then make restitution for the value of the victim’s loss in the matter!
In 1st Corinthians 7, Paul, first makes it plain that marriage is for life. Paul is in no way teaching an exception to Christ’ rule on marriage. God’s relationship with a Christian is a form of marriage covenant. Christ is married to the Christian once a person is baptized into Him. Christ being the Bridegroom and the new Christian being the Bride. Now, then there is the marriage of a man and a woman which is fashioned after the same basic concept and exists under the very same form of covenant and that covenant is authorized and overseen by the Father in the very same manner. What Paul is teaching is that if a Christian person is in a marriage with a non-Christian person and the non-Christian attempts to hold the Christian over a barrel by leveraging their marriage in order to force that Christian to divorce their Christian marriage with Christ or they are going to leave them, then their marriage to Christ trumps their marriage to the non-Christian and they would would be sinning if they were to forsake their marriage to Christ in order to honor their loyalty to their earthly spouse. Paul is basically saying that one’s loyalty to their marriage with Christ must always trump their marriage with their earthly spouse when these situations arise. Of course this makes sense because the priority to Christ as one’s Bridegroom is one that saves the eternal soul versus the the temporal existence all people experience in mortal life. Now, if the earthly non-believing spouse sins by creating more evil and wickedness in the relationship; that has no bearing on the Christian’s choice to honor their commitment to the Lord first or not, it simply is the right thing to do and sets the correct example to the world around them including any children that may be involved. If the non-Christian leaves the Christian then the Christian is not to seek out divorce nor any other relationships with any other individuals of the opposite sex. If while the Christian is being faithful to God’s rule on marriage the non-Christian repents then they can still confess, repent and be forgiven and the married couple can be reconciled through the established process of forgiveness and reconciliation that God’s rule on such provides. If the non-enters into intimate sexual relations with another while their Christian spouse is waiting patiently for them to come to their moral senses and effort a reconciliation, and then also does so without remorse or the need to repent and such, then the Christian then has their Biblical (scriptural) foundation for divorce and can under this circumstance seek and finalize a divorce (as long as they do not turn around and fornicate too at some time during the separation) in the earthly court system that they can know that God will recognize in heaven. Then the innocent party in a matter like this can seek remarriage while the guilty party in this situation can never remarry if it is to be to another person. If their original spouse is scripturally remarried prior to the repentance of the guilty party and as long as the person that they remarried had no disqualifiers that would have made them ineligible to enter into a scriptural marriage then there remains no more restitution for the original guilty party to reconcile with the original innocent party and they would have to deal with the issue of striving to remain celibate for their remaining days on this earth, period!!
Now, all that might not fit into your carnal idea of what is fair or realistic but then again that is the whole seemingly never ending and stigmatic problem with the incongruence between the manner in which God sees things that are right and wrong and the way that man sees that things are right or wrong. This is precisely what Jesus is speaking of when He said in Matthew 5:3 at the start of His great sermon on the Mount, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Regardless of how unrealistic that we choose to see it that is the way it is because that is how God put it together when He set up the institution of marriage. Christ said, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This is a statement of absolution. When two members of the opposite sex come before God to officially commit themselves to each other that have no scriptural reason that would disqualify either one or the other, God will accept their union within the confines of the institution of Holy Matrimony, and once this occurs the only person that has the authority to release the two parties from this Holy union of marriage is God Himself, period, and He did not delegate this authority out to any other under any circumstances, period. God instituted Marriage as the basic foundational social unit by which the whole human race would be made up and He new that it had to be just this permanent in order for it to produce the result for which He created it, which was to become the bedrock that would keep the society of mankind stable and in order. He new for it to be any other way would be a recipe for disaster and that the very fabric of the social structure of our society would completely unravel and that is exactly and precisely what is happening today. Once two people of the opposite sex are scripturally married they then become one as if they were permanently attached at the hips and only God can put that union asunder through taking one of the two in mortal death, or by reluctantly accepting a divorce when one has committed the ultimate form of unfaithfulness in the act physical sexual intimacy with another person for which they are not married, and in which the guilty party in this fornication was unwilling to confess, repent and make restitution for their sexual unfaithfulness. This is the exact same circumstance in which God divorces His children from within the marriage covenant with Christ. God accepts Christ’ divorce of a fallen Christian when one would commit Spiritual fornication by forsaking God for another god of their choice (money, pleasure, material gain, or one or many of the other covetous desires of idolatry), and then effective failing to confess, repent and make whatever restitution is possible in the matter.
Your doctrine on divorce and remarriage is not Biblical and Paul would never teach something that would undermine what Christ taught under the guidance and control of the Holy Spirit of which was ultimately placed into documentation into what would provide the world with the Holy and Divine word of God that even the world recognizes as the Holy Bible. That is so ludicrous on so many levels it is almost incomprehensible.
Frankly, in this theology of yours lies the whole problem with all the false doctrine that you have been spewing since your apostacy from the truth. You, need to repent and return to the simplistic truth of God’s word and stop formulating these eloquently derived carnal rationalizations that basically equate to your telling yourself and the world that you can live your life any way that you want to and still go to heaven!! Just because when you try to see the Bible through your finite mind versus the faith that is in Christ Jesus, you are able to get it all to make some kind of sense to you doesn’t make your faith true, it simply makes it faith in yourself, not God, and nobody goes to heaven according to their own faith.
Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me.” If Paul were to teach a doctrine that was in opposition to Christ then he could not be one of His apostles, disciples or otherwise. He would not be in the Bible and the story would have included a completely different person to carry out the will of the Father. We cannot say words that render the teaching of Christ vanity and be correct all at the same time. To say that a person can divorce when the reason is not for, “..the cause of fornication” is to make it a WAY different then the way, the truth and the life of Christ, period, and there is no way around that. One can use cleverly worded texts and speeches to the effect that, “Yeah, Christ said that but even though he said that that doesn’t mean that we can do it this way if we choose, too” but that rationalization or self-invoked delusion isn’t going to make it right. This is why the Bible says that there will be, “..wailing and gnashing of teeth.” because it will be after it is too late for people to realize that they were wrong. The heart of the matter deals with the idea that we with our spirit can out think the simple and straight forward word of God. People look at all the difficulty that exists in peoples marriage and they say to themselves God would never expect them to stay in that marriage and endure all that pain and grief and the kids are all in it with them together having to experience all that ugliness all the time in their lives. Well, the whole reason why all that ugliness exists in the marriage in the first place is because people were defying God on other issues of sin. Then, in spite of all that sin that they themselves brought into the marriage can never be reason enough to defy God in respect His rule on the sanctity and permanence of marriage. If people are having problems in their marriage then they need to stop doing what is causing the problems and they will begin to go away, but they can’t just decide to end the marriage, it is not their authority to decide. We have the choice to enter into a marriage, as almost no one is married as a result of betrothal anymore but we cannot decide to end it, except for the one case that Jesus states and then in His statement Jesus does not word it as if it is a carte blanche for every circumstance in which fornication occurs in a marriage, because their is always the process of scriptural forgiveness to be considered prior to anyone seeking a divorce for this cause.
Jack,
A more comprehensive presentation of my views on divorce and remarriage will be found at /books-by-jay-guin/but-if-you-do-marry/, an e-book available for free download. I also posted a series based on the book, indexed at /category/index/church-of-christ-doctrinal-issues/divorce-and-remarriage-church-of-christ-doctrinal-issues/.
In the Law in Deut. one could divorce based on “uncleanliness”, which Jesus later argues is “sexual immorality” or fornication when he talks about divorce. Only divorce for the cause of fornication allows both to remarry. There is a guilty party in the fornication, but after the divorce for fornication they are not bound to each other and can remarry. If they divrce for any other reason and have sexual relations it is called adultery.
Now as noted I cor.7 doesn’t talk about marraige and specifically remarriage. It talks aobut man and wife and not divorcing and if one leaves then they are not bound to stay and they are not bound by thier believing husband or wife to keep them. Note in the following verses we read, “How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” so they are still husband and wife, even when one leaves. So this doesn’t break Jesus commentary on divorce as they hadn’t divorced as there is no reason given for divorcing.
vs. 10-11 is very impotant to the context “Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”
So those who are together…a man and woman are not to depart, but if one of them does depart, then they are to marry again as this would result in adultery as noted by Jesus.
They must remain unmarried to others or reconcile to each other. No divorce and no remarriage.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that I Cor.7 doesn’t talk about marriage or remarriage at all, but rather the verses under consideration vs.12-16 don’t talk about them, even though they are in the context of those who are married and should still be unmarried. The verses talk about those who are man and wife, where one man or wife leaves, and yet they are still considered man and wife. The man and wife state hasn’t been broken by anyone leaving and thus no divorce or remarriage can result. If someone leaves they are not to divorce thier wife or husband as they have not scriptural reason to.
I want to clarify something else. Let’s realize we can only acknowledge the authority of the federal, state or local governments as long as their actions do not go against God’s rule on something. We acknowledge the role of government in managing order in marriage by their administrative jurisdiction over marriage in the issuing of marriage licenses and the dissolution of marriage, but only as long as the issuance of a marriage is for those that can scripturally marry and also the official dissolution of marriage as long as it is, “..for the cause of fornication.” This is necessary because an official point must exist in which a legitimate scriptural marriage is entered into and/or when it is dissolved. Anytime the earthly courts execute one or the other outside God’s rules on marriage then we know that while it may be officially accepted in this world that much more importantly it is not at all accepted for the purpose in which the worldly court intends it in heaven. It is that if we are to align ourselves with heaven on these matters that we must realize that these marriages and divorces represent pseudo versions of their legitimate counterparts. That being said it would be necessary to repent from a pseudo-marriage or a pseudo-divorce in order to remove oneself from a sinful state and to make legally possible the reconciliation of the two originally married parties in the case that they would desire to correct and make restitution for all their sinful woes in that case in which a slew of official sinful business had transpired pertaining to the state of their original scriptural marriage in the first place.
Jack,
To prove your interpretation about marriage and divorce just give us a reference in scripture where an Apostle or any of God’s teachers gave the same instructions that you are giving to anyone. Divorce was much more prevalent in that time period than it is today. How do I know? When Jesus was explaining that a man and woman should stay together for life, even the Apostles thought that would be impossible. Check it out.
Mat 19:9-12 KJV 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. (10) His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (11) But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (12) For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Verse 10 explains the thoughts of the disciples. Jesus then identified that some men do not have the ability to remain single (no sex, marriage is the prescription form the Lord to combat that inability).
Yet men defy Jesus in demanding that a man cannot marry because he goofed up, or his wife left him because she refused to participate in the act. Show us directives that portray that any Apostle, Teacher or Elder in the churches in the written Word gave your message to anyone.
Be silent where the Bible is silent.
Jack, you are very keen on showing the error of thier ways. But in the Old Law in Deut.24, which Jesus refers back to, both parties were allowed to remarry after a divorce for fornication and Jesus doesn’t try to redo this fact. “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife,”
Because the divorce was for “uncleanness” or fornication, the wife could remarry without penalty as well as the husband. Jesus states that one who is divorced for any other cause than forrnication commits adultery when re-married, not one who is divorced for adultery commits adultery again when re-married. Jesus sticks with the Law in this. He is fighting back against divorce for any reason, not divorce for adultery in Matt.5 and 19. But God hates divorce in any form and would rather have reconcilliation.
Jack, I would suggest you look at content rather than a label. I could call myself a conservative, and I used to be, but now I am just a Christian, but I know people who label themselves as conservative that are just as far out as Jay sometimes appears to be and those of the conservaitve branch are considered liberal by those that are what we might call ultra-conservative. Just because Jay identifies as a progressive doesn’t immediatly make him wrong. only wrong doctrine makes him wrong and I know many in the conservative coC that are wrong as well. I don’t agree with Jay on many things, but I also don’t agree with some of my own brethern in all things as well as some of these beliefs aren’t game changers. A soapbox makes you look down on others where you yourself are in God’s eyes.
Jack, one more thing. You talk a lot as authority. The authority is scripture. You said, “I would also correct you on the “both the guilty party and the innocent party can remarry” issue. The guilty party cannot remarry in the case in which he/she is divorced for, “..the cause of fornication,” by the innocent party” but used no scripture only saying it is implicated, which it is not at all. I provided exact scripture that shows otherwise.
One of the issues I have with the conservative branch is that they condemn quickly based on lack of complete information filling in the blanks and silence with implications and many times ignoring blatant in your face scriptures. One of the issues I have with those in the liberal/progressive side is their dependance on the writings of others and using them as commentary when they should have used scripture. The results from both sides are eerily often the same.
We should be able to use scripture, then comment on it without filling page after page of our own voice and remarking how wrong others are in the process, when we might be ourselves.
Jack, three paragraphs and still no scripture. So I will simply use scripture and comment on it.
Deut.24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife,”
Jesus refers back to this understanding in Matt.5 and 19. In the Law the wife is divorced and is allowed to remarry, but the divorce is for “uncleanness” or as Jesus put it “fornication”. The husband and wife both can remarry. Jesus argues that a divorce for anything other than fornication causes one or both to comitt adultery if they remarry, but never contradicts Deut.24
There has to be a guilty party for the divorce to happen, but the guilt is not carried forward and there is an allowance for re-marriage. Deut. never argues that the one divorced from for fornication comitts adultery in remarrying and if so, then she should have been stoned.
Jack, Now I agree that the guilty party should try to reconcile themselves back to the innocent party, but the fact is that the innocent party has to accept them back. Unfortunately we have taught so much on divorce as a response, that we have taught very little on forgiveness as the primary response of the saint in all things, even in fornication.
Now Paul called himself a ‘Pharisee’ before the council, but this doesn’t mean that he followed all of the Pharisee mindset. Many call themselves Christian but they don’t act Christian like. We can call ourselves something because we identify with the group or thinking, but “progressive” isn’t a bad thing if it is a progression from enforcing the tradition’s of man, which many that call themselves “conservative” seem to do. I put the person before the label and try not to take sides. I have seen conservative thinking go so far that it becomes liberal and vice-versa.
Dwight,
I find no scriptures which would deny that a divorce (or in scriptural terms a writing of divorcement) did not brake the bond between a husband and a wife. I do not believe that John was attempting to convey the message that the divorce was invalid and that Herodias was still married to Philip.
Mat 14:3-4 KJV For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. (4) For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
John was referencing this law.
Lev 20:21 KJV And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
This law was in effect whether the brother was alive, dead or divorced. In this case the law was not addressing the lack of a divorce being effective. As you should note, if the divorce had not broken the marriage, then Herodias was married to two brothers at the same time. Herodias was divorced and could have married any other man, by the law of divorce. John did not address that Herodias was the problem, he was placing the responsibility upon Herod. Notice the last part of the verse (they shall be childless), what would that have to do with a divorce or them not continuing to live together as husband and wife?
What has happened over the years men have pulled messages out of context to convey what they wanted the message to say. In this case they failed to read the correct message.
Larry, I will send my study to you if you want. The scriptures indicate that at betrothal there was man and wife, then they were married. See case of Mary and Joseph.
The scriptures say “his brother Philip’s wife” so I believe it and John understood the law and the situation. If the divorce did break the bond, then Herodias was at liberty to marry Herod, which John speaks against. If the divorce does break the bond, then Lev.20:21 doesn’t apply since she was no longer Phillips wife, if the divorcement was real. Philip was Herod’s half-brother.
Let me put this way. I used to believe that a divorce was a divorce and thus was valid in the eye of God. But I have changed my mind. We would not argue that a marriage of two men equal a marriage in God’s eyes, but we somehow validate a divorce against God’s will. And somehow we overlook other actions we take as not valid. Are all baptisms equal in God’s eyes? Acts shows us that one can be baptized (John’s baptism), but it does not save you, unless you are baptized into Jesus. Is all worship valid? God said, “In vain do they worship me.” No one would deny that worship is worship, but that doesn’t mean that God accepts all worship and validates it all. If God doesn’t accept it and validate it, then why should we?
This I believe is the point of Jesus. Divorce for adultery is valid because it allows for remarriage. But divorce for any cause is not and causes sin. Only unlawful things not accepted by God cause sin.
Dwight,
I doubt seriously that you have studied this issue to a greater extent than I have. But, just in case that you may have explained a specific point in what I call the traditional view on MDR that could sway my present beliefs, I believe that you have my e-mail send it and I will reply on points that we may differ. I will await for it before attempting to explain what I see in error in the above statements.
Larry, I will send it you and you can critique to your hearts content. I have asked other to do this and what I find is that they do not believe it, but cannot find a scriptural reason to place against it. I am not saying it is perfect, but it is good and extensive. I was told by two preachers who didn’t agree with my study to stop relying on scripture and just accept what “all” of scholars think. Well I later found out that these were Western scholars and Jewish scholars and many others think differently.
Again, if divorce is real for any reason, then Herodias divorce would have been real, and Lev.20:21 would not have been an issue as they would not have been “his brother’s wife”, but John says differently. And they were not blood, they were half-brothers, which did not count as Abraham was allowed to marry his sister, as long as she was his half-sister. These are thing we often overlook because they run counter to how we “know” it to be.
And if divorce is real, no matter the reason, then baptism and worship should be real no matter what. But God doesn’t validate something just because it is done, but because it is done for the right reasons. Murder and killing both resulted in the death of a person, but they were held differently by God and the consequences were thus different.
Dwight,
I said I would wait while studying your document, but regardless what is said in the document I had to address this posting.
Let us put this to the ultimate test. You are explaining that Philip’s wife’s divorce is not valid because John used the statement Philip’s wife. If the divorce is not valid then Philip and Herodias are still married. Then when Herodias married Herod she would have been married to two husbands. Then John tells Herod that he is the one at fault? There is communications in the OT where one man had multiple wives, but I don’t believe there is any communication about one wife being married to more than one husband. If you can locate that let me know.
Suppose that it is true that the divorce is not valid, who do you suppose would have performed the wedding ceremony? If the divorce was not valid, then the marriage to Herod was not valid either. If the divorce was not valid, then Herod committed adultery with his brother’s wife!! There is also a law pertaining to that sin.
Lev 20:10 KJV And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Why did John not use this judgment upon Herod and Herodias? The only answer that fits is that the divorce was valid and Herodias could marry anyone without being an adulterer and the one marrying her was not considered as an adulterer.
Which brings us back to exactly what was John referring to in the fact that it was not lawful for Herod to have her? In order to see the purpose we must consult more than one scripture. I had only quoted one for you because it portrayed the full context of the fault (or sin). But unless an individual validates the core problem addressed in this verse it can be easily misunderstood.
In these verses the issue is defined.
Lev 20:17-22 KJV And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. (18) And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (19) And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. (20) And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. (21) And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless. (22) Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
There is something about any individual seeing the (nakedness of a relative, someone who is near kin) that God considers sin and unclean. He continues his communications in the next verse to explain what he thinks about this uncleanness or sin.
Lev 20:23 KJV And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
So possibly you may still say that this sin or uncleanness has nothing to do with a divorce and a remarriage . To that I will direct you again to these verses.
(20) And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. (21) And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
In both of these cases God orders that they will die childless or be childless. Now we have to consider does he mean that their onetime event will not produce a pregnancy or a child or regardless how many times they tried they will not produce a child. Unless this was a onetime event then these individuals continuing to be exposed to the method of producing children would be performing continual adultery. Which would mean they were subject to the law of verse Lev 20:10, unless they were married after a divorce which broke the marriage from the Uncle or Brother.
Brother there is absolutely no reason to attempt to bring other objects like baptism, worship or murder into this discussion to validate a position in scripture. This portion of scripture is fully self defining. Abraham marrying his half-sister has no bearing on this subject either.
Larry, it all has bearing. If one can be baptized and it not count in God’s eyes, then one can be divorced and though it is an actual happening, doesn’t make it viable in God’s eyes. An action in man’s eyes doesn’t necessarily equal a happening in God’s eyes. Worship in man’s eyes is not necessarily worship in God’s eyes if it isn’t done for the right reasons. The reasons for baptism and worship change the validation by God and changes the consequences as well. This is why two types of divorce in Matt.5 don’t equal the same thing when one marries another.
Also Philip was Herod’s half-brother, so if Abraham can marry his half-sister without offending Lev.20:17, then Herodias should have been able to marry Herod who was Phillip’s half brother without conflict of 20:21. They were all under the same law unless we don’t understand the law right. But let’s say that this was an issue, it wasn’t the only issue and it only compounds the problem of sin.
I would contend that Herodias was still Philip’s wife as John says and that while Herodias lived as Herod’s wife, she was just married to him, but not really his wife by law, as you pointed out that one wife never had two husbands. John doesn’t call Herodias Herod’s wife, but Philips’ wife. So you are correct. The fact that she was married to Herod didn’t make her his wife by law, although maybe by society rules. I would contend that since she was still Philip’s wife, she was in adultery with Herod and her divorce was not valid since she didn’t divorce for the cause of fornication, which caused her to commit this adultery.
This matches the statement of Jesus in Matt.5. about divorce for any other cause than fornication causes marrying another to commit adultery. Herodias divorced not for fornication and married another. She was definitely in adultery. And was probably in incest too.
Note: In Matt.5 where Jesus says, “marries another commits adultery” are we then under the impression that since she divorced for any reason and married another that they are not under adultery. Adultery, is a relationship outside of the man and wife state, but if divorce severs the man and wife state, then adultery is no longer an issue. If the divorce worked, then they should not be in adultery when marrying another and Matt.5 or 19 is not valid. If the divorce is divorce and is valid, then it would not be adultery and yet we have two types of divorce in Matt.5 and 19 and one of them has one of them committing adultery if they remarry. Herodias married another after divorcing for “any cause”.
We should be able to accept John’s statement as fact without us trying to work around it and we should not invalidate Matt.5/19 in the process.
I sent you the study. You can read it.