that those practicing adultery according to the words of Christ in Luke 16:18, are nevertheless fit for church fellowship.
The Biblical Teaching on Marriage
Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh.
This is the first Bible verse that speaks of
the marriage state. There is no mention of a betrothal state being instituted,
either here or elsewhere in Scripture.
Marriage begins with the man taking the
initiative in completely separating himself from parental ties.
The meaning of “cleaving” is as we understand
it in Dt.10: 20; Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve and
to him shalt thou cleave.
This is to be joined to and to adhere to, to
the exclusion of all other rivals and interests. Having left his parents the
man cleaves to his wife. The cleaving is not consummation, which is a single
act. Cleaving is a continuing condition. It is a joining in marriage. From this
moment they are one flesh in the sight of God. God calls the two one flesh.
Consummation is mentioned only once in Scripture, at Daniel 9: 27 and has
nothing to do with marriage.
There is no indication that a man can become
uncleaved, because they have become one flesh.
Only one thing can break the one flesh and
that is death itself. No exception clause was given when marriage was
instituted. It is not modified and cannot be modified by later Mosaic regulations. Those who teach that God or Scripture, or Paul or whoever never
said “until death doth us part” are
wifully ignorant of 1 Cor. 7: 39. Where it is made plain that death alone
breaks the marriage bond.
The Lord quoted Gen 2: 24 and He added a
rider- Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19: 6) The joining is
made by God when the two become man and wife and no man may put asunder. This
will include the man himself regarding his wife. The joining has nothing to do
with consummation because it is God Who does the joining. If there were to be
an unjoining, God would have to do it. These two verses define “one flesh”. In
this context it is a man and a woman joined in marriage and has nothing to do
with joining to harlots or to casual relationships.
The verse does not say “let not a man (or
woman, or any other person). It is let not man! No human instrument may
be involved in breaking a marriage union.This does not modify the statement in Genesis 2: 24. It strengthens it.
Illicit joining as mentioned in 1 Cor.6: 16, What?
know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith
he, shall be one flesh is not marriage and does not break the marriage
bond. This is a union that mocks and defiles the Biblical institution of
marriage.
When Adam knew his wife, she conceived.
Gen.4: 1 She was already his wife. He had already become one flesh. English law
may permit the annulment of a marriage on the grounds of non-consummation but
the Scriptures do not allow such. Such annulment is the putting asunder by man.
It is not reasonable to quote Levitical
practices…..we are not subject to Mosaic law. Marriage was instituted long
before the establishment of Israel. The nations surrounding Israel were not
subject to the Law of Moses. The marriage laws for the Israelite in the Old
Testament have no bearing on the New Testament believer. The betrothal system
was not part of the Levitical ritual. It was introduced through Talmudic Law.
This is not to despise betrothal. It was a binding agreement for marriage and
allowed time for the preparation of the wedding and married life without risk
of rejection.
Betrothal (charaph) is mentioned once only in
Leviticus, at 19: 20, and is not the common word for betrothal. Charaph is usually translated “defy”, or
”reproach” and in 19: 20 the meaning is, the man who fornicates with a
slave-girl who is reproached to a husband, and is not ransomed or liberated,
neither of the pair must be put to death. The girl must be scourged.
It will be seen that this has utterly nothing
to do with modern life and cannot contribute to current discussion on the
divorce/remarriage issue.
The more common word for
betrothal is aras and this is used
only eleven times in the Old Testament. The first mention is Ex. 22: 16. If a man entice a maid that is not
betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. That
is, if a man seduces a maid (this word applies only to virgins), he must agree
to marry her. Keep in mind this is Mosaic Law, binding only on the Israelites.
The New Testament
equivalent of betrothal is espousal. Both have the same meaning; it is a
promise, a pledge, an engagement to be married.
Espousal (mnesteuo) is
mentioned three times only in the New Testament. Mary was espoused to Joseph (Matt. 1 :18, A virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph (Luke 1: 27), To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife (Luke
2: 5)
Matthew does not tell us Mary was at this
stage married to Joseph. There is another word for “married” (ginomai)
and it is not found here. They were pledged and bound to marriage but
had not had a formal wedding. The Cana wedding story satisfies the Bible
believer that Mary and Joseph did have a formal wedding. Those who think
otherwise charge the Lord with double standards.
Furthermore the two terms together, “espoused
wife” show us that the woman while still
in the pledged or engaged state is be designated a wife. This is because of the
strength of the pledge.
Are there any grounds whereby a believer may divorce their spouse?
The only ground given is that of Matt. 5:32, But
I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that
is divorced committeth adultery.
The first thing to notice about this verse is
that it differentiates between fornication and adultery. They are not the same.
There is no tautology in Scripture. Matt. 19: 9 , Gal. 5: 19, 1 Cor.6: 9 have
these two mentioned together. Fornication includes all unlawful sexual
intercourse while adultery involves married persons. One may ascertain this
simply by looking up all the references in a good lexicon.
In Matt. 5: 32 the Lord qualifies the Mosaic
Law. Henceforth premarital unfaithfulness, discovered after marriage is the
sole ground for putting away. We are persuaded that a Christian couple would
not hide such wickedness from their spouse, if ever they should commit such a
thing.
Divorce was permitted under Moses because of
the hardness of their hearts. The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh. Hardness
of heart is the mark of the unregenerate. Mark 6: 52, 8: 17. Therefore those
seeking divorce demonstrate by their hardness of heart that they are
unregenerate. Divorce is not to be found among believers.
Saving for the cause of fornication must not be interpreted in isolation. Other Scriptures
relating to this subject must be taken into consideration. We read in Luke 16:
18,
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth
another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from
her husband committeth adultery.
Here there is no exclusion clause. The Lord
was speaking to a company of Pharisees who were deriding Him. The Lord made
this unequivocal statement: Remarriage for either partner constitutes adultery.
Also we read in Mark 10: 11,12, this time
speaking privately to His disciples, And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall
put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if
a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth
adultery.
Again there is no exception clause. If there
were to be an exception clause then we believe the Lord would have made it
clear to His disciples. They did not ask Him if there were an exception clause.
It is sometimes argued that despite the
Lord’s words, Deut. 24: 1 shows that God
permits divorce and remarriage. It must be noted that the woman in Deut. 24: 1
is not innocent. An earlier uncleanness has been discovered by her husband. If
she having been divorced then marries another, v4 shows that she has been
defiled by the second marriage and may under no circumstance return to her
former husband. The prospect of a third husband is simply not countenanced in
Scripture.
That Deut. 24: 1 does not imply that God
approved of divorce and remarriage is seen in
Deut. 21: 15, If a man have two wives… If God approves of
divorce and remarriage, He also approves
of bigamy, and we must be just as free today to practice it. These practices,
though widespread, were never according to the mind of God.
But what of the innocent previously unmarried
man or woman who marries a divorced person and
then gets divorced by this person? The argument is that God recognises
only the first marriage. This later marriage which has ended wasn’t recognised
by God so the innocent person is therefore free to marry. Those who use this
argument make a play of the word “recognise”.
The Bible says nothing about what God does or does not recognise.
The first marriage, God owns, as shown in
Genesis 2. a second marriage is contrary to God’s will, but it is still a
marriage and is a “one flesh” bond as 1 Cor.6: 19 shows. A person committing this
sin and is afterwards converted will need to break this sinful relationship and
live apart. Otherwise it must remain impossible to be in fellowship with those
who are NOT practicing adultery.
None has entitlement to church fellowship. It
is a privilege and depends on conditions for fellowship being fulfilled.
There is a beautiful example of the spiritual
significance of espousal and marriage found in 2 Cor. 11: 2, I have espoused you to one husband, that I
may present you as a chaste virgin to
Christ.
The church in its espousal state, and already pure from infidelity through the
cleansing blood of Christ, will in that coming day sit down with her Bridegroom
to enjoy the eternal wedding feast.
*****
One of the weirdest arguments in support of
divorcees remarrying has been put out by M Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible
House. Penfold, a severe critic of the AV Bible, claims that only the act of
remarriage constitutes adultery. The pair still together the next day are
therefore NOT committing adultery. Therefore, he argues, they are fit for
fellowship.
This argument is based on what he calls the
‘gnomic’ present. He writes,
….in Matthew 13v14 we are told the man “goeth
and selleth….and buyeth that field.” Here are three present tenses, none of
which refer to an ongoing series of events. The man was not always going, he
was not always selling and certainly he was not always buying that field. It
was, by the very nature of the story, a once for all transaction and yet it is
related in the present tense. Such examples could be multiplied. Thye present
tense is very frequent on statements of general principle and fact. Grammarians
call such a tense the ‘gnomic’ present.
Penfold chooses to ignore the consequences of
actions described in the present tense. The field remained the man’s purchased
possession. The divorced person remarrying remains in the adulterous relationship.
Maxims
or aphorisms may be described as gnomic. Because they are wise sayings and
permanently true they are usually in the present tense. Foe example: A rolling
stone
gathers no moss. These sayings are not
restricted to the present tense. Thus they have sown the wind and they shall
reap the whirlwind (Hos 8: 7) may be regarded by some as a gnomic saying but has no present tense.
However, it debases the words of the Lord to
reduce them to gnomic utterances (as the wisdom of gnomes) as though some of
His words were maybe not so wise as to be considered “gnomic” I personally
regard the inference as blasphemous
.
So moicatai found in Mtt.19: 9 and
translated “committeth” is claimed to be gnomic and applies only to the act of
marrying!
It is in any case a matter of opinion among
the “scholars” as to whether the statement is gnomic. It remains an opinion
which not many Bible believers will adhere to.
So what about Matt.5: 32 and 19: 9. ? The
verses must be understood within their own context. They cannot be in conflict
with Mark and Luke. Matt.19: 3 helps us
to grasp the context, The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and
saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The
Pharisees were tempting the Lord on a matter relating to Mosaic law. The
passage has a Jewish context. The putting away on the ground of fornication had
to do with the Jewish betrothal system, the fornication occurring during this
period.
The engagement of a couple in our Western
culture does not relate to Jewish betrothal. It is not to be seen as a modern
equivalent. There is no moral, spiritual, or legal requirement for engagement.
(This does not mean that it is wrong). This writer was never engaged to be
married to his wife.
If a Christian
should find that his or her spouse had committed fornication ―that is, had been
unfaithful before marriage―there is still no Scriptural ground for
divorce. Deception, and dishonesty and lies would have been involved in
cheating their partner, but the joining of the two was in the presence of God
and may not be put asunder. However we do not think a believer would stoop to
this evil level of deception, the Scriptures assuring us that those who persist
in adultery and fornication are not saved, Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
mankind (1 Cor.6: 9) such were some of you, the apostle goes on to
say, demonstrating that what sins were practiced before conversion are not
practiced subsequently. There were no divorced and remarried persons in
fellowship at Corinth. One may not divorce on the ground that maybe the spouse
was not saved. The bond remains.
A person who has been divorced and remarries
is, in the words of the Lord, an adulterer. We may have sympathy with the
presumed innocent partner but remarriage constitutes adultery and this state
remains while the couple remain together. It will not be possible for believers
to have fellowship with them either in the assembly or in the home.
Some are facing this problem with their own
children and are compromising the truth for the sake of family relationships.
We can have full sympathy with such in their sadnesses but faithfulness to God
is paramount. Assembly life is damaged when remarried persons are brought in.
Where a firm and bold stand is taken then
repentance and restoration may follow.
