Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: A Biblical Perspective

by David Ferguson

Before I get into the meat of this paper regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, and so all who read it will have an understanding of what my stance is on the institution of marriage and what I believe the Bible teaches on this matter, I submit the following:

Marriage is ordained and established by God, and has been from the beginning:

“And He answered and said, ‘Have ye not read, that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and 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?’ So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Marriage is likened to Christ’s Relationship with the Church:

“Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being Himself the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that He might present the church to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of His body. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband.” (Ephesians 5:22-33)

Marriage Is Designed and Intended To Be Permanent and Between Two People:

“Let thy fountain be blessed; and rejoice in the wife of thy youth. As a loving hind and a pleasant doe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. For why shouldest thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a foreigner?” (Proverbs 5:18-20)

“Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)

“And He answered and said, ‘Have ye not read, that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and 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?’ So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Family Relationships:

“Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children, that they be not discouraged.” (Colossians 3:18-21)

“In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your won husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” (1 Peter 3:1-4)

“Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered. Finally, be ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, humbleminded: not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for hereunto were ye called, that ye should inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:7-9)

Duties of the Older and the Younger:

“…that aged women likewise be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed: the younger men likewise exhort to be sober-minded: in all things showing thyself an ensample of good works; in thy doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of us.” (Titus 2:3-8)

God Wants Spouses to Enjoy Each Other Physically:

“Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.” (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

“Let thy fountain be blessed; and rejoice in the wife of thy youth. As a loving hind and a pleasant doe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. For why shouldest thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a foreigner?” (Proverbs 5:18-20)

For a further in-depth study at how God blesses the marital relationship, I strongly encourage a reading of the book the Song of Solomon.

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: A Biblical Perspective

Much confusion exists today on the topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage. As many people can attest, it seems it has become increasingly difficult for an honest discussion to occur due to those members of the “conservative” wing who seem to wish to stifle debate. They have made their minds up, and they seemingly do not want to have the facts interfere with their conclusions!

The seeds were planted in me long ago that caused me to question the conclusions regarding the prevalent teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage within the Lord’s church. The first doubt came when I realized that God had never held an innocent person accountable for another person’s sin, and yet there were many teaching that even the innocent person could not remarry if divorced. Secondly, many teach that a couple who is divorced and subsequently remarried must divorce their current spouses and marry again their first spouse in order to be reconciled back to God. This thinking causes a myriad of problems, not the least of which is it is totally contradicting the word of God! “And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:3-4) In essence, if this practice would be allowed, a man would have the means to be legally prostituting his own wife! If this practice was an abomination to God under the Old Law, there is no reason to believe it still is not an abomination to Him under the New Covenant. The word used here, abomination, is translated from the Hebrew towebah or toebah, meaning to loathe; something disgusting; an abhorrence; and it is usually associated with idolatry! We know that God has always condemned idolatry! Anyway, it was these two items in the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage teachings that initially propelled me down this journey of discovery, and they occurred long before I was ever first married.

I am not going to be so arrogant as to sit here and tell you I know everything about this issue. I do not claim to hold all the answers to the many questions pertaining to the marriage, divorce and remarriage issue. I have, however, sought diligently and prayerfully to understand fully this subject for literally decades now. I now wish to share with you some truths I have found that not only follow the rules of logic, but they are also reasonable and just conclusions. More importantly, though, is that they are scripturally sound. Although as I said previously, I am not going to claim all knowledge of this topic, I will say this: I am confident that the traditional position regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage is erroneous. It is confusing at best, and according to scripture, “…God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14:33) A doctrine that has as many serious problems and holes in it as does the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrine has to be the product of man’s reasoning, and not God’s.

Marriage, divorce and remarriage is undoubtedly the most controversial subject within the brotherhood of Christ today. Preachers and teachers, and those who are deemed to be scholarly, hold many varying positions on this issue. These individuals’ writings can be found within the numerous and sundry brotherhood publications. But the one dominant position regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage is the one in which I will refer to as the traditional view. (That being said, it is rather ironic that even within the so-called traditional view on marriage, divorce and remarriage there is vast disagreement!) There is the camp that says NO one who is divorced is free to remarry. There is the camp that says only the one who is put away may not be free to remarry, but the one who did the putting away can. There is the camp that teaches that the "guilty" party is not free to remarry, but the innocent one is. There is the belief that Jesus changed the law, but it didn't come into effect until after Pentecost. There is the group who claims that if the divorce papers do not actually say the divorce was granted on the grounds of adultery, then one may not remarry.

Every last type of teaching I listed above on this subject I have heard PERSONALLY proclaimed from a pulpit and/or through writings published within the brotherhood. I am sure I have not covered all of them, either. The thread the traditional teachers have that binds them together, however, is the commonality they share that at least some of the parties who have been divorced do not have the right to a second marriage. How they can deny they are not in violation of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is beyond me: “But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry….” Could it be that the confusion even within their very own ranks is because this doctrine is not coming from God, but from a doctrine of demons, as Paul said?

Some argue that the death of a spouse or a divorce granted for fornication are the only allowable means for one to be freed from a marriage and to be allowed to remarry. This view does have a major obstacle confronting it, however, which even the proponents of the traditional view find difficult to overcome. (Albeit, their admittance is usually done surreptitiously, quietly whispered in private conversation, so that the “powers that be” will not overhear the “blasphemy” being uttered.) They are forced to admit that God’s law has a loophole in it that allows for one to murder one’s spouse, and then be free to remarry once he or she has repented of his or her sin of murder. This thinking comes as the result of teaching that a divorced spouse is ineligible to remarry, but murder is acceptable, for it can be forgiven.

Did Jesus Create New Law in Matthew 19?

Contrary to popular prevalent opinion, Jesus did NOT create new law regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage when speaking with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9. He pointed out and confirmed to those Pharisees already existing Law, which was found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This law, written by Moses as instructed by God, permitted the husband to divorce his wife for specific reasons stated as uncleanness and translated as such from the Hebrew word ervah. Some assert that the uncleanness was the same as the Greek word porneia, which is usually translated fornication, which is any sexual activity outside of marriage. This may be, however, impossible to prove. Regardless, however, it does not affect the conclusions drawn from the word of God found within this paper.

It is important to realize that the practice of "putting away" of the wives without giving her a writing of divorcement was only "suffered" due to the Jews’ hardness of heart, as stated by Jesus in Matthew 19:7-8. God, through His servant Moses, gave the regulation for actual divorce proceedings in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Because women were being unjustly put away, without any means of livelihood to support themselves, and without the freedom to marry another, Moses, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, provided an outlet for these women through the steps he outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Thus, in order to provide for the protection and benefit of the woman, the Law of Moses required the giving of a "bill of divorcement”.

Jesus verified this in Mark’s account: “And there came unto Him Pharisees, and asked Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?’ trying Him. And He answered and said unto them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ And they said, ‘Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.’ But Jesus said unto them, ‘For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.’” (Mark 10:2-5) This was not something that was simply an option. It was a command for the men that should they divorce their wives, they must do so in a manner in accordance with the Law of Moses.

Moses and the Law allowed for a woman who was divorced to remarry another man without fear or shame: "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy 24:2) Jesus was not, as has been oft times told and repeated, introducing a new law when the Pharisees confronted Him. He was, however, upholding not only the Law of Moses, but God's law from the beginning: “And He answered and said, ‘Have ye not read, that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and 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?’’ They say unto Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?’ He saith unto them, ‘Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.’” (Matthew 19:4-5, 7-8) Jesus did not contradict the Law, under which He lived perfectly. If He had contradicted the Law, then it would have meant He had committed sin! If He had contradicted the Law, then His enemies would have had the justification to kill Him legally! Jesus, however, came not to contradict, but to fulfill the Law: “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18) Stephen was accused by the Libertines (Freedmen) of following one who would blaspheme Moses and God: “Then they suborned men, who said, ‘We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.’ And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him into the council, and set up false witnesses, who said, ‘This man ceaseth not to speak words against this holy place, and the Law: for we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us.’” (Acts 6:11-14) To this, Stephen denied, and through his defense in Acts 7 proved how Christ was the fulfillment of the Law.

Paul is falsely accused by word of mouth that there were Jews proclaiming that he was teaching contrary to the Law in Acts 21. “And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him, ‘Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the Law: and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs.’” (Acts 21:20-21) When Paul introduced himself to the Jewish elders in Rome in Acts 28, he tells them he has never done anything against the “customs of our fathers.” “And it came to pass, that after three days he called together those that were the chief of the Jews: and when they were come together, he said unto them, ‘I, brethren, though I had done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers, yet was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans: who, when they had examined me, desired to set me at liberty, because there was no cause of death in me. But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had aught whereof to accuse my nation.  For this cause therefore did I entreat you to see and to speak with me: for because of the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.’” (Acts 28:17-20) We learn in 1 Corinthian 9:19-23 that Paul lived this way for the purpose of evangelism in the furtherance of the gospel, because he was no longer under the Law: “For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.”

Some people claim that Jesus could and did change the Law of Moses in Matthew 19 because He changed the law in John 13:34-35 and John 15:12-13. Let us examine these passages briefly:

“A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another. This is My commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Now, let’s take a look at Leviticus 19:18: "Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah." I believe Jesus was reinforcing what He said when He was asked what was the greatest commandment: "'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?’ And He said unto him, ''Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’ This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.'" (Matthew 22:36-40)

Jesus was not creating new law here, but was simply using "new" in the sense that it was new to the disciples as it was NOT being taught to the people by the Jewish leaders in that day. He then provided that example by giving His life for others.

No, Jesus did not contradict the Law, for that was the very thing that the Jews in power, who were the enemies of Jesus, were trying so desperately to get Him to do, and kept failing miserably! What is most ironic is that the followers of Jesus today who wish to cling to the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrine assert proudly that Jesus did change the Law! And that is utterly absurd!

The apostle Paul wrote the following regarding the Law in Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:14-16: “…having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross…For He is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that He might create in Himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby….” Paul says that the Law of Moses was blotted out (abolished) nailing it to the cross. It was fulfilled through Jesus Christ. The Hebrews writer concludes that at the same time the Old Law was fulfilled, God’s New Covenant came into force: “In that He saith, ‘A new covenant He hath made the first old.’ But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. And for this cause He is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth.” (Hebrews 8:13; 9:15-17) It is clear that we are now living under the Law of Christ: “…to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21) “Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Galatians 6:2) Since we are living under the law of Christ, it would seem prudent that we determine the Lord’s teaching on this issue by examining what is found within the Holy Spirit-inspired epistles. Remember, Jesus told the apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, to bring into their remembrance all things that He taught them, as well as bring them knew knowledge: “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” (John 14:26)

Does Romans 7 Uphold the Traditional Doctrine?

Some of the “traditional” proponents turn to Romans 7 to bolster their claims that the divorced do not have the right to remarry. Let’s look at what the apostle Paul wrote to the congregation in Rome: “For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.” (Romans 7:2-3) He also says in 1 Corinthians 7:39, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

I believe to teach that the passage from Romans is about marriage, divorce and remarriage is to quote it out of context. It is comparing the Old Law of ordinances with the New Law of liberty found in Jesus Christ. It shows how the Old Law is no longer applicable. Look at the verses before and after for confirmation that what is being talked about is NOT marriage, divorce and remarriage, but a comparison of the Old Law to that of the New Covenant: "Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:1, 4-6) If it has anything to do with the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, it simply confirms the intent that marriage was to be for life, and points back to the Garden of Eden.

It is important to note that under the Law of Moses, to which Paul had just referred in verse 1, the woman was not entitled to obtain a divorce. Only the man was able to do so. So the woman COULD NOT have been called ANYTHING other than an adulteress if she left her husband and became attached to another man, as long as her husband lived. If her husband died, she would not be committing adultery any longer, but fornication if she did not marry the man with whom she was abiding. If her husband divorced her per the command of Deuteronomy 24:1, she was free to remarry according to Deuteronomy 24:2.

If a woman is married to a man today, and she leaves him and starts living with another man, she, too, is an adulteress. If she obtains a divorce she no longer is married, and she would be free to marry again, but she is not free to simply live together or engage in sexual relations outside of marriage.

An Examination of the Unmarried

“But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

Notice that Paul did not write to the never married, but instead he wrote to the unmarried, according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This would include those who have never been married, those whose spouse has passed away, and those who are divorced. They are all still UNMARRIED.

Paul states that a widow may remarry, as long as it is a Christian: “…only in the Lord.” "But the vow of a widow, or of her that is divorced, even everything wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand against her." (Numbers 30:9) This is also quite interesting on another level, because there is also some evidence that the word translated “widow” here in 1 Timothy 5 and in 1 Corinthians 7 is also used to indicate a woman who has been DESERTED, or simply put away. Hence, the admonition from Paul to reject the younger widows makes sense: “Let none be enrolled as a widow under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she hath brought up children, if she hath used hospitality to strangers, if she hath washed the saints' feet, if she hath relieved the afflicted, if she hath diligently followed every good work. But younger widows refuse: for when they have waxed wanton against Christ, they desire to marry; having condemnation, because they have rejected their first pledge.” (1 Timothy 5:9-12) These widows Paul says to reject “…because they have rejected their first pledge...” are to be rejected because they desire to marry another before they have been divorced. They need to be the wife of one man.

As we all know, people violate the will of God, and divorcing one’s spouse is but an example of one’s transgressing God’s law. However, once granted by a judge, the divorce is real and the marriage is dissolved. As long as neither one of the parties has remarried the chance of reconciliation and uniting the couple should be sought in earnest.

Does God Demand Celibacy of the Divorced, or is this a “Doctrine of Demons”?

But what about those divorced people who are now found to be in a second marriage? Are they required to remain in a celibate condition for the remainder of their lives if they are to be pleasing to God? Believe it or not, there are many proponents of the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage camp who insist that one who is divorced and remarried must divorce his or her current spouse, and remain celibate, if he or she ever wants a chance to spend eternity in heaven!

I am going to stop here for just one moment and say something that may sound harsh, but it needs to be said: Those who promote such erroneous teaching are teaching a doctrine of demons and have fallen away from the faith! That is not my opinion, it is the word of God: “But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-3) It is so easy for those in the brotherhood to point their fingers and say this passage applies to Catholics, and rightly so. But how are we any different when we are guilty of the same? If one is teaching that certain individuals are not allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, then one is guilty of doing exactly that which Paul says is condemned: forbidding to marry! It is no accident, either, that Paul referred to such men as hypocrites that speak lies.

Paul also was quite clear in saying that such that teach this doctrine have fallen “…away from the faith.” (1 Timothy 4:1) Why? Because those who hold and promulgate the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrine that teaches that one must divorce and break up marriages and families in order to be acceptable to God are no longer teaching salvation through grace, but are instead teaching salvation through meritorious works! Those who hold to this “…doctrine of demons…” are just as guilty as those first century Judaizers who taught that in order to be a saved Christian, one also needed to become a Jew and keep the Old Law. Paul wrote, “For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.” (Galatians 5:1-4)

Please read the following quote from a man who defends the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrine. It illustrates perfectly the blinders which cover the eyes of those who are wishing to uphold traditions of men, rather than the truth of God’s word:

“Could one "forbid" being baptized? Yes, IF the person is not "qualified" to be baptized. Can one "forbid" fellowship? Yes. Can one "forbid" marriage? Yes, to those who are not "qualified". When Paul said to marry, he was OBVIOUSLY speaking of those who are qualified to marry, he was not speaking of sinful relationships. Again, what is the context of the passage in Timothy? The coming apostasy! We KNOW that the Catholic Church forbids priests, popes, nuns to marry EVEN IF THEY COULD WITHOUT SINNING! THIS is what that passage is referring to! Would it be a sin to forbid an eligible person to marry such as one who has never been marred, their spouse has died, or they are the innocent party in a divorce for fornication? YES, it would be sinful to forbid people who can marry without sinning. Would it be a sin to forbid an eligible person to be baptized? YES! Would it be a sin to forbid an INELIGIBLE person to be baptized? NO! Anyone with any understanding KNOWS that Paul was not speaking of sinful marriages. Again, Yes it would be a sin to forbid eligible people to marry, but it is not a sin to forbid those who are ineligible (per Matthew 19:9). Also AGAIN, the passage in Timothy is speaking of the coming apostasy which is obviously speaking of a "religious" organization, that would forbid eligible people to marry as per the Catholic Church which forbids people who CAN marry to marry…popes, priests, nuns etc. Again anyone without an "AGENDA" can and WILL plainly see this.”

Notice how this man is so quick to label the Catholic Church a “religious” organization which forbids people from marrying, then turns around and does the very same thing. This, my friends, is pure hypocrisy, which is exactly what Paul said it was. Notice how this man accuses anyone of interpreting “forbidding to marry” to mean exactly that, forbidding to marry, of having “an agenda”. Notice how he turns the word of God around to say this passage is referring to a “religious” organization when the word of God did not call it that, but simply says “…some shall fall away from the faith….” If one is teaching that the unmarried are forbidden to marry, then one has fallen away from the faith, regardless of the group to which one belongs!

Answering the Charge of Promoting Homosexual Marriages

In their blind desperation to cling to this doctrine of demons, these men will pull no stops in defending their position. One of the most common attempts they do once they have been shown that forbidding to marry is against the word of God is to tell others that you are promoting homosexual marriage, or that if you say homosexuals may not marry each other you are forbidding to marry! The following came from a man on the Internet in response to what I had posted regarding 1 Corinthians 7:

“This text does not give or grant permission to remain in an UNLAWFUL relationship! Could a polygamist remain in his polygamy? Could a homosexual remain in his/her homosexual relationship? John and Steve were married in Canada – why can't John remain married to Steve after he comes to Christ? Do other passages deal with this?

“You ask for someone to explain why Paul "didn't say"…My response is that he didn't have to – Paul didn't say here that if John and Steve were married when called, that they would have to get a divorce – why not? Does this mean that homosexuals can remain married since Paul didn't say that they must divorce?

“The gospel calls us to repentance – those called by it should understand that. Must one repent of homosexuality? Polygamy? Fornication? You agree to these but say no when it comes to adultery – WHY?

“This text CANNOT be used to justify remaining in any "sinful" relationship, including an adulterous one!”

This man, who is so adamant in defending his doctrine, came on in the middle of a conversation I had been having with another man. He admitted that he had not read all that I had written, and yet he felt compelled to post the above allegations, SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS CHALLENGING THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING OF MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IN WHICH HE WISHED TO CLING.

First of all, I have NEVER said a person need not repent of adultery, as this man claimed. Had he bothered to read my material instead of wanting to defend his precious doctrine then he would have seen and known that I do not deny that adultery is sin. What I DO deny is that one who is LEGALLY divorced and remarries is committing ADULTERY.

Secondly, the practice of homosexuality has always been condemned by God: “Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.” (Romans 1:24-27) Marriage between a man and a woman was created by God in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuals cannot continue to engage in their sinful behavior and expect to be pleasing to God. They may not marry each other, for marriage was defined by God in the Garden of Eden as being between a man and a woman. The feeble attempt by the traditionalists to portray anyone teaching contrary to their beloved doctrine as supporting homosexual marriages is nothing more than an obfuscation of the truth.

What About Herod and Herodias, and the Woman at the Well?

“For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, ‘It is not lawful for thee to have her.’” (Matthew 14:3-4)

“Jesus saith unto her, ‘Go, call thy husband, and come hither.’ The woman answered and said unto Him, ‘I have no husband.’ Jesus saith unto her, ‘Thou saidst well, ‘I have no husband:’ for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly.’” (John 4:16-18)

Many in the traditional camp are quick to point to these above passages and claim they “prove” the divorced are not free to remarry. But do they? Let’s take a closer look.

In the case of Herod and Herodias, the Bible never says Herodias and Philip were ever divorced. If they were never divorced, it stands to reason that she and Herod were in an unlawful relationship. Herodias would have simply been living with her brother-in-law. When I pointed this out to a preacher several years ago who held to the traditional teaching and had used this as an example in one of his sermons to claim that divorced individuals needed to repent and break up their current marriages, he admitted that the scriptures do not say Philip and Herodias were divorced, but Josephus in his writings did. He then left it at that, and assumed his point was valid, that God did not recognize marriages involving those who were divorced for reasons other than fornication.

What this man failed to mention was that the law Josephus said that Herod and Herodias were violating has nothing to do with marriage, divorce and remarriage, but instead is a law that falls within the parameters of incest. Under the Mosaical Law, marriage to one’s brother’s wife, while the brother was still living, was forbidden: “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:16) It is this law to which John referred. Therefore, to apply this case to the argument forbidding the divorced to remarry is improper.

In the example of the woman at the well many traditional preachers will conclude and teach that since Jesus did not recognize this woman’s marriage, therefore divorced people are forbidden to remarry. However, this is another case of improperly applying a passage to fit their doctrine.

The Jews held that a woman might be divorced twice or at the most three times. If the Samaritans, of whom this woman was one, had the same standard, she would not have been married to her present partner.

It also could very likely be that she had only been “put away,” and not given a writing of divorcement, which would have provided her a legal divorce.

We also can not tell from the passage that her previous husbands had not simply died. She possibly could have had five husbands who had all passed away. We just can not know with absolute certainty, and neither can the traditionalist. Therefore, to teach as doctrine that this passage affirms that the divorced are not free to remarry is groundless and without merit. This passage does NOT support their traditional doctrine. They reach their conclusions based solely on suppositions that are not provided by scripture to defend that tradition. It therefore could be just as likely that the man with whom she was currently living was a man with whom she had never married, but only lived with outside of marriage. Regardless, one can not apply this passage and say it teaches that the divorced must remain unmarried and celibate.

What About Joseph and Mary?

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’ And she shall bring forth a Son; and thou shalt call His name JESUS; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:18-21)

The traditionalist will claim that Joseph and Mary were married. Therefore, since Joseph sought to “put her away” rather than “divorce” her, they state the terms “put away” and “divorce” are the same. On the surface it might appear that the text supports this, because they are referred to as “husband” and “wife”. Since they are called husband and wife, the traditionalist says that settles it. Put away means divorced! But does this passage really support their position?

There is another term in play here, too, and that is the word translated “betrothed”. It is from the Greek word “mnesteuo” and means “espouse” or “betroth”.

We need to understand that the Jewish marriage consisted of three stages. The first stage was the engagement. This was set up and arranged by the parents of the couple to be wed, and the prospective couple was not even involved.

The second stage was the betrothal. During this time the young couple agreed to the marriage, signed a legal document accepting to be married, and were considered “husband and wife.” During this period, should the husband pass away, the woman would be called a widow. However, they did not live together yet. They did not engage in sexual activity. They were not officially and legally married. It was a time of courtship, a time of building a relationship, a time of getting to know one another. It was a time of planning and dreaming and happy expectations. This time of betrothal usually lasted about a year, and this is the step we find Joseph and Mary in from the above passage.

The final stage was the marriage ceremony, and this could last up to a week.

Since we see the word betrothed used, we know this couple was not formally married yet. They were in the second stage of the Jewish marriage. The fact that the text refers to Joseph as her “husband” and Mary as his “wife” does not contradict the statement that they were espoused or engaged.

This is what Barnes says regarding husband in this passage: “Her husband. The word in the original does not imply that they were married. It means here the man to whom she was espoused.” Also, for the word “wife”, note Strong’s definition: “a woman; specially, a wife:--wife, woman.” Therefore, the claim by the traditionalists that Joseph and Mary were married is not proven by the original language.

There are several reasons we should not conclude that they were married. We have already discussed the three-step Jewish marriage process in which they were merely betrothed. If they were married, then they could have engaged in sex as a married couple. They had not. Joseph had not “known” Mary; therefore, he knew he was not the father of her unborn child. He intended to end the betrothal quietly and privately, to spare Mary the shame of a public spectacle.

There is no biblical evidence that Joseph sought to divorce (apostasion) Mary. He only sought to put away, to separate from her (apoluo). One only divorces when one is married. If one is NOT married, then one simply separates. In addition, had they been married the penalty for adultery would have been death by stoning under the Law of Moses in which they lived.

The case of Joseph and Mary gives credence to and actually supports the position that “put away” is NOT the same thing as divorce, and is something that is performed without any legal papers.

An Examination of 1 Corinthians 7

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians he makes a rather interesting statement that I believe many have overlooked: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” (1 Corinthians 7:1) What can we learn from this verse? First of all, we learn that Paul is beginning to address specific questions the people in Corinth had asked Paul to answer. Although we do not have the EXACT word for word questions at our disposal, one can deduce and easily surmise just what it is the people were asking: They were asking Paul about marriage, divorce and remarriage!

We also see from verse 1 that Paul said, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The Greek word translated touch is haptomai, which means to attach oneself to, or to touch. Paul is teaching that it is good for a man not to become attached to a woman. It is better that he remains single. Why? Paul answers this when he said, “I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is.” (1 Corinthians 7:26) The great persecution the church was facing was why Paul thought it would be wiser if people would remain single, such as he was. The fact is, he never commanded anyone to remain single, and that included those who were divorced. He offered the single life as a viable option to those who chose it, and could bear it: “But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:6-8; 39-40)

Let’s return once more to examine the conclusion rendered by the traditionalists in the marriage, divorce and remarriage camp. Let’s see if those who insist that one who is divorced and remarried must divorce his or her current spouse, and remain celibate, if he or she ever wants a chance to spend eternity in heaven, are correct and in line with the teachings of holy scripture.

Let us open our eyes to see what the scriptures teach regarding this issue: “But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2) This statement is directed to all unmarried, regardless of whether one is single, either through never marrying, widowed, or being currently divorced. I believe it also very possible that Paul is teaching here that polygamy should no longer be practiced. “But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Corinthians 7:9) Paul continued speaking to the unmarried here, stating that it is better to marry that to burn with unrequited passion, which can lead to lust and fornication, which, as stated earlier, is sexual activity outside of marriage.

“But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) The word translated depart is from the Greek word choreo, meaning to give space. Paul is speaking here of a separation, and not a divorce. Paul is reiterating what Jesus said regarding this issue, “…yea not I, but the Lord,” that those who are not divorced, but just separated, should not marry another. She should remain unmarried in terms of attaching herself to another man while still married to her first husband, and she should try and be reconciled, if at all possible. Paul says she should remain unmarried because of the practice of polygamy. In other words, it is NOT saying she is unmarried to her current husband, but that she should not go and marry someone else while she is still married (or else be reconciled). The more I study this, the more I believe 1 Corinthians 7:2 is referring to polygamy. I believe it very possible that Paul is reiterating here that the practice of polygamy is not to be allowed in the New Covenant.

The word translated leave in verse 11 comes from the Greek word aphiemi, meaning to leave, put away, or let go. Its root comes from apo, denoting separation or departure. Paul is saying here that the man should not put away or leave his wife, which is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Christ discussed earlier from Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

Let’s look at three verses here that really strike at the heart and core of the traditionalist’s views on marriage, divorce and remarriage that deny the divorced the opportunity to remarry: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn…(but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9; 11) The word translated “unmarried” in verse 8 and verse 11 is the same exact word in both places, “agamos,” and it means “unmarried.” This becomes a HUGE problem for the traditionalist position, however, because if agamos means “divorced” in verse 11 as the traditionalist says it must, then the word MUST mean the same thing in verse 8. Hence, the wall comes tumbling down on their insistence that the divorced individual is not free to remarry. Let us see what these verses say if this word is translated divorced instead of unmarried: “But I say to the divorced and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn…(but should she depart, let her remain divorced, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.” As can be seen, if agamos means divorced, Paul clearly says in verse 10 that they are free to marry. And if agamos means divorced, as the traditionalist says it does in verse 11, then we have Paul contradicting himself within the space of a mere four verses!

We also see agamos being used by Paul later on in this chapter in verses 32 and 34: “But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided. So also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:32-34) Let’s see what this would say if agamos is translated divorced here: “But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is divorced is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided. So also the woman that is divorced and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”

If agamos is properly translated unmarried, then there is no inconsistency, and it still shoots holes clear through the traditional position that demands celibacy of the divorced, for Paul said the unmarried, which includes the divorced, may marry.

“But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13) There has been much discussion and debate regarding what or to whom the phrase the rest refers. Some have alleged that Jesus was speaking only to those who lived under the Law of Moses, and that Paul now addresses “…the rest…” as being those who are brothers and sisters in Christ. My contention is that the phrase “…the rest…” has to do with the rest of the questions Paul was answering that the Corinthians had submitted to him. Regardless of what one believes “…the rest…” refers, it makes no difference to the conclusions found within this paper.

Let’s see again what Paul has said in this section: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.” (1 Corinthians 7:1-5) There is something we need to remember while studying these passages, and that is to remember to whom Paul was originally writing his epistle. Corinth was a major metropolitan city that was filled with paganism, idolatry and sexual immorality. The congregation at Corinth was comprised of those people who came out of this rampant immoral society, and many felt that ALL sexual activity was evil.

As stated earlier, Paul began this section by teaching that it is best for a man not to pursue becoming attached to a woman due to the present distress. In order to avoid fornication, Paul says it is better for individuals to marry than to burn with great desire and passion. In verses 3 through 5, Paul specifically addresses questions regarding sexual relations within the confines of marriage. He flatly refutes the notion that marital relations between a husband and a wife are sinful, and even commands that neither the husband nor the wife should deprive their partner of this aspect of the marital life. He tells them they should refrain from sexual relations only if agreed by mutual consent in order to give themselves over to prayer. Married couples should also refrain from sexual relations for only a short time or season, (from the Greek word kairos, meaning short time), so as to avoid falling into temptation by Satan.

Since we have already discussed verses 6 through 11, let us continue with the following verses: “But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” (1 Corinthians 7:12-14) The obvious question Paul was answering here was, in the case of where one of the partners in a marriage was a Christian, and the other was not, should the believing partner leave (put away) his or her unbelieving partner? One can also surmise that this union was being viewed as unholy and unsanctioned by God. Paul’s answer to them is No, if the unbeliever is content, do not leave (put away) your spouse. He then relieves their anxiety by stating, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” God’s grace and blessing is extended to this union through the believing spouse.

This does bring up an interesting question, however: Is Paul saying that ONLY those who have at least one believing spouse have a marriage that is recognized and sanctioned by God? “…else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” It could be, I suppose, and I have never seen nor heard this facet addressed by the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage proponents. If this is the case, then this would also shoot many holes in that erroneous doctrine, for ONLY Christians could have marriages recognized by God! Everyone else outside of Christ would be engaging in fornication, so those who had been divorced and remarried prior to becoming a Christian would NOT have to abandon their current spouses in order to be pleasing to God, as they never really were previously married “in the eyes of God” until the time of their conversion! They would simply have to go through a marriage ceremony and “remarry” their current spouse!

I do not believe, however, that this is what Paul is teaching here. I believe he is just further illustrating how the grace of God blesses this union, even when it violates the principle of not being unequally yoked. Paul specifically speaks of that in his next letter to the Corinthians, but it is possible they had heard of this from Paul earlier: “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)

“Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:15-16) Here Paul instructs that the brother or sister who has an unbelieving spouse that departs is no longer under bondage to that spouse. The word translated bondage comes from the Greek word douloo, meaning to enslave; bring into bondage; become or make a servant. It comes from doulos, meaning a slave; bondman; servant. Doulos is derived from deo, meaning to bind, literally or figuratively; be in bonds; knit; tie; wind. It would seem appropriate to conclude, then, based upon scripture, that if an unbelieving spouse leaves, then the believing spouse would be able to end the marriage: “…but God hath called us in peace.”

Paul also seems to be indicating the utter futility of a believing spouse chasing after one who has no interest in becoming a Christian: “For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” It is better to just let them go, rather than try to convert those who do not wish to be converted. This has all the earmarks of a contentious and hopeless endeavor, and is contrary to the teaching, “…but God hath called us in peace.”

Paul continues by saying, “Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches. Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1 Corinthians 7:17-19) I believe Paul is teaching just the opposite here of what the traditionalists would like for you to believe. Paul is not demanding that marriages be broken up when one comes to the Lord, even those where one or both of the spouses has been divorced! He says you can’t undo the past: “Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God.” This has to be an accurate rendering of this passage, for to treat it otherwise is to take it totally out of context. Paul has been discussing marriage, divorce and remarriage up to this point, and he does so after this point. He therefore is discussing marriage, divorce and remarriage in this passage. It would be ludicrous to teach otherwise. How can one become uncircumcised once he has been circumcised? It is an impossibility. How can one get a divorce, which is contrary to God, in order to be pleasing to God? Paul says it is a ridiculous supposition.

How do I know this? Because of the very next verse: “Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called.” (1 Corinthians 7:20) He then repeats this command: “Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.” (1 Corinthians 7:24) If you were divorced and remarried when you were called to Christ, then remain in your current marriage, says Paul. Don’t try and undo what can not and should not be undone. If you try and earn your right to Christ, you will fail miserably, because you will have become enslaved again: “Wast thou called being a bondservant? Care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use it rather. For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ's bondservant. Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:21-23) Paul warns of those who will try and take your liberty in Christ away from you by demanding you do what is not commanded of you. Do not become a bondservant of men! Do not let yourselves be taught that you can earn your salvation by suffering penance, and remaining celibate the rest of your life! That is not God’s way, it is a doctrine of demons!

Here’s the clincher, folks, to prove that God does not want us breaking up marriages in order to be pleasing to him: “Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you.” (1 Corinthians 7:27-28) As indicated earlier, the word translated bound is the Greek word deo, meaning to bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, or wind. The word translated wife is from the Greek word gune, meaning wife, or woman. It is the same word for wife used by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. The first word translated loosed in verse 27 comes from the Greek word luo, meaning to loosen; break up; destroy; dissolve; loose; melt; put off. The second word translated loosed in verse 27 is from the Greek word lusis, meaning a loosening; divorce; to be loosed. It is derived from luo. The word translated marry in verse 28 is from the Greek word gameo, meaning to marry a wife. This is the same word translated marry in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 when spoken by the Lord.

I wanted to bring all of this to the attention of the reader because years ago I spoke with a preacher who seemed to always bring up marriage, divorce and remarriage in his sermons, regardless of the topic, and expound upon how divorced individuals were not allowed to remarry because of what Jesus said in Matthew 5, Matthew 19, and Mark 10. I finally asked him why didn’t he ever talk about what Paul said on the topic, and I showed him these verses. I pointed out to him where Paul said, paraphrased, “Are you married to a wife? Seek not to be divorced. Are you divorced from a wife? Seek not a wife. But should you marry, you haven’t sinned.” I even showed him that the same words for marry and wife were the same words used by Jesus. He got angry with me, and he really did not have any answer to say at that time. Three weeks later, however, he came back and told me that since Paul did not use the same exact word for divorce that Jesus did, then Paul was not talking about a marital relationship! This passage, then, did not apply, because Paul was not talking about married couples, according to that man.

I told him that was absurd, (and I did not know as much about this topic then as I do now). I said to him, “So if someone told you his first marriage was dissolved in April of 1984, and someone else said he was divorced in April of 1984, it wouldn’t mean the same thing, just because different words were used?” I also told him that according to the exact words of Jesus Christ found in Matthew 19:5, a man could ONLY leave his parents by getting married. I reminded him that he had left his parents when he joined the military prior to getting married, so that he had better repent of his sins of leaving his parents before he got married! (I simply wanted to make an illustration for him to open up his eyes to the possibility that his interpretation might not be right regarding what Jesus said in Matthew 19.) He did not care for my logic, and told me I didn’t know what I was talking about because I had not studied the issue as long as he had, and he said I was a false teacher. He then walked away in a huff.

This is so indicative of what the problem is with those who wish to cling to an erroneous, man-made tradition. When confronted with the truth and facts, they launch personal attacks at anyone who dares challenge their precious party line.

Although his conclusion was wrong because he wanted to hold to that which was in his comfort zone, he was nearing some truth. Jesus DID use a different word for divorce in Matthew 5, Matthew 19 and Mark 10 than what Paul said in the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, because Jesus was not talking about divorce, while Paul was. Jesus was talking about putting away, or separating, which is not divorce, but a part of divorce. We will get into this more shortly.

Jesus commanded that the gospel must be preached to everyone (Mark 16:15-16), and all those who obey it and have all their sins washed away (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16) must be regarded as children of God. Marriage, divorce, and remarriage existed during the first century, and yet not a single person in the book of Acts was told they needed to get divorced from their spouse in order to be repentant. Statistically speaking, it would be an impossibility for not a single person to have been in the audience who had been married, divorced and remarried on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 when the church was founded and 3,000 were baptized, and when 5,000 men were baptized in Acts 4, and yet they were considered repentant. People who have been married, divorced and remarried and have been immersed into Christ must be extended the same respect as anyone else, regardless of their marital status. We must move past the erroneous teaching of penance (demanding celibacy) incorporated from Roman Catholicism and only demand what God has always demanded: repentance. One must repent of divorcing, and stop divorcing!

A Cyber Exchange with Brother Graham

Now I will share with you an actual cyberspace exchange regarding the issue of marriage, divorce and remarriage I had with a man from a forum on the Internet. His name has been changed, and his email address deleted, but those are all the changes that have been made. I believe this is a perfect example of how difficult our challenge is to try and correct decades of ingrained, fallacious indoctrination. This man seems to refuse to see what is right before his very eyes. I started our cyber conversation by posting the following:

Hi, folks!

Here's a suggestion I have to offer. Pretend you have never heard anything about marriage, divorce and remarriage and do a word study on the word translated "put away" and the word translated "divorce" and you might be surprised at what you find. It will also make it very clear why there is a change in the usage of tenses Jesus says in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

“And there came unto Him Pharisees, trying Him, and saying, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?’” (Matthew 19:3)

“They say unto Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?’ He saith unto them, ‘Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: 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.’” (Matthew 19:7-9)

“And there came unto Him Pharisees, and asked Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?’ trying Him. And He answered and said unto them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ And they said, ‘Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.’ But Jesus said unto them, ‘For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.’” (Mark 10:2-5)

“And He saith unto them, ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12)

Happy sleuthing!

In Christ,
David

Brother Frank Graham responds:

Hello brother Ferguson,

Frank Graham here. Seems to me "put away" and "divorce" are used synonymously, like in Jeremiah 3:8. I'm wondering if a person could be said to be "put away" biblically (not separated from spouse as used in our sense today) and yet not "divorced."

Thanks.
Frank Graham
Southside Church Of Christ

I answer brother Graham:

Dear brother Graham,

I noticed you responded to me privately...can't say that I blame you! I will answer your email off board then, too.

I believe put away and divorce are NOT synonymous, and this is the crux of what I believe has been at the core of the marriage, divorce and remarriage dispute: Improper interpretation of the Greek in order to justify a faulty conclusion.

“Put away” means “send out of the house” and results in separation – not in a legal divorce. What evidence is there that “put away” just means what it says and does not mean divorce? First of all, the Greek word for "put away" is apoluo. The Greek word for "divorce" is apostasion. This word was NOT used when translated "put away" in Matthew 19:9.

The men in Jesus' time were "putting away" their wives (sending them out of their homes) to avoid having to return their wives' dowries by doing what was actually commanded of them, which was to divorce their wives in a legal manner. It was a three step process, (or four, if you count "finding some fault in her" as step one), and very similar to what takes place today. They “filed for divorce” by writing her a bill of divorcement, and when the papers were completed they were presented to the spouse. They were then to put her away or send her out of the house: “When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” (Deuteronomy 24:1)

These men, because of the hardness of their hearts, were not following the law properly so as to keep the money from their wives’ dowry for themselves. Therefore, if any other man married the woman who was simply put away, those two would both be committing adultery, as she was still legally married to her husband.

Please consider also this passage: "But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

In Him,
David

Brother Graham responds:

Hello Brother Ferguson,

Frank here. Appreciate your interesting thoughts, but.... It seems that apoluo and apostasion are use synonymously in Matthew 19. They ask Jesus why Moses allowed a writing of divorcement (apostasion) in verse 7, and He answered that because of the hardness of their hearts Moses allowed them to put away (apoluo) in verse 8 their wives. I don't see how you can say there are two questions being discussed here. They asked a question and Jesus answered it. Although your thoughts on the Jewish men maneuvering to refuse to pay back the dowries may very well have been a true common occurrence, it doesn't seem that that was the subject of Matthew 19.

Thanks for reading.
Frank Graham
Southside Church Of Christ

I respond to brother Graham:

Dear brother Graham,

To answer your response clearer, let's examine the following: "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." (Matthew 19:9) What did Jesus say these men were guilty of when they “put away” their wives and married another? He said they were guilty of adultery (moichao), not fornication (porneia), which was used in the "exception clause".

Now let's take a look at Mark's account in Mark 10:3-5: "And He answered and said unto them, 'What did Moses command you?' And they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.' But Jesus said unto them, 'For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.'" Although some have concluded from the Pharisees’ comment that divorce was merely something Moses suffered or permitted, Jesus, in verse 5 here, says otherwise: He says that it was something that Moses actually “commanded” them to do under the circumstances and in the context of the discussion taking place.

Certainly Moses was not commanding a man to divorce his faithful wife, for such could not be done without committing “treachery,” which is what God hates: "'For I hate putting away,' saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, 'and him that covereth his garment with violence,' saith Jehovah of hosts: 'therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.'" (Malachi 2:16) Moses simply commanded those who were determined to rid themselves of their wives to do so in a legal manner. In so doing, their ex-wives would have the necessary papers to prove that they were free from their previous marriage, and thus be able to marry another without being charged with adultery: “And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.” (Deuteronomy 24:2) For as we know, under the law adultery was punishable by death: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10)

In laying out the commandment for obtaining a divorce, Moses had clearly defined divorce as having three clear and distinct parts, and not just one – the writing of the bill of divorcement, the putting it into her hand, and finally, the sending away from his house: "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” (Deuteronomy 24:1) We also see how it was designed to ensure that the divorced spouse would be free to remarry. It was designed for her protection: “And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy 24:2)

Please note that there is no "exception clause" stated in Mark's account. Thus, it would seem that He was addressing those in the audience who were unscripturally putting away their wives to whom they were scripturally and legally married. They were not following all of the procedures as had been commanded by Moses. To me, it is very reminiscent of how the Jews were abusing and twisting another commandment, which was to honor (provide for) their parents: "And He answered and said unto them, 'Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor thy father and thy mother:' and, 'He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death.' But ye say, 'Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God;' he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.'" (Matthew 15:3-6)

Jesus did, however, provide for a putting away “exception,” as found in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32: “It was said also, ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:’ but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.” If “porneia” was being committed, as would be the case if the marriage was not scriptural or legal, one could and should simply “put away”, or “send away” the illicit sexual partner. No papers for divorce would be required because there never was any legal marriage to dissolve. They simply would need to separate, as was the case in the command found in Ezra 10:11: “Now therefore make confession unto Jehovah, the God of your fathers, and do His pleasure; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the foreign women.” Again, why was there no command to divorce those women? There was no command to divorce because there were no legal marriages! These relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended by permanently separating. For further examples of unacceptable relationships please see Genesis 28:6; Leviticus 20:21; Matthew 14:3-4; and 1 Corinthians 5.

If you recall from Jeremiah 3:8 God Himself divorced Israel: "And I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot." God divorced Israel because she refused to repent and renew her relationship with Him. Under the same circumstances divorce is the right thing to do, whether it is initiated by the guilty one that “put away” or the one that had diligently tried to save the relationship, when done so in a legal manner. The difficulty is understanding that there is a difference in one being put away and one being divorced, because of what has been ingrained into us for so long now traditionally. Once we open our eyes and our heart to the truth found within the scriptures we can easily see that the traditional teaching that one who has been divorced is forbidden to marry (or will commit adultery if he or she does), is without scriptural support. And those who cling to that teaching are as Paul said in 1 Timothy 4:1-3: They are teaching doctrines of demons: "But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth." For further evidence that put away is not divorce, consider this: A margin note in the Geneva Bible translated from the Textus Receptus in 1560 (about 50 years before the King James Version) concerning the term put away, said, “that is, was not lawfully divorced.” We have incorporated many Roman Catholic Church teachings into our brotherhood, and this whole marriage, divorce and remarriage controversy reeks of it. We have simply confused penance with repentance. We expect those who have suffered from divorce to also suffer penance for that divorce in the form of celibacy. God has NEVER required penance; He has ALWAYS required repentance!

Finally, I had heard (and believed) for many years that Jesus was taking the side of the Shammai school, which held that "something indecent" in Deuteronomy 24:1 meant "marital unfaithfulness." The Hillel school held that it included anything that displeased the man, even anything as innocuous as burning his toast or breaking his eggs. When the Pharisees asked Jesus this question, it was yet another in a series of attempts by those men to entrap the Lord, but to their utter failure. Their motives were apparently these: 1) To charge Jesus with sin by pitting Him to contradict Moses; or 2) To get Jesus to takes sides on the controversial divorce issue which had raged for a century. Did Jesus take sides with one of the Jewish schools? I believe He found fault in both schools. I don't believe He took sides, but merely explained the passage correctly in light of what it was intended to accomplish, but had been trampled asunder through their incorrect traditions. We now engage in the same incorrectness today.

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

In Christ,
David

More of my responses to brother Graham:

Dear brother Graham,

You said, "Well! Maybe I just don't get it! But, it seems like a forced interpretation; a story made up that isn't reflected in what I'm reading.”

My response: Frank, (I hope you don't mind me using your first name), I don't believe this is a forced interpretation at all. It isn't a story that I simply made up, either, but fits exactly within the context of the passages cited. In fact, it makes much more sense than what is called the "traditional" marriage, divorce and remarriage teaching which, by the way, only became the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage teaching in the late 1950s and early 1960s onward to try and curb a rising divorce rate in the U.S.

You said: "It just doesn't seem that Jesus would have said what He did in Matthew 5 and 19 if He was speaking about men who had kicked their wives out of the house just to keep from paying back a dowry."

My response: Why wouldn't He have said this? It goes to the core of just whom Jesus was: He was the ultimate champion of the underdog. Women were being treated unjustly and unfairly by the men around them and largely in part because of twisted and wrong traditional teachings the Jewish men in power were using to their advantage. This would largely explain why so many of Jesus' followers were of the female persuasion, because He was a man who was treating them with respect as human beings, and not merely as chattel to be disposed arbitrarily at the whim of some man. He not only treated them as such, but He was demanding the men in authority do so, also! Jesus was teaching the men to take responsibility as taught by the scriptures! What was Jesus condemning in Matthew 5? He was condemning teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. He was correcting the wrong teaching that had permeated their society. Here is the text: "YE HAVE HEARD that it was said...IT WAS SAID ALSO, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:21, 31-32) The people were being incorrectly taught that it was okay to simply "put away" their wives without fulfilling the entire command to write her a bill of divorcement, put it in her hand, and send her out of their house. Remember how He told His audience in Mark 10 that it was a COMMAND from Moses to write her a bill of divorcement? "And He answered and said unto them, ‘What did Moses COMMAND you?’ And they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.' But Jesus said unto them, 'For your hardness of heart he wrote you this COMMANDMENT.'" (Mark 10:3-5) A bill of divorcement was not something that was simply "suffered," as they incorrectly taught. Jesus CORRECTED them by stating it was a COMMAND. They had violated the word of God.

Brother Frank, let me ask you this: Do you think it possible for one in Old Testament times, as well as New Testament times, to apoluo (put away) a wife and yet never file for divorce?

I hope this helps. I look forward to hearing from you.

In Him,
David

More responses from me to brother Frank:

Dear brother Frank,

Thank you for your response. I think I understand where some of the confusion is emanating.

Earlier you wrote: "It just doesn't seem that Jesus would have said what He did in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 if He was speaking about men who had kicked their wives out of the house just to keep from paying back a dowry."

My response: Actually, it makes perfect sense. If you just "put away" and do not divorce then the idea that you commit adultery by marrying another becomes elementary. On the other hand, claiming that one who is actually divorced commits adultery when he or she marries another is nonsensical and would have Jesus contradicting the Law. Thus, it is clear which theory is wrong and what is the truth.

You said: "My point in Matthew was I couldn't imagine Jesus saying; ‘Whosoever "puts away" his wife (kicks her out of the house without divorcing her), saving for the cause of fornication, and marries another, commits adultery.’

What does/ or would the "fornication" have to do with it?"

My response: Frank, the reason I believe there is a misunderstanding regarding the “exception clause” is because the traditional teachings have confused "putting away" with divorce. "Putting away" is NOT divorce, but it is a PART OF the divorce proceedings. The traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage teachings have turned Matthew 19:9 upside down, and have taught that FORNICATION was the only allowable reason Jesus cited to divorce one's spouse. Actually, one who is committing fornication SHOULD put away that partner, because fornication is sexual relations outside of marriage, and has always been condemned by God.

Let's look at Matthew 19:9 again: "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."

Let me now paraphrase this passage in a manner I hope will help you understand what I believe Jesus to be saying: "And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, (except for those who are committing fornication by living with someone who has not been legally divorced - put away that partner and sin no more!), and shall marry another, committeth adultery, because you have not divorced your first wife: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery, because she has not been legally divorced from her husband."

Frank, you said: "(a) If she HAD committed fornication and he kicked her out of the house without divorcing her just to keep from re-paying the dowry, and then remarried, he would be committing adultery (for he was still really married to her)."

My response: This is correct, and it probably happened on occasion. However, according to the Law, the husband really had only three options available to him: To either forgive her, and keep her as his wife; to have her put to death by stoning; or to divorce her properly, according to the steps outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1.

It is so difficult for us to move past what has been taught erroneously for so long. We believe that God said He hated divorce. So we are led to believe that "putting away" is the same thing as divorce. We then believe that since God hates divorce, then He does not want the divorced to remarry.

God did not say He hated divorce. He said He hated "putting away": "'For I hate putting away,' saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, 'and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith Jehovah of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.'" (Malachi 2:16) God hates putting away because it is treacherous. It is dishonest; it is deceptive; it is against everything for which He stands: Love, honesty, truth, mercy, and compassion.

You said: "(b) If she HADN'T committed fornication, and he kicked her out of the house (for burning the toast) without divorcing her just to keep from re-paying the dowry, and then remarried, he would be committing adultery (for he was still really married to her)."

My response: You are absolutely right! And that is the key! He HADN'T divorced his wife legally! But the exception clause is not directed at the first married couple. It is directed at those who are living with one who has simply been put away, but not divorced according to the Law.

You said: "If Jesus was addressing the thought that you suggest (not divorcing, but kicking her out and not re-paying the dowry), then there would have been no need/purpose for the "fornication" clause. He is still going to commit adultery!"

My response: I BELIEVE I have already addressed this in my previous comments. There IS the necessity of this clause to deal with those living together "in sin," since they can not be legally married, since the divorce was not granted according to the Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24:1.

You said: "Jesus was asked in Matthew 19:3, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (King James Version) If what you say is true of "putting away," then Jesus would have simply said, "NO! Under no circumstances!"

My response: No, Jesus would not say this, because of the fact that people were living together who were not married legally. In that case, no divorce proceedings would be necessary, because all they needed to do was repent and "put away." They needed to stop their fornicating. No writing of a divorcement was necessary in those cases. Putting away WAS.

You said: "You cannot just kick your wife out of the house without divorcing her."

My response: That is true, according to the LAW, but these men were doing just that, and Jesus was correcting their error.

You said: "David, I'm just seeing that the fornication clause has nothing to do with kicking your wife out of the house under false pretenses. Either way, remarriage would be adultery.

Frank

My response: Frank, remarriage is NOT adultery, according to scriptures, but it has been called that by man's tradition. How could Jesus have been teaching CONTRARY to the Law? Remember what Moses said in the very next verse in Deuteronomy 24:2: "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." How much clearer does God have to be than saying that once one is divorced, he or she may marry someone else? He said it here, as well as in 1 Corinthians 27-28: “Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned….”

If we were not supposed to be able to remarry, if remarriage is adultery, then why didn't God tell Moses to say instead, "And when she is departed out of his house, she may NOT be another man's wife."? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit tell Paul to say, “Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. And shouldest thou marry, thou HAST sinned….” Wouldn’t this have been easier? The truth is, God never said man (or woman) must remain unmarried and celibate all of his or her life: Only men have said that. As God said from the beginning when man was first placed in the Garden of Eden, “It is not good that the man should be alone….” (Genesis 2:18) Why is it suddenly good for man to be alone, and to remain celibate in order to be pleasing to God, if his wife divorces him? The fact is, it’s not, and God never said it was, either.

Thanks again for your time.

In Christ,
David

As of this writing, I never did hear back from Frank Graham. He never answered my questions. He never told me whether or not he thought it possible for one in Old Testament times, as well as in New Testament times, to apoluo (put away) a wife and yet never file for divorce. I would hope he was so caught up as the noble Bereans in studying what I said to be true or not, that he just forgot about me. My belief, however, is that he retreated back into his comfort zone when he saw the word of God in conflict with what he was taught. You saw his questions and comments he wrote to me, and how he was being blinded in spite of what stood before him. He had been taught that fornication was the only acceptable reason to divorce one’s spouse, so that is the way it is going to remain, in spite of the facts contradicting that doctrine right before him.

In a nutshell, the so-called "traditionalists" approach this subject from a wrong emphasis. They think the “exception clause” is the ONLY reason Jesus allowed one to DIVORCE a spouse, when what He said was this was the reason one should PUT AWAY a "spouse." The Jewish men of Jesus' day, as well as current Jewish men, have not been following as was commanded them the proper procedures to conduct lawful divorces. Once again, here is the law under question: "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." (Deuteronomy 24:1) According to the Law, there is a three-step process in acquiring a divorce: write her a bill of divorcement, give it in her hand, and send her out of the house. The word for divorce in the Greek is apostasion. The word for put away in Greek is apoluo. Keep these in mind when studying Matthew 19 and Mark 10: "And there came unto Him Pharisees, trying Him, and saying, 'Is it lawful for a man to PUT AWAY his wife for every cause?'" (Matthew 19:3) "They say unto him, 'Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?' He saith unto them, 'Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: 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.'" (Matthew 19:7-9) And now, the account from Mark: "And there came unto Him Pharisees, and asked Him, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?' trying Him. And He answered and said unto them, 'What did Moses command you?' And they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.' But Jesus said unto them, 'For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.'" (Mark 10:2-5) So we see that from this account Jesus says Moses commanded them to write a bill of divorcement. Why? SO THAT THE WOMAN WOULD BE FREE TO REMARRY! "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy 24:2) In essence, the men were not following all three parts of the commandment regarding how to accomplish a legal divorce, but were simply PUTTING AWAY their wives, meaning sending them from their homes. This meant the men could keep their wives' dowry, which is why Jesus said, "...for your hardness of heart..." in Matthew 19:8. They were not writing a bill of divorcement, and putting it in her hand as required, so when she "married" another man, she was in actuality living in sin in an adulterous relationship. She was committing fornication. That is why Jesus gave the exception clause in Matthew 19:9: "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." These people in the second "marriage" were not married because they had never been LEGALLY DIVORCED. These people, then, were engaging in fornication. They weren't married legally. That is why Jesus said these people had to only PUT AWAY their partners. They had to get out of their unlawful and sinful relationship, and since they were not married, they did not have to give a writing of divorcement and put it in her hand.

Listen to what Luke recorded the Lord saying in Luke 16:18: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery.” Once again, when understanding that putting away is a part of the divorce process and is the equivalent of a separation, then what Jesus said is understandable. It makes perfect sense. The woman was not divorced from her first husband because she had never been given a writing of a bill of divorcement as commanded in Deuteronomy 24:1. When she married another man, while still legally married to her first husband, she and her new husband would be in a state of adultery.

I am afraid that there are many that have fallen into the trap of believing a doctrine of demons. It may be for the hardness of their hearts, by requiring others to bear that which they themselves could not. And God has also warned us: “…and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

For those who still wish to uphold the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrine, I would like to pose some questions: Why would God allow the Law of Moses to stand unaltered for 1400+ years, and then change it a year or two before He abolished it eternally? In Jeremiah 3:7-9, the inspired prophet records God giving Israel, the rebellious northern tribes, her bill of divorce. Then, in Malachi 2:10-16, according to the traditional translation, the prophet likens divorce to treachery and, by parallel, one who divorces to one who breaks faith with their spouse. Is Malachi calling God treacherous? If Jesus changed the Law, why would He not admit to it when challenged? Why didn't Paul speak of this when He was challenged on preaching alteration of Moses' law? Why didn't Paul EVER teach this in any epistle?

Let's look at some verses other than Mark 10 and Matthew 19 that deal with marriage, divorce and remarriage.

“When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned. But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry.... (Deuteronomy 24:1-2; 1 Corinthians 7:1-2; 1 Corinthians 7:8-9; 1 Corinthians 7:20; 1 Corinthians 7:24; 1 Corinthians 7:27-28; 1 Timothy 4:1-3)

It is hermeneutically sound that if any portion of scripture we use to support a position collides with other specific and clearly spoken portions of scripture, we err and the foundation of our major premise crumbles. Now, can ANYONE read the above and come to the conclusion that one who is divorced MUST remain celibate for the rest of one's life because he or she is still married to his or her first spouse? That would be impossible! If that is an impossibility; in fact, if just the COMPLETE OPPOSITE IS CLEARLY BEING TAUGHT, that one is free to remarry, and those who forbid such are giving heed to doctrines of demons, then how can people claim Jesus was teaching CONTRARY to the word of God in Matthew 19 and Mark 10? Could it be that one's conclusions, preconceived ideas and indoctrination are what is wrong?

I posted the above two paragraphs on an Internet forum, and one man (whose name has been changed), the same man who had previously accused me of saying adultery was not a sin in which one needed to repent, and that I was promoting homosexual marriages, responded with the following:

Brother McCloud wrote: “…whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life…whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life…He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God…He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him…Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life…Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life…Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins…To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins…and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith…So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household”…Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast…He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son…These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” (John 5:24; John 3:15,16;18,36; John 6:47; John 8:24; Acts 10:43; Acts 15:9; Acts 16:31; Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9; 1 John 5:10-13)

“Now, can ANYONE read the above and come to the conclusion that one who is NOT baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins will spend eternity in hell? That would be impossible! If that is an impossibility; in fact, if just the COMPLETE OPPOSITE IS CLEARLY BEING TAUGHT, that one is saved at the point of faith, and those who teach baptism are giving heed to doctrines of demons, then how can people claim Jesus was teaching CONTRARY to the word of God in Mark 16:16 and John 3:5? Could it be that one's conclusions, preconceived ideas and indoctrination are what is wrong?”

I respond: Brother McCloud, your attempt here to prove your point, although a valiant one, falls short of its intended goal. First of all, there is NOT ONE SINGLE PASSAGE in the Bible that teaches that if one teaches baptism as essential towards one's salvation one is giving heed to doctrines of demons. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 SPECIFICALLY addresses this problem and it is directed to those who do exactly what the traditionalists in the marriage, divorce and remarriage camp do: forbid others to marry.

Secondly, you are being deliberately misleading in your attempt, and mixing topics to try to throw off the reader to prove your point. When I gave my illustration, I included the passages that dealt with the single topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage. For your illustration to have worked, you would have had to have included ALL passages that dealt with the topic of SALVATION. Had you done so, baptism would of necessity had to be included, and your whole point would be lost.

Thirdly, when you put all the passages that deal with one's salvation together they are going to be CONSISTENTLY teaching the same thing. That is NOT the case with the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrine. In fact, you have a polarization effect taking place: The word of God says that it is NOT good for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18), and the traditionalist says the divorced man (or woman) MUST remain alone. The word of God says a woman who is divorced is free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24:2), and traditionalists say she is NOT free to remarry. The word of God says in order to avoid fornication it is better for the unmarried to marry than to burn with passion (1 Corinthians 7:2, 8-9), and the traditionalist says they can not marry so let them suffer. The word of God says if one is divorced one may marry and will NOT be sinning (1 Corinthians 7:27-28), and the traditionalist says one who is divorced and remarries will burn in hell for not repenting if they do not divorce, which is what they also say God hates, and yet why would there be the need for a divorce when the traditionalist says they were not married in the first place "in God's eyes"?

Fourthly, baptism has ALWAYS been a part of God's plan of salvation, and it did not change, whether it was with Noah and his family during the flood, Moses and children of Israel as they passed through the water and the cloud at the crossing of the Red Sea, or the Christian being immersed into Christ today. One does not have to jump through hoops and make contortions claiming that baptism was not relevant during Moses's day, and Jesus just pointed back to how it was originally with Noah, etc., etc.

Brother McCloud wrote: “I have taken your words - your question, and simply changed the object under consideration with passages above proving my position - OR DID I PROVE MY POSITION? - I proved that salvation is by faith alone just as surely as you proved that a person who divorces his spouse for reasons other than adultery can remarry without sin! If not, why not?”

I respond: No, you have not done what I did, as I stated above. You mixed two topics, faith and baptism, whereas I stuck to one, marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Brother McCloud wrote: “I can answer your question - can ANYONE read the above and come to the conclusion that one who is divorced MUST remain celibate for the rest of one's life because he or she is still married to his or her first spouse? Answer - NO!!”

I respond: Well, maybe we are making some headway....

Brother McCloud wrote: “ ...for the exact same reason that you cannot prove baptism is essential unto salvation in the above illustration! But I tell you what I can do - I can go to Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:3-9; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and prove that one must remain celibate if the cause of the divorce, (putting away) was not fornication - and that even then, only the innocent party has the right to remarry. Paul told the woman in 1 Corinthians 7:11 that she must remain unmarried - was he teaching a doctrine of demons too??”

I respond: Brother McCloud, you most certainly can not go to the passages you quoted and prove that one must remain celibate in order to be pleasing to God! The Bible NEVER SAYS THIS ONE TIME! You are interpreting the passages incorrectly here again. How can you come up with this conclusion and claim your belief is in harmony with the MANY verses that say just the opposite? Paul is not talking here about a woman who has been divorced, but a woman who is only separated and still legally married!

I have posted this before, and I suppose you may have missed it, because it deals with every question you have submitted and later say was not answered. But because I am such a nice guy I will post it again! At least I will post the portion that deals with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. This should also cover the rest of your questions you submitted:

"But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) The word translated depart is from the Greek word choreo, meaning to give space. Paul is speaking here of a separation, and not a divorce. Paul is reiterating what Jesus said regarding this issue, "…yea not I, but the Lord," that those who are not divorced, but just separated, should not marry another. She should remain unmarried in terms of attaching herself to another man while still married to her first husband, and she should try and be reconciled, if at all possible.

The word translated leave in verse 11 comes from the Greek word aphiemi, meaning to leave, put away, or let go. Its root comes from apo, denoting separation or departure. Paul is saying here that the man should not put away or leave his wife, which is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Christ discussed earlier from Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

The passages from Matthew 19 and Mark 10:

Contrary to popular prevalent opinion, Jesus did NOT create new law regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage when speaking with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9. He pointed out and confirmed to those Pharisees already existing Law, which was found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This law, written by Moses as instructed by God, permitted the husband to divorce his wife for specific reasons stated as uncleanness and translated as such from the Hebrew word ervah. Some assert that the uncleanness was the same as the Greek word porneia, which is usually translated fornication, which is any sexual activity outside of marriage. This may be, however, impossible to prove. Regardless, however, it does not affect the conclusions drawn from the word of God found within this paper.

It is important to realize that the practice of "putting away" of the wives without giving her a writing of divorcement was only "suffered" due to the Jews’ hardness of heart, as stated by Jesus in Matthew 19:7-8. God, through His servant Moses, gave the regulation for actual divorce proceedings in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Because women were being unjustly put away, without any means of livelihood to support themselves, and without the freedom to marry another, Moses, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, provided an outlet for these women through the steps he outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Thus, in order to provide for the protection and benefit of the woman, the Law of Moses required the giving of a "bill of divorcement".

Jesus verified this in Mark’s account: "And there came unto Him Pharisees, and asked Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?’ trying Him. And He answered and said unto them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ And they said, ‘Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.’ But Jesus said unto them, ‘For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.’" (Mark 10:2-5) This was not something that was simply an option. It was a command for the men that should they divorce their wives, they must do so in a manner in accordance with the Law of Moses.

Moses and the Law allowed for a woman who was divorced to remarry another man without fear or shame: "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." (Deuteronomy 24:2) Jesus was not, as has been oft times told and repeated, introducing a new law when the Pharisees confronted Him. He was, however, upholding not only the Law of Moses, but God's law from the beginning: "And He answered and said, ‘Have ye not read, that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and 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?’’ They say unto Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?’ He saith unto them, ‘Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so.’" (Matthew 19:4-5, 7-8) Jesus did not contradict the Law, under which He lived perfectly. If He had contradicted the Law, then it would have meant He had committed sin! If He had contradicted the Law, then His enemies would have had the justification to kill Him legally! Jesus, however, came not to contradict, but to fulfill the Law: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18) No, Jesus did not contradict the Law, for that was the very thing that the Jews in power, who were the enemies of Jesus, were trying so desperately to get Him to do, and kept failing miserably! What is most ironic is that the followers of Jesus today who wish to cling to the traditional marriage, divorce and remarriage doctrine assert proudly that Jesus did change the Law! And that is utterly absurd!

I respond further to brother McCloud: I will answer some more of your questions, because I believe they are good ones that have not been specifically addressed.

Brother McCloud wrote: “Since one of your arguments was that "Paul didn't say 'never been married' but rather 'unmarried'" is it possible to refer to a person who has never been married as being unmarried? (Is a person who has never been married married, or unmarried).”

I respond: Yes, it is possible to refer to a person who has never been married as being unmarried. A person who has never been married is unmarried.

Brother McCloud wrote: “If the word choreo doesn't refer to divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10, why is the woman who does choreo her husband referred to as unmarried (agamos) in verse 11?”

I respond: Here are the verses in question in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: 10. But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband 11. (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

This is an excellent question, but the answer is really quite simple: She is NOT referred to as currently being unmarried. Because of the practice of polygamy Paul instructs her NOT to go and marry someone else. In other words, it is NOT saying she is unmarried to her current husband, but that she should not go and marry someone else while she is still married (or else be reconciled). The more I study this, the more I believe I am correct in saying that 1 Corinthians 7:2 is referring to polygamy. I believe it very possible that Paul is reiterating here that the practice of polygamy is not allowed in the New Covenant.

I asked this previously, brother McCloud, and only one other brother responded, but could a man put away and separate (shalach) from his wife and still be married to her under the Law of Moses?

Brother McCloud said: “The word shalach, is used in Deut. 24:1 of the one who had been given the handwriting of divorcement. The word is a general term meaning to send, send away, let go, stretch out…so by the mere definition of the word - the answer is yes - but as in Deut. 24:1 - it has reference to the one having been divorced. Certainly you must agree that it can mean divorce.”

Did you catch what this man just did? He shows that the definition of shalach means to send away, which is separation, and says it means it has reference to one having been divorced in Deuteronomy 24:1, which it does in terms of the entire process being followed legally. He then immediately turns around and claims it can mean divorce, when the definition he provided never even said that! The word keriythuwth was the Hebrew word for divorce (divorcement), not shalach.

I also asked brother McCloud: Can a man put away and separate (apoluo) from his wife and still be married to her under the New Covenant?

Brother McCloud said: “The word apoluo, ap-ol-oo'-o; is another general term with several meanings - from Greek 575 (apo) and Greek 3089 (luo); to free fully, i.e. (literal) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexive depart), or (figurative) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce :- (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

“Is it possible? - by the mere meaning of the word - yes - he could send her away [apoluo] to the store - or out of the country - so yes! - The real question is, however - What does it mean in Matthew 19:9 and all the other places relevant to this discussion? In these cases it has reference to what is done in divorce.”

Did you notice how the actual Greek words for divorce were left out of his explanation, which are apostasion and lusis? I have never denied that apoluo is part of the divorce proceedings. What I do deny is that sending one’s spouse from the house (separating) constitutes a legal divorce.

Brother McCloud admits that a man could apoluo his wife and still be married to her, and then he insists that apoluo has to be divorced, even though neither of the Greek words for divorce were used! Apoluo in the Greek is the equivalent of shalach in the Hebrew, which is the equivalent of a separation in English.

Some More Things to Consider:

If one does a word search in the Old Testament, there are only 4 places the Hebrew word for divorce (divorcement) “keriythuwth" is mentioned:

"When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." (Deuteronomy 24:1)

"And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife...." (Deuteronomy 24:3)

"Thus saith Jehovah, 'Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, wherewith I have put her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions was your mother put away.'" (Isaiah 50:1)

"And I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot." (Jeremiah 3:8)

There are some places where the Hebrew word "garash" has been improperly translated divorce, when it is really put away:

"A widow, or one divorced, or a profane woman, a harlot, these shall he not take: but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife." (Leviticus 21:14)

"But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and be returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's bread: but there shall no stranger eat thereof." (Leviticus 22:13)

The Hebrew "shalach" also means push away or put away.

For further evidence that put away is not divorce, consider this: A margin note in the Geneva Bible translated from the Textus Receptus in 1560 (about 50 years before the King James Version) concerning the term put away, said, “that is, was not lawfully divorced.” This margin note was in reference to Matthew 19. The men were not following the law by giving their wives a proper divorce because they wanted to keep the dowries. They were simply separating, without giving her a writing of divorcement.

I hope you find this beneficial! I hope and pray that you will examine God’s word for what it says, and not what others want you to believe.