What’s lacking overall in the “marriage permanence” doctrine is grace. There’s a little grace, if you’ll divorce and live a single life until your original spouse dies. You can go to heaven then, but other than that, you can’t. You’re going to go to hell because you’re living in adultery, by their definition.

I believe it’s a great misunderstanding and it certainly doesn’t fit the whole tenor of Scripture, does it? I mean, we certainly don’t find anywhere in the epistles anyone telling anyone that they need to divorce. Just the opposite. Paul writes to the Corinthians that believers should stick it out even with unbelievers, and no believers should ever divorce, etc., etc. There’s just no advocacy for divorce, and yet the marriage permanence folks want literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Christian couples to divorce because one or the other or both has been previously married.

Their thesis is, in God’s eyes, you’re still married to your first spouse because it was a lifelong covenant. Well, it was a lifelong covenant, but that’s a lifelong covenant that can be broken in God’s eyes by adultery, because that’s why Jesus said a couple of times, in Matthew 5, “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery.” That’s the exception. He says the same thing in Matthew 19, which we’ll read momentarily.

Of course, to whatever degree it is adultery in God’s eyes when there’s a remarriage that takes place, it’s a singular act of adultery because at that consummation of that second marriage, it severs the covenant, the first one, and that’s it, because there’s adultery. That’s the end of it, but that doesn’t mean you’re living in adultery or that God wants you to divorce and so on and so forth.

We prove that from looking at Deuteronomy 24, the law of Moses. Of course, I know the marriage permanence folks, a lot of them would say that the law is irrelevant because Jesus brought a whole new law and laid down new rules. That’s a false premise and if you want to be challenged about that, I’ve written a couple e-teachings titled “Getting the Sermon on the Mount Right.” Those articles prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus was not bringing a new law because many times when He quoted, “You have heard it was said,” He wasn’t quoting from the law. It was clear He was quoting from the scribes and Pharisees, because what He said is not found in the law of Moses, and secondly the “new standard” that Jesus espoused is also already found in the law of Moses and so it’s not a standard at all, proving that that theory is totally wrong. But I don’t have time to go into that in this teaching.

We can rely upon Deuteronomy 24 and verses one through four as Jesus Himself speaking through the law of Moses and He said the woman who’s been twice divorced cannot go back to her first husband. That’s an abomination. Why? Jesus explained it. There’s been adultery committed as far as her first husband is concerned and that would be an abomination. That covenant has been severed by the consummation of the second marriage, but she’s free to marry anyone else besides her first husband.

Okay, Jesus was an endorser of the morality that is espoused in the law of Moses. Alright, Matthew 19, there’s a key passage of Scripture, of course. “Some Pharisees,” verse number three, “came to Jesus, testing Him and asking Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?'” History shows that that was widely believed by most of the spiritual leaders in Christ’s day, any reason divorce.

“He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He created them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said,'” this is quoting from Genesis, “‘”For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and join his wife. The two shall become one flesh?”‘” Jesus then comments, “‘There are no longer two but one flesh. Whatever God has joined together, let no man separate.'”

God’s saying marriage is designed by God to be a lifelong union. Hey! Wow, that’s a revelation. We all know that. We all know that and God never did it for anyone to get divorced. In Jesus’ day, divorce would be so commonplace, so easy. I’m sure God was pulling His hair out, saying, “What in the world?” Now, God did make a concession for divorce, and that’s exactly what the Pharisees bring up.

They said to Him, “‘Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?'” I won’t comment on that, but that is a total misquote and misrepresentation of actually what Moses said, but Jesus avoided commenting on that misquote and just addresses the gist of what they’re saying, that there’s an allowance for divorce, obviously, in the law of Moses. Well, of course there’s an allowance for divorce. People are sinners. God made some concession as to what to do if there’s a divorce and what not to do if there’s a divorce. We read one of them in Deuteronomy 24. “If she ever gets divorced from her second husband, she can’t go back to her first husband.”

Jesus says in verse number eight, “‘Because of the hardness of your heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning, it has not been this way.'” It’s never God’s will for anyone to get divorced, but does that mean that you remedy the divorce by divorcing your current spouse and going back? That’s never said in Matthew 19 or Matthew 5 or in Mark or Luke or in any of the epistles.

You don’t read the book of Acts of all the Christians getting divorces as they repent from their second spouses. Jesus then says the same thing He says, essentially, in the Sermon on the Mount. “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,” now don’t forget this clause, “except for immorality, and he marries another woman, he commits adultery.”

There’s an exception, immorality or adultery, of course, is the exception. If he marries another woman and he divorced his first wife because she was unfaithful to him, he’s not committing adultery. You get it? See, that’s how God sees it. Adultery severs and ends the covenant, even if nothing else does in God’s eyes. That does.

If Jesus is defining the second marriage as adultery for all the parties that are involved, well, then that’s the severance of it all. When that marriage is consummated, it is wrong, it’s grievous in God’s eyes, but what’s done is done and so now God says, “What are we going to do to try to fix this?” He’s not saying, “Go back, divorce again and go back.” He forbids them to go back in the law of Moses, and that’s the fatal blow to the “marriage permanence” folks because, ideally, they’d have you go back to your first spouse.

I read you an instance in the very first part of this four-part series about a woman who saw a man in the worship team in her church who was married and she persuaded him that he had a fake marriage. That because the woman he was married to (with which he had five kids) had been previously married and was divorced and married him, their marriage wasn’t legitimate. She talked him into divorcing that woman and then she got him. Who could say that that’s right and good? Marriage permanence people probably will.

Alright, I settled my own heart and said what I had to say to get off my chest, and so I’ve said it. God bless everybody who disagrees. I’m trying to save Christian marriages. That’s what I’m trying to do, because that’s what I believe God’s trying to do. You don’t fix sin by sin, folks. Amen. Okay, that’s all for this little lesson. Thank you so much for joining me. God bless you.

The post What Is Wrong With “Marriage Permanence Doctrine?” – Part Four appeared first on David Servant.

Today we continue talking about the “marriage permanence doctrine.” I call it the “divine divorce doctrine.” It basically says anyone who is divorced and remarried is living in adultery, nonstop adultery, and that they should divorce again, and they should, if possible, go back to their first spouse because in God’s eyes, “they’re allegedly married to that person until death do us part.”

There’s some truth to this, but it falls short. Let’s look at what Scripture has to say, and not just one verse, but let’s look at a couple of verses. One, of course, would be one the very first times apparently that Jesus even mentioned this subject, broached this subject in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said, I’m reading from Matthew 5, verse 31, “It was said.” Now, notice he didn’t say Scripture says or God says. This is an accurate quote, “It was said, whoever sends his wife away let him give her a certificate of divorce.” I submit to you it never says that anywhere in Scripture, and I challenge anyone, show me where it says that in the Old Covenant.

Jesus is not quoting what the Old Covenant says, what the Mosaic Law says. He’s quoting what the Scribes and Pharisees are teaching about divorce. In other words, the main thing is if you send your wife away make sure you give her that certificate. That’s what they harp on, but you can divorce for any cause. Jesus says now, here’s His counterpoint to the Pharisaical teaching of his day, “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,” there’s one clause that’s put in here as exception, “except for the reason of unchastity makes her commit adultery. Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Okay.

Now, again you can see that Jesus is not going to contradict what the law of Moses says for goodness sake. He’s the Author of the law of Moses, He’s ministering to people who are under the law of Moses. If the New Covenant changed things, the New Covenant hasn’t started. It’s not going to start for about three years yet, and basically the fundamental premise that Jesus changed basic fundamental morality under the New Covenant is wrong anyways, but I don’t have time to go into that.

Again Jesus is elaborating on the law, trying to bring clarification of what the law is really teaching. This is what He’s saying, essentially the law is teaching that in God’s eyes when a man divorces his wife, except in the case of unchastity, he makes her commit adultery. Then the man who marries his ex-wife, he’s committing adultery as well in God’s eyes. Of course other places, I think in Luke or Mark, it talks about how he commits adultery, when he gets remarried and so forth.

Does that mean Jesus wants everyone who is divorced or remarried to divorce again? No, absolutely not! Because the basic premise of the marriage permanence folks is that you’re married to that original person until they die. That’s the permanence of marriage, that’s where they get that phrase, the permanence of marriage. Therefore the only remedy for your adultery is to divorce your current wife and if possible go back to your first husband.

However, here is what Jesus said in Deuteronomy Chapter 24, starting at verse number 1: “When a man takes a wife, and he marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her. He writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house.”

It’s his wife, they’re married, he writes a certificate of divorce, so that indicates now they’re divorced, at least legally divorced. He gives her that certificate and he sends her out. They’re done. “She leaves his house,” verse 2, “and goes and becomes another man’s wife.” Now she’s married a second time.

Now by Jesus’s definition she’s now an adulteress in some sense because she made a lifelong covenant with the first husband. Now again, he divorced her, so she’s not to blame for the divorce. At least we can’t find any evidence for that. He divorced her, he gave her this certificate. She’s like the victim, but in one sense she’s an adulteress because she had a covenant with this guy. She leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife.

Now verse 3, “If latter husband turns against her,” so the second husband, “and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house. Or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife.” You get all that? She’s been twice married but now the second husband either divorces her or dies. Here’s what she’s prohibited from doing: “Then her former husband, who sent her away, is not allowed to take her again to be his wife.”

Oh my goodness, so they must not actually be married in God’s eyes. No, they’re not still married in God’s eyes because if she by remarrying committed adultery, that is what severs the covenant she had with her first husband. If God wasn’t recognizing it at the time of her divorce, if in God’s eyes she wasn’t actually divorced, when she remarried this other guy and consummated her marriage with him, now she’s an adulteress according to Jesus, right?

In relationship to her first husband, that’s who she committed adultery against. That relationship now is severed by adultery. That’s why Jesus said whoever divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity makes her commit adultery. If in fact she has been unfaithful to him, and he divorces her because of her unfaithfulness, that’s a legitimate divorce. Why, because adultery is the breaking of the covenant, it severs and ends the relationship. Period.

Okay, so when the marriage permanence folks say Jesus said whoever divorces and remarries commits adultery, and you’re continually committing adultery., it’s non-stop adultery, and the only way out of that is to divorce again… Oh contraire, mon soeur. When that second marriage was consummated, yes an element of adultery existed in that because of what transpired before.

At that act, that in some sense adulterous act, that ended the covenant that existed with the first husband. That’s proven by not only in Deuteronomy Chapter 24, which forbids the twice married woman from going back to her first husband, but also by what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. He made an exception for the man who illegitimately divorces his wife, there’s an exception to that rule if she’s been unfaithful. The covenant’s been severed, and there’s freedom to remarry.

Okay, so maybe one more time we’ll look at this. I know I’m going to get all kinds of disagreement, but hey I’m doing my best. Okay thanks for joining me, hope to see you next time. God Bless.

View part 4 here >>

The post What Is Wrong With “Marriage Permanence Doctrine?” – Part Three appeared first on David Servant.

When you start studying what some call “marriage permanence doctrine,” you find out that they’re not advocating a lot of permanence, they’re advocating that literally tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Christian marriages break up. Why?

Because they’re not legitimate, allegedly, in God’s eyes because one or both of the partners has been previously married and allegedly in God’s eyes they’re still married to their original partners if they’re still alive. Okay? They’re advocating that, literally, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Christian families, even if they’ve been husband and wife for decades, they should divorce. In fact, they go so far as to say that if they don’t they’ll go to hell because they’re living in a continuous state of adultery, and no adulterer will inherit enteral life.

Now, like all doctrine that you find that’s within the realm of Christendom, there’s always some biblical basis, but it’s always a misconstruction, it’s always an avoiding of any verses that would contradict our understanding of a few verses. This is all based, of course, on Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount, also recorded later on in Matthew, recorded in Mark, recorded in Luke about remarriage being adultery. Then, it’s added to that. Well, if it’s adultery then the only way to repent of it is to get out of the adulterous relationship, so you have to get out of the marriage. It all makes sense, unless you listen to your heart.

Of course, under the new covenant, God has written His laws within our heart. It’s really quite simple to know what God’s will is, because God’s will is written in our hearts. We instinctively know it. Anytime anyone hears this doctrine, the marriage permanence doctrine, immediately their heart tells them, “That’s baloney, that’s bunk, that’s a misinterpretation of the Word of God.” They many times sincerely keep listening to these teachers who then talk them into it, because they have a developed argument. All right.

What is the truth? What’s wrong with the marriage permanence doctrine? Well, it contradicts other parts of Scripture. It shows that it’s a wrong interpretation of those scriptures. Remember, of course, that all the words of Jesus were not spoken in a vacuum. They were spoken at a time and a place and to people who have certain ideas and we know actually a lot of what their ideas were, because it’s recorded in sources outside the Bible. In the Talmud, for example, and the writings of the Jews during that time and the teachers. We also have context of what Jews believed in the gospels.

You remember one time, some Pharisees came and asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” You just think, “Oh my goodness.” That shows you where the pharisees were at, because that’s what they were advocating. We know that the law of Moses makes some allowance for divorce, and so, what’s the cause? For what reason can a person divorce his wife? There was a line of teaching, it’s history, that basically a man could divorce his wife for any cause at all. Again, any born-again Christian knows that’s nuts. That’s absolute nuts. You know, you don’t even need the Bible to know that. Pagans know that’s wrong, but Jewish leaders in Christ’s day were clueless and blinded by their own darkness, which they had created.

Again, the words of Christ about divorce and remarriage were not spoken in a vacuum. They were spoken within the context of history, the context of the people that Jesus was ministering to. The Pharisees, by and large, who were the major teachers, Scribes and Pharisees, their basic thought was that you can divorce your wife for any cause at all, therefore of course, divorce was absolutely rampant. Right? When divorce is made easy and you can do it for any reason, men are divorcing their wives any time they have a little problem. In fact, in one of those Talmudic writings, the guy said that one of the reasons you can divorce your wife is if you see a woman who’s more attractive to you. Oh my goodness, these guys were so, so far from God.

Jesus, recognizing their complete darkness and blindness and the utter idiocy of this kind of thinking that they would even ask such a ridiculous questions, tries to help them understand, graciously, and tries to rephrase something, helping them see where they’re so, so, so wrong. He does that by trying to help them see that divorce and remarriage, it can be, at least in one sense, termed as adultery because you’ve got a covenant with somebody else, and then you just left them, you broke that covenant. God’s not saying, “Oh yeah, okay, I acknowledge that that was okay.” That was not okay at all. God hates divorce, God said in the Old Testament book of Malachi. He hates divorce.

Jesus said from the beginning, it’s not been this way. Moses allowed some concession for divorce, but from the beginning, God never intended for anybody to be getting divorced. Jesus, again, tries to help them understand. You divorce, you marry another, that’s not good, that’s not legitimate. That very much resembles adultery. Now, not exactly of course, but very much resembles adultery because you’re having sex with a woman and you made a covenant with another woman. That’s the similarity, but not exact, not exact. A little bit different.

Jesus is, again, just trying to help these folks see. Not stating then, never stating, that the remedy is then to get another divorce. That’s never said by Jesus, never, and it’s never said anywhere in the epistles. That’s what makes these marriage permanence guys just like the West Virginia snake handlers in this sense. They focus on just one verse. (Now the marriage permanence folks, the divine divorce folks, have a couple of scriptures, so I guess they’re a little better than the snake handlers.)

The snake handlers have one verse that talks about a sign that will follow believers is they’ll handle serpents. Even though there’s no other verses on that, there’s no examples in the Book of Acts of snake-handling services, there’s no anything in the epistles that talk about how you need to be handling snakes in your church services, nothing like that. They build a doctrine on one verse at the expense of all the rest of the verses like ones that say, “You shall not force the Lord your God to attest.” And, “The Lord thy God have given thee a brain.” Which, is actually not in the Bible, but it certainly is implied by the entire Bible. God wants us to think.

The marriage permanence folks have read an analogy that Christ makes about how divorce and remarriage is like adultery, and then build this monstrous doctrine out of it that goes against clear thinking and other scriptures. One of the scriptures it goes against is, couldn’t be clearer, Deuteronomy chapter 24 where God talks about the woman who’s divorced and then remarried, and how God forbids her from ever going back to her first husband, which is what would be the primary goal, of course, of the marriage permanence folks.

Well, we’re out of time. Once again, these controversial subjects take up more than just one little lesson. Get ready for part three next time. Hope to see you then.

View part 3 here >>

The post What Is Wrong With “Marriage Permanence Doctrine?” – Part Two appeared first on David Servant.

Today we’re going to delve once again into a very controversial subject, the subject of divorce and remarriage.

We all know that there’s a lot of diversity within the body of Christ as to what’s the truth about divorce and remarriage and there’s one group in particular that’s pretty much on the extreme fringes, and they call themselves the “marriage permanence” people.

However, when you delve into their doctrine, you find out that they’re encouraging long-standing Christian families, Christian husbands and wives, to divorce if one of them has been previously married, because their thesis is that you’re still married to your original spouse. Your divorce is not recognized by God. In His eyes, you’re still married to your former spouse. If you are divorced and remarried, you need to divorce again and, if possible, go back to your original spouse because it’s a lifelong covenant, ’til death do us part.

Like all doctrine that is being promoted within the body of Christ, there’s always some truth. But just because something has some truth doesn’t mean it’s all true. I wrote some articles, some e-teachings, (I do one every single month) addressing the question of divorce and remarriage. The title of those lessons, three lessons, was “I’m Divorced and Remarried. Am I Living in Adultery?” Those teachings garnered a lot of interest and a lot of discussions. I at the same time filmed a couple of videos that didn’t go into quite the depth of those e-teachings, but touched on some of the high points. Those videos garnered a lot of interest. As I’m making this video right now, one of those videos has received over 27,000 views. That’s a lot for us. It’s not a lot for some people, but it’s a lot for us.

We got 200 people that liked that video and 100 that hated that video. It just kind of shows the division that exists. Now, we’re gonna talk about this on today’s lesson and maybe the next one or two that follow. We’ll see how long it goes.

But just to give you an idea of some of the potential fruit of the divine divorce doctrine, the marriage permanence doctrine, I wanna read you a post I read on a Facebook page of someone who’s promoting divine divorce in a big way. Okay, listen to what this woman wrote, her testimony. She said, “The Lord became my King after I was so worldly. I had lived with men,” obviously out of wedlock, “and even women.” She had homosexual lesbian relationships with women. Again, obviously a person who was far from God’s standards.

But she says, “But I was saved from all that.” Well, praise the Lord. “And I started going to church.” Oh, praise the Lord for that, too. That’s all good. But now here’s where it starts going downhill. “I saw a man playing guitar and the Lord told me right away he was my husband.” She was sitting in church, looked up to the front, the worship team or whatever, and there was a guy playing the guitar and the Lord told her, “That’s your husband.”

That’s not how it usually works! But listen to her next line. “He was fake married with five kids.” Now, let me explain to you what she means by fake married. That means he’s not really married. He thinks he’s married and even has five kids, but he’s not really married. He’s fake married.

Why was he ‘fake married’ in her estimation? Why was he fake married in her mind? She says, “But after I told him his fake marriage was adultery because his ‘wife’ had a living first husband still,” see, that defines it. She’s a divine divorce person, a marriage permanence person. This guy she’s spotted up in the choir, in the worship team playing guitar, who God says is your husband, he’s married to a woman he has five children with, but he’s not really married to her, allegedly, in God’s eyes because his marriage to his wife is not legitimate because she’s been previously married and divorced and now remarried to him.

You see the logic there? They’re not really married in God’s eyes. The woman he’s married to is actually, in God’s eyes, married to her first husband. Therefore, she can’t be married to this guy. It’s a fake marriage.

She enlightens him to that, that, “Hey, the woman you’re married to, you’re not really married to in God’s eyes, you’re not married to at all. You have not a real marriage, not a legitimate marriage. You have a fake marriage. You’re actually living in adultery. The only way to get out of that adultery is to divorce that woman who was previously married ’cause she’s not really your wife.”

“After I told him his fake marriage was adultery because his ‘wife’ had a living first husband,” now, if her first husband had been dead, then she’d have said, “Oh, no, you’re allowed to be remarried because your first husband with whom you had a lifelong covenant is dead,” “he then knew our love was from above and he left them.”

Okay, did you hear what happened? Yes, you heard rightly. She convinced this guy that his current marriage was not legitimate, that he and his wife really were not married, that she was actually married to her former husband, and when he realized that he left her. It didn’t say he divorced her, but essentially that’s what he had to do because he was legally married. If you got married to this gal, which that’s the end of the story, he had to have gotten a divorce from this first wife here. “He knew our love was from above and he left them.”

He left his wife and five children to marry this gal. Again, it was okay in her eyes for them to get married because she had never been married herself, so she was not married to anyone in God’s eyes. He, then, was no longer living in adultery and had never been married prior to that “adulterous marriage” to that woman who had been previously married and divorced. He was free to remarry, so they got married.

She convinced him to divorce his wife and they got married. He left his wife and five kids. Now, that’s not the worst part. Here’s the last part of her post. “Now we help others know true covenant marriage of God to which is,” and this is her definition, “true covenant marriage, which is any first marriage for the man and the woman.” This was her first marriage and actually it was his first marriage, because what he thought was his first marriage was an illegitimate, adulterous marriage. That’s marriage permanence doctrine, my friends. That’s the fruit of it.

Alright, I’m out of time for today’s lesson. We’ll pick up in our next Little Lesson. Hope to see you then.

View part 2 here >>

The post What Is Wrong With “Marriage Permanence Doctrine?” – Part 1 appeared first on David Servant.

What makes divorce justifiable?

Hi, welcome to today’s Little Lesson. We’ve already spent two of the lessons looking at Jesus’ words in Matthew chapter five regarding divorce and remarriage, just into the edge of it and I’ve just come to terms with the fact that there’s no way that I’ll be able to fully expound on this subject.

Although at our website, Davidservant.com I have a number of articles that I’ve tried to dig a little deeper into the subject of divorce and remarriage. For this teaching on Little Lessons, in the limited amount of we have, I’m trying to show that the standard doesn’t change from old covenant to new covenant. Under the old covenant divorce and remarriage were institutions allowable within the Law of Moses, that’s very clear, we’ll read a passage of scripture that makes that very clear.

Because God doesn’t change, fundamental morality doesn’t change and so on so forth, I’ve said this so many times, but we’re looking at what Jesus said, made divorce lawful and he’s very plainly said, unchastity, unfaithfulness, he said on the part of the wife, I have to believe it’s on the part of the husband as well, right? Right.

Nevertheless, that’s one reason that a person may lawfully divorce. Of course, I mean you’ve broken the most fundamental vow of the marriage, it’s an offense that’s a highest offense, having a sexual relationship with somebody other than your spouse. It’s a betrayal, it’s treachery, you’ve broken your solemn vow. It’s so offensive that divorce is allowable.

This is a case where obviously you’re not turning the other cheek are you? See. We talked about that, I’m only bringing that up just for the sake of those who listened to the previous Little Lessons when I talked about when you should and you should not resist an evil person. Well this is obviously a time where Jesus said, your wife commits this kind of evil against you, it’s okay to resist her by divorce.

Nobody can argue with this one, I’m just reading from the, reading from Jesus. So we’re looking at what the scribes and pharisees, what their position was on it because in all these you have heard it said, I say to you statements. Jesus was correcting their false teaching. So we’re looking into their false teaching about divorce and remarriage and we’ve just jumped ahead to Matthew chapter 19. They asked Jesus, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?

Jesus, I’m so proud of him, he was so patient with these guys, I don’t know, I think he would’ve been tempted to pull his hair out. These guys were so far from a biblical frame of reference to even be asking such a question shows your morally bankrupt. If you even entertain the idea that you can divorce your wife for any reason. It’s enough to make the angels weep, it’s such a pathetic question.

Jesus patiently says to them, he takes them back to the beginning because morality starts at the beginning and he answered and said to them, have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female? Well that’s pretty basic, he made them male and female. Okay so there’s supposed to be something going on there between the males and the females, and what’s it called? It’s called marriage. There’s certain privileges that are exclusive to marriage.

So Jesus can go all the way back to the beginning and he said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Excuse me, he’s just quoting from Moses. Basic fundamental truth about marriage. The gist of it is, is that this is something that’s been sacred, established from the beginning.

This is so basic and obvious I can’t believe you guys are asking such a ridiculous question that you’re asking is it lawful to divorce for any cause at all? This is biology guys. C’mon. This is basic, basic morality, of course you can’t divorce your wife for any cause at all.

This is an institution created by God and a man leaves his father and mother, his highest relationship up until that moment, his closest relationship up until that moment of marriage. He breaks that relationship, in a sense, he leaves them, and this new relationship is so important that it requires that he leaves them and he joins himself to his wife.

Guess what? He becomes one flesh with her. You’re telling, you’re asking me the question, is it okay to divorce for any cause at all? Please, please, beam me up father. Why do I have to be with these ignorant people who say that there might be, … so they’re no longer two but one flesh. So you’re talking about breaking up something that God made into one.

God made into one and you’re saying you can break it up for any reason at all? What moral planet are you from? But patiently Jesus says, what therefore God has joined together let no man separate.

So simple. So obvious. So basic. God never intended any marriage to end up in divorce. Of course God never intended for any husband or any wife to be unfaithful and when that happens, well, that’s an offense, a terrible offense. It’s not just anything, it’s not just any cause, it’s a big cause.

You’re acting like you’re not married to me cause you’re doing the one thing that exclusively belongs to me with somebody else. You’re acting like your married to somebody else, to whom you’ve not made an exclusive vow. You know, that’s offensive, that’s more than a little slap on the cheek, sure.

So, of course, you could legitimately divorce your wife for that reason, but Jesus goes on to say, well they first ask. They said to him, why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away? So they’re appealing the fact that obviously divorce was permitted under the old covenant, as long as a certificate was given.

Jesus explains, because of the hardness of your heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it’s not been this way. God never intended anyone to get a divorce, but because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses permitted. I don’t think he’s blaming it on Moses, I don’t think he’s saying Moses was a human, source, he was the, it was his idea. No. Mosaic Law was inspired by God, and the law made some stipulation for divorce, obviously we’ll read it in our next lesson.

It was made because of the hardness of peoples hearts. Well that could be interpreted a couple of different ways but I guarantee Jesus was not saying the Law of Moses allowed you to divorce your wife for any cause at all because of the hardness of your hearts, he didn’t say that because the Law of Moses doesn’t say that.

The Law of Moses allowed you to divorce your wife for certain legitimate reasons, because of the hardness of your hearts, okay, and we’re out of time. So we’ll talk about this on our next Little Lesson, I hope you’ll be with me, God bless you.

The post What Makes Divorce Justifiable? appeared first on David Servant.

In this final article that addresses “Divine Divorce Doctrine,” I want to respond to some of the common arguments and objections of those who advocate divorce for anyone who has been previously divorced and remarried, followed by remarriage to their original spouse if possible, or celibacy if not possible, until their original spouse is dead.

My hope is to rescue those who are coming under the influence of Divine Divorce Doctrine—before their marriages and families are also left as carnage in its foul wake.

My heart goes out to those who have already been deceived by Divine Divorce Doctrine and who have consequently divorced their spouses needlessly. Today I viewed a video testimony of such a woman (youtube.com/watch?v=5NNQ_wnBoYo). Incredibly, the “Marriage Permanence Community” artistically films many such testimonies, complete with touching background music, in order to persuade others to follow their perverse path. They portray those who have divorced their spouses and broken up their families as devoted, spiritual followers of Christ who have been willing to pay a great price for their faith.

The video I watched today features not only a woman who divorced her husband against his wishes, but their three beautiful children (approximate ages 8-17), all tragic victims of the deception of Divine Divorce Doctrine. The video ends with the woman saying, as her voice breaks, “And I just…pray…that my children…will just…see my repentance…as just…an example of radical obedience to the Scriptures.” She has good reason to be concerned, as it is no surprise that those “to whom the kingdom belongs” have a hard time understanding why God would want their parents to divorce. I would encourage the “Marriage Permanence Community” to take note of what such children do once they “leave the nest” themselves. I would be willing to bet that quite a few want nothing to do with Christianity after experiencing the bizarre and confusing world of Divine Divorce proponents.

If you have legally or functionally divorced your spouse because of Divine Divorce Doctrine, and you’ve had the courage to read my first and second articles, what follows can potentially set you free from those who have misled you by twisting the Bible. Those people are not your friends, as you will soon discover if you tell them you have changed your mind about Divine Divorce. They will ostracize you, as all cults do as a means of controlling their members. They will also tell you that you are going to hell. But God is for you. Your life, and perhaps even your marriage, can be restored to what He intended, because His mercy and grace are more than sufficient to restore all that Satan, through Divine Divorce Doctrine, has stolen from you. God is good, and His mercies are new every morning.

OK, let’s consider eight of the most common arguments of Divine Divorce proponents:

1.) Marriage, according to the Bible, is indissoluble as long as both married persons are alive. God said that the husband and wife become “one flesh.” Jesus said “they are no longer two, but one flesh,” and “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt. 19:6). So just because two married people are legally divorced in the eyes of man, they are still married in the eyes of God until one of them dies. And just because a divorced person legally remarries in the eyes of man, they are not married in eyes of God.

Answer: The idea of the indissolubility of marriage is not only the foundation of Divine Divorce Doctrine, but of all very conservative viewpoints found along Christendom’s theological spectrum regarding divorce and remarriage. The most conservative believe that divorce and remarriage are never lawful under any circumstances, and that all divorces and remarriages that actually do occur are not recognized by God. They confuse God’s original ideal—a world without divorce and remarriage—with reality, which is a world that is full of both.

To them, there have been no actual divorces, only fantasy divorces. And since there have been no actual divorces, neither have there been any actual remarriages either, but only fantasy remarriages. To a large degree, wedding ceremonies, vows, marriage certificates, witnesses, court records, name changes, and long-standing human relationships and interaction don’t exist in this alternate reality. Millions of people are not actually married to people whom they think they are married to, people whom they live with and interact with every day as a husband or wife, often for decades and until death. Conversely, millions of people are actually married to people whom they think they are not married to, people whom they sometimes haven’t seen for decades and who live hundreds of miles away. On top of this, millions of people have children whom they think are legitimate, but who are actually illegitimate children, the offspring of adultery.

And most interestingly, folks who are living in this alternate reality think God sees the world just as they do. That smiling Christian couple driving with their four children on their way to “that other church”…they aren’t what they seem to be. No, they are actually “sexually filthy remarriage adulterers” (to borrow an expression of Divine Divorce proponents). They think they are going to heaven because they believe in Jesus and live their faith every day, but actually they are going to hell because they haven’t divorced each other.

And this alternate reality exists in part because, “The Bible says that husbands and wives are one flesh, joined together by God. And Jesus said that what God has joined, let no man separate. So we don’t separate what God has joined.”

May I first submit that something is indissoluble if it cannot be “dissolved, loosened, or disconnected.” The phrase “one flesh” carries no connotation of indissolubility. In fact, just the opposite is true. Husbands and wives are only “one flesh” during sexual intercourse. Only for a small part of their married lives are they “one flesh.”

God’s statement regarding husbands and wives becoming one flesh speaks of divinely-intended exclusivity of sex within marriage, not the indissolubility of marriage itself. Paul wrote that the man who joins himself to a prostitute, something forbidden by God, becomes “one flesh” with her (1 Cor. 6:16). Obviously, there is nothing indissoluble about the relationship of a man and a prostitute. In fact, all such relationships should be dissolved immediately.

And just because Jesus said, “What God has joined together, let no man separate,” that does not prove that separation is impossible. Rather, it proves that separation is possible, otherwise there would be no need for a warning against it.

God also said, “Do not commit adultery.” That certainly does not prove that adultery is impossible. Rather, the prohibition against adultery proves it is possible, albeit inappropriate.

Thus, Jesus’ words, “What God has joined together, let no man separate,” are not a declaration of the impossibility of divorce, but a warning against it, something the Pharisees and their followers certainly needed to hear, as they were divorcing “for any cause.” Every human conscience resonates with God’s ideal for lifetime marriage to one partner.

Marriage is of course dissolved by death, but not only by death. It is also dissolved by divorce. The definition of divorce is “the dissolution of marriage.” Divorced people are not married people, and this could not be more clear from God’s words in Deut. 24:1-4. There it speaks of a married woman whose husband divorced her, giving her a certificate of divorce. She was then unmarried. But she remarried, gaining a new husband, to whom she was a wife. But he subsequently divorced her. She was again unmarried. She was forbidden by law to remarry her first husband. But as a divorced, unmarried woman, she was free to remarry anyone else.

Obviously, Jesus, the author of the Law of Moses, did not believe that divorced people are still married in God’s eyes to their former spouses, and those who interpret His Four D&R Statements to make Him say otherwise impugn God’s immutability and Christ’s right to be called Messiah. Jesus would never contradict Himself, and thus He would never contradict the Law of Moses.

2.) “Paul wrote, ‘For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress’ (Rom. 7:2-3). So clearly, only death can end the marriage relationship, and anyone who marries another person while his former spouse is still alive is living in an adulterous relationship, just a Paul taught.”

Answer: Only if we ignore content and context could we come to such a conclusion.

First, the content: Note that the example Paul uses is that of a “married woman” (Greek: hupandros gune) not a divorced woman. Of course, if a married woman is “joined to another man,” she would be an adulteress. A divorced woman, however, is not a married woman, but an unmarried woman. Paul, a former Pharisee who was well-versed in the Law of Moses and who appealed to the Law in this very passage in order to make his point (7:1), knew that a divorced woman was not “married to her former husband in God’s eyes” under the Law of Moses. In fact, Paul knew that the Mosaic Law forbade her to remarry her former husband if her second husband divorced her or died (Deut. 24:1-4). So there is absolutely no way he could have thought God viewed the divorced and remarried woman as still married to her original husband.[1]

Second, the context: Rather than isolating a text in order to make it appear to support our doctrine, let’s consider the surrounding verses:

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Rom. 7:1-5).

Obviously, Paul was not teaching about the sole lawful means of dissolving a marriage. That was not his topic. Rather, he was simply using an illustration from marriage to teach how Jewish believers in Christ are no longer bound to the Law of Moses since they have died in Christ. To claim that Paul’s words in Romans 7:1-5 are teaching about the sole means of dissolving a marriage would be like claiming that his quotation of the old covenant law, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” in 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18 was written to teach the Corinthians and Timothy about animal husbandry.

And to make the claim that death is the sole means of dissolving a marriage is to contradict Jesus, who clearly declared, in both the Law of Moses and in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, that marriage can be legitimately dissolved for immorality, not to mention that it can be illegitimately dissolved for just about any reason.

A similar passage that is twisted by Divine Divorce proponents to prove that marriage can only be dissolved by death is 1 Cor. 7:39: “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” Honest interpreters, however, will admit that one sentence is not the sum total of all that Paul, or the Bible, teaches in regard to the subject of marriage or its dissolution.

Clearly, Paul was not saying that only death dissolves a marriage, as seconds earlier he made it clear that a believer married to an unbeliever who wants to divorce is “not under bondage” in such cases and should let the unbeliever leave (1 Cor. 7:15). It would seem odd to claim that, in such cases, the deserted believer is still married to the deserter until death. It would seem absurd to claim that the phrase, “let the unbeliever leave” means only to allow the unbeliever to do what the believer has never had any power to stop him from doing. So to “let the unbeliever leave” means to not fight the unbeliever’s desire to divorce, and the context certainly supports that idea (1 Cor. 7:12-14). Of course, divorced people are not married people.

Moreover, Paul also allowed for those “released from a wife” to remarry (1 Cor. 7:27-28), which indicates again that Paul believed divorce dissolves marriage. On top of that, as I have already said, Jesus’ statement that “Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Mat. 5:32) indicates that whoever divorces his wife for immorality and remarries does not commit adultery. Clearly, Jesus believed that legitimate divorce annuls a marriage, thus again proving that death alone is not the only thing that can annul a marriage.[2]

At most, 1 Cor. 7:39 is a simple instruction for married women to remain faithful to their vows and to help widows understand that they are free to remarry.

3.) If a married homosexual couple became believers in Jesus, we would tell them to “divorce,” even if they shared adopted or surrogate children, because theirs is a sexually immoral relationship. So likewise, we should tell couples in adulterous marriages that they, too, should divorce, even if they have children, as theirs is a sexually immoral relationship.

Answer: This is an invalid comparison, because all homosexuality is always wrong whereas, indisputably, not all marriage is wrong.

Moreover, this argument once again falsely labels those divorced and remarried as living in an “adulterous marriage,” a phrase and concept that is unbiblical, and it is upon that false premise that this invalid comparison is made. Jesus did not say that he who divorces and remarries “lives in an adulterous marriage,” or “lives in a continual state of adultery,” or “commits adultery every time he/she has sex,” or “is still married to his/her former spouse in God’s eyes,” and it is obvious, as I explained in my previous two articles, that Jesus did not intend for His words to be so interpreted. Moreover, none of the New Testament authors interpreted His words in any of those ways.

Rather, Jesus said that whoever (1) illegitimately divorces and (2) remarries (3) commits adultery. All three can be considered singular events that occur in points of time, with the adultery occurring when the second marriage is consummated by sexual intercourse. That single adulterous act of sexual intercourse would not only give the original spouse the right of divorce (according to Jesus)—thus ending the marriage covenant—but it seals the legal divorce that has already taken place at the initiative of the offending spouse, and it makes reconciliation (that is, the restoration of the first marriage) unlawful from that point on (according to Jesus in Deut. 24:1-4). So that single act of “adultery” is the final deathblow to the former marriage. From then on, sex can no longer be considered adultery, as adultery requires that the adulterer be married to someone else.

Perhaps this could best be understood by a simple comparison of perspectives between God and the Pharisees’ regarding when and how the first marriage actually ends. The Pharisees assumed a marriage ended with a “lawful” divorce that was based on just about anything for which they could label their wives as “indecent.” But that kind of divorce is unlawful and thus invalid in God’s eyes. So when the second marriage is consummated, God sees it as adultery. Although the Pharisees thought their marriages ended through the act of a lawful divorce, God instead viewed their marriages ending by an unlawful act of adultery.

Again, adultery effectively ends a marriage, as the married person who has sex with someone other than his/her spouse breaks the most fundamental marriage vow and thus annuls the marriage covenant. This is illustrated by the standard reaction of all married persons who discover that their spouse has committed adultery. They are understandably enraged. They feel betrayed, and have no desire, or obligation, to relate to the adulterous person as their spouse on any level, especially sexually. The marriage is ruined. The covenant is broken. The only possible way to restore it is through confession and repentance—which would of course include a renewal of the original vow (albeit, now less believable)—and through the mercy and forgiveness of the offended spouse. Unless all of that happens, a functional divorce has occurred, even if the couple continues to live under one roof. And this is no doubt at least one reason why God permits divorce in cases of unrepentant adultery. He allows legal divorce when there is a functional divorce brought on by unrepentant adultery.

Keep in the mind that under the civil statutes of the Mosaic Law, adultery was a capital offense. Stoning was prescribed for adulterers. Adultery, followed by stoning, definitely ended one’s marriage and, obviously, the victim of adultery would have been free to lawfully remarry. Even Divine Divorce proponents can’t argue with that.

Just from a purely legal aspect, to claim that a marriage covenant is still binding after an act of adultery is like claiming that any other mutual promise is still in force after one party fails to keep their part of the contract. If I agree with a buyer to sell my car for a certain sum of money but the buyer never brings the money, I am under no obligation to give him the title to my car. If I agree with a buyer to sell my car for 12 monthly payments, but he stops making payments after 6 months, I am under no obligation to allow him to keep my car in his possession. And if I enter a mutual covenant with a member of the opposite sex that includes, among other things, exclusive sexual relations for life, and I later have sex with someone other than my spouse, I have no right to expect my spouse to honor her side of the covenant. She did not say in her vows, “For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, in sexual faithfulness and adultery…”

Divine Divorce proponents sometimes appeal to Greek verb tenses to make the claim that Jesus’ words, “commits adultery” indicate He was referring to continual acts of adultery every time the remarried couple has sex. Again, above and in my previous articles, I showed why such a view cannot possibly be correct.

Although I certainly don’t agree with him on every point, let me quote the most conservative of the four contributing authors of Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, J. Carl Laney, who believes there is never a valid reason to divorce or to remarry:

Is Adultery Once or Continual? It has been argued that the present tense of the verb moichao, “commits adultery,” indicates that divorce and remarriage involves acts of repeated adultery and that the only way to cease sinning and demonstrate genuine repentance is to end the “adulterous marriage.” While the present tense of moichao can be interpreted in this way, it is also possible that the present tense, “commits adultery,” may be used in an aoristic sense expressing the idea of a present fact without reference to progress. The aoristic present sets forth an event as now occurring. So interpreted, the adultery would involve one punctiliar action at the time of remarriage.

The content of the passage, which contains a succession of aorists, and the prohibition against returning to one’s former spouse after a second marriage (Deut 24:1-4) would point in the direction of the second view. It has been objected that this viewpoint may encourage a couple to remarry, commit adultery, confess it and go on their blissful way. But it should be noted that even one act of adultery is a serious sin in God’s sight (Heb 13:4; Prov 6:33). To presume on God’s grace by sinning willfully against the light of knowledge would be to provoke his wrath. True believers could not sin in such a manner without incurring God’s discipline (see Heb 12:6-11). [I would say, rather, “believers” who sin in such a manner prove that they are not true believers.]

Since the present tense, “commits adultery,” can be used to argue in favor of either view, it seems that the matter must be decided on the basis of other clear statements of Scripture. Should sexual intercourse between married partners cease? Not according to Paul (1 Cor. 7:5). Should marriage end in divorce? Not according to Jesus (Mk 10:9; Mt 19:6). [And I would add, not according to Paul either (1 Cor. 7:10-13).] It may be that confessing the sin, but continuing the marriage is the least culpable course of action for the divorced and remarried Christian.

Many people argue that God’s grace means that a divorced Christian gets a second chance at marriage. This smacks of license, not grace. It implies that God has a standard, but it really doesn’t matter if it is violated. [I disagree with this conclusion.] What grace means is that a divorced and remarried couple need not break up. Although entering their marriage wrongfully, they should remain in that marital state in which they find themselves (1 Cor 7:17-24).

As Laney points out, all the verb tenses in the relevant passages are present tense. And the present tense Jesus used is not proof that the adultery committed refers to repeated and ongoing acts any more than the present tense of “divorce” or “remarries” is proof the divorce or remarriage committed refer to repeated and ongoing acts of divorce and remarriage.

In fact, Jesus’ consistent use of the present tense in His statement could be evidence that He was referring to a singular sexual act as being adultery. Jesus did not say, “Whoever has divorced (past tense) illegitimately and has remarried (past tense) is (present tense) committing adultery.”  Had He said that, we might conclude that adultery was committed with every sexual act.

4.) You point out that there are no instructions—by either Jesus or the apostles who authored the New Testament epistles—for those who have been divorced and remarried to divorce again, nor are there any examples of anyone doing such a thing. But that is an argument from silence. Conversely, neither are there any instructions—by either Jesus or the apostles who authored the New Testament epistles—for those who have been divorced and remarried to remain married. So the opposite of your view can also be made from an argument of silence.

Answer: Imagine a defense attorney declaring to a jury, “As we have all seen, the plaintiff has not produced even a shred of evidence that my client, Jack, robbed First National Bank.” And then imagine the attorney for the bank standing to say, “Yes, that may be true, but neither is there evidence that Jack didn’t rob First National Bank!” The jury would think it was a comedy routine. The complete lack of evidence that Jack robbed the bank is all the evidence needed to prove that he didn’t rob the bank.

The burden of proof lies with Divine Divorce proponents, as it is quite reasonable to think that, if God requires all divorced and remarried people to divorce again as a requirement to “escape an adulterous marriage” and thus “escape hell” (as Divine Divorce proponents claim), there would be lots of information about that in the New Testament, as it would be a matter of great concern to both God and humanity. And if God does not require divorced and remarried people to divorce again as a requirement for salvation (as the large majority of Christians believe), then it is quite unreasonable to think there would be any information about it in the New Testament, as it would be information of no relevance for anyone.

If someone were advocating, based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:29, that we pluck out our right eye if we’ve ever lusted, it would be reasonable to ask them to show us examples of such a thing in the books of Acts along with supportive instructions in the New Testament epistles, as plucking out one’s eye is no small thing. But imagine an eye-plucking advocate, in defense of his doctrine, saying, “There may not be any examples of anyone plucking out their right eye in the book of Acts or instructions for the same in the New Testament epistles, but neither are there any examples of anyone not plucking out their right eye in the book or Acts, and neither are there any instructions in the New Testament epistles telling readers to not pluck out their right eye!” Would we not think such a person was grasping at straws to defend his bizarre doctrine?

5.) None of the church fathers who wrote after the apostolic age agree with you.

Answer: It is certainly true that the church fathers wrote at times about the subject of divorce and remarriage, and they of course quoted Jesus’ words about illegitimate divorce and remarriage being adultery. I have never claimed that they did not. Some forbade remarriage under any circumstances, erring on the side of caution in my humble opinion. But to date, no one has been able to show me where any early church father instructed divorced and remarried people to divorce again, or for that matter instructed anyone to divorce period, prior to something Jerome wrote in 394 AD counseling one remarried woman. So is someone who lived 360 years after Christ the ultimate authority? Jerome also defended the idea that Mary remained a virgin perpetually. Is that biblical?

One of the most amusing things is to hear people quote certain church fathers in order to support their particular theological beliefs, and then listen to their response when I ask them if there is anything those same church fathers wrote with which they disagree…

In any case, it is reasonable to think that, if any church father believed what Divine Divorce Proponents believe, they would have told divorced and remarried people to do the same things Divine Divorce proponents are telling them to do. They, just like Jesus and the apostles, did not.

6.) In the Old Testament book of Ezra, there is a story in chapters 9 and 10 about 113 Jewish men who had married foreign wives, a transgression of the Mosaic Law. Under either conviction or ecclesiastical pressure, those men divorced their foreign wives. This shows that the proper response to a marriage that is displeasing to God is to divorce. Thus, all those who are divorced and remarried should also divorce, as their adulterous marriages are displeasing to God.

Answer: To label certain second marriages as “adulterous” in the sense that they are continually adulterous is unwarranted and unbiblical, as I have repeatedly shown. Remarried people may have sinned when they divorced and remarried, but they aren’t “living in sin” because of their remarriage. On that basis, the story of the divorcing men in Ezra’s time has no real relevance at all to our topic. But, just for the sake of argument, let us pretend that it does.

While there is no doubt that 113 Jewish men transgressed the Mosaic Law by marrying foreign wives, there is no place in the book of Ezra where it is recorded that God instructed or expected them to divorce their foreign wives. It was the proposal of a man named “Shecaniah the son of Jehiel,” and he persuaded Ezra and the rest of the remnant that had recently returned from exile to adopt his proposal. Again, nothing in the book of Ezra indicates that God initiated or approved of the proposal.

Additionally, there is good reason to think that, even though the 113 Jewish men had transgressed the Mosaic Law by marrying foreign wives, God did not expect those men to then divorce them.

Why? Because God expected the people of Israel to keep their covenant vows, even when those vows went against His revealed will. A case in point is Israel’s covenant with the people of Gibeon, wicked Amorites whom God wanted Israel to annihilate during the conquest of Canaan led by Joshua. The Gibeonites, realizing they were doomed, shrewdly disguised themselves as distant foreigners, and requested a covenant of peace and protection with Israel, which they consequently gained, albeit deceptively. And when neighboring Amorite kings attacked the Gibeonites shortly after, the armies of Israel honored that covenant by coming to their defense, even though God originally wanted the Israelite army to annihilate them (Josh 9:2-10:11). Because of an imprudent covenant, God wanted Israel to defend the Gibeonites, whereas before the covenant, God wanted Israel to annihilate them.

Moreover, during the reign of King David more than four centuries later, Israel suffered God’s judgment in the form of a three-year famine, simply because David’s predecessor, King Saul, ignored Israel’s covenant of peace with the Gibeonites (1 Sam. 21:1). If there was ever an illustration of God expecting His people to keep their promises, the story of Israel’s covenant with the Gibeonites takes the prize. And so we have to wonder why God would not want 113 men in Israel who made vows to foreign women to keep their vows, even though it was not his will for them to make those vows in the first place.

As far as the story in Ezra relates to our subject, namely the alleged divine requirement of Christians to divorce their current spouses if they have been previously married and divorced, we must also question that idea for the same reasons that we question the propriety of 113 Israelite men divorcing their wives. Does not God expect us to keep our vows as well, even when there may have been good reason at one time to avoid making those vows? The servant of God, guided by his integrity, “swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Ps 15:4). And did not God hold those 113 men accountable for the suffering they caused the women whom they divorced, as well as their common children “to whom the kingdom belongs” (something which Jesus incidentally proclaimed within seconds of one His Four D&R Statements; see Matt. 19:14).

Beyond those things, the fundamental reason why God forbade the Israelite men from marrying foreign wives, namely, the great risk posed by those pagan women of turning the hearts of their Israelite husbands from devotion to the Lord, has absolutely no application to modern Christians married to Christians, even when one of them at one time was previously married and divorced. It would seem patently absurd to make the claim, “Because 113 Israelite men once wrongly married pagan women and then tried to patch up their sin by the very questionable actions of breaking their vows and sending their wives and children away, so lovers of Jesus married to lovers of Jesus should divorce if either of them has been previously married and divorced.” And if we add to all of this Jesus’ and Paul’s almost unconditional prohibitions against divorce, including Paul’s prohibition for Christians to divorce unbelieving spouses, we have to question how anyone could advocate that some Christians should divorce their Christian (or non-Christian) spouses because of a story of 113 Israelite men divorcing pagan spouses.

7.) John the Baptist reprimanded Herod Antipas for his marriage to his half-brother’s wife, Herodias, calling him to divorce her. This serves as an example for all the Christians who are in adulterous marriages, who also should divorce.

Answer: This claim is built on several assumptions, one of which is the assumption, again, that Christian couples in which one or both were previously married are considered by God to be in “adulterous marriages” or “still married to their original spouses in God’s eyes,” which I have already shown is not the case if we consider all of Scripture.

But let’s consider the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias. First, it’s worth noting that Herodias was named after her grandfather, Herod the Great, who also happened to be Herod Antipas’ father. That not only explains why their names are so similar, but also tells us they were related. Herodias was Herod Antipas’ niece. Theirs was an incestuous marriage.

Both had previously been married, Herod Antipas to a woman named Phasaelis, daughter of King Aretas IV of Nabatea, and Herodias to Herod Antipas’ half-brother, Philip. But when Herod Antipas was once visiting Rome and staying with Philip, he and Herodias fell in love, or perhaps it might be better said that they fell in lust. They agreed to marry once Herod Antipas had divorced Phasaelis. When Phasaelis learned of their plans, she journeyed back home to her father, King Aretas IV, who subsequently declared war against Herod. Herod lost that war. But the main point is, in order to marry each other, Herodias divorced Philip and Herod Antipas divorced Phasaelis. It was a classic case of obvious adultery under the guise of marriage.[3]

Understanding that background, it is certainly easy to understand why John the Baptist reprimanded Herod for his marriage to Herodias. But wrongful marriage was not the only thing John found fault with in Herod. Luke tells us:

But when Herod the tetrarch was reprimanded by him because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and because of all the wicked things which Herod had done, Herod also added this to them all: he locked John up in prison (Luke 3:19-20, emphasis added).

So John reprimanded Herod for many “wicked things,” of which one was his marriage to his brother’s wife. Interestingly, Mark informs us that Herod respected John greatly, enjoyed listening to him, and even protected him for a time:

Herodias had a grudge against him [John the Baptist] and wanted to put him to death and could not do so; for Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed; but he used to enjoy listening to him (Mark 6:19-20).

So we shouldn’t imagine John pointing his finger at Herod as he drove by in his chariot and shouting, “It is unlawful for you to have your brother’s wife!” Rather, we should imagine Herod inviting John to his palace, either before or during his incarceration, and asking him questions relevant to his own life (as did others; see Luke 3:10-14), and John pointing out to him all that he was doing that was grievous to God. We might also imagine Herod feeling convicted, but strangely enjoying hearing someone who fearlessly told him what his conscience had been telling him all his life.

Herodias finally got her wish for John’s execution via her dancing daughter at one of Herod’s parties. Offering her up to half his kingdom, she asked for John’s head on a platter at her mother’s request, and Herod capitulated. So it is difficult to find anything good to say about either Herod or Herodias.

So let us imagine God comparing their marriage to that of a long-term, devoted Christian couple, of which the wife, prior to her salvation, was in a difficult marriage that she tried for years to make work but that ended in divorce. Would God view that Christian couple’s marriage to be “just as evil” as the marriage of Herod and Herodias? Is it right and reasonable to claim that, because John called on Herod and Herodias to divorce, that God expects every married couple to divorce if one of the members has been previously married and divorced?

And did John actually call on Herod and Herodias to divorce as a remedy for their sin? If he did, Scripture doesn’t say, and so we should not make that assumption. We could just as rightly claim that John was calling for Herod and Herodias to be stoned, as that is what the Law of Moses prescribed for adulterers, and clearly, that is what they were guilty of.

But let us imagine that John was actually calling them to divorce. If he was holding them to the standards of the Mosaic Law regarding divorce and remarriage, neither would be permitted to return to their former spouse (according to Deut. 24:1-4). But both would be free to remarry anyone else, with the exception that Herodias would not be permitted to marry a priest (fairly unlikely). So what, exactly, would be the point of Herod Antipas and Herodias divorcing? Why would John call them to divorce if they could not return to their former spouses but could marry just about anyone else? What would be the point? And are we to imagine that John was calling Herod and Herodias to divorce and remain celibate until their original spouses died, the alleged new law of Christ?

In light of all these things, in my humble opinion, Divine Divorce proponents have no warrant to claim that John’s condemnation of Herod and Herodias’ marriage has any application to us other than the fact that it has always been wrong for anyone to divorce their spouse in order to marry someone else.

8.) The “exception clauses” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 should not be interpreted as allowing for divorce if a man discovers that his wife has committed adultery. Rather, Jesus was speaking of the discovery, during the betrothal phase, of illicit sex during or before the betrothal phase. And for that offense it was lawful to break off one’s engagement. And this is the same thing Paul was writing about in 1 Cor. 7:27-28, another scripture that is mistakenly applied to married persons when it actually only applies to betrothed persons. So your claim that God allows divorce under certain circumstances, which thus makes allowance for remarriage in some cases, is wrong. Only death can dissolve a marriage. Thus there is no divorced person who is legitimately divorced, and there is no remarried person who is legitimately remarried. So all remarried people should divorce their current spouse to either return to their original spouse or live celibate lives until their original spouse is dead.

Answer: If one holds to the supposition that marriage is dissoluble only by death and not by legitimate divorce, then the “exception clauses” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (“except for immorality”), as well as Paul’s allowance for divorced people to remarry in 1 Cor. 7:27-28, are problematic. So we should not be surprised that Divine Divorce proponents and their conservative counterparts have come up with explanations that attempt to harmonize those problematic passages with their views. I addressed the “Betrothal View” in two footnotes in my first article, as it seems so obviously far-fetched that it isn’t worthy of actual discussion. However, the Betrothal View seems to be a cardinal doctrine of Divine Divorce proponents, so I will address it.

To put it bluntly, the Betrothal View makes Jesus look stupid.

Note that, in Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees recorded in Matthew 19:3-12, the Pharisee’s initial and follow-up questions, Jesus’ initial and second reply, as well as the scriptures referenced in their conversation (Gen. 2:24, Deut. 24:1-4), all refer only to married people and the lawfulness of divorce between them. The topic remains consistent throughout the conversation. But then, according to the Betrothal View, Jesus allegedly ends the conversation with a statement about lawful divorce that has absolutely no application to married people, but only to engaged people! And that makes Jesus look stupid. It also makes those who make Jesus look stupid look desperate to defend their doctrine. They are forcing a meaning that reflects their bias into a passage of Scripture.

In the other instance where we find the “exception clause,” in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the Betrothal View makes Jesus look equally, if not more, stupid.

In that instance, Jesus first references the Pharisees’ twisted teaching, which they derived from Deut. 24:1-4, saying: “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give a certificate of divorce'” (Matt. 5:31). So the topic is “married men divorcing their wives.” But in the next sentence that completes everything Jesus has to say on the subject, Betrothal View proponents have Him strangely correcting the Pharisaic viewpoint with a declaration that has no application at all to married men, but only to betrothed men. They have Jesus saying, “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give a certificate of divorce.’ But I say, whoever breaks off his betrothal, except for immorality, makes his former fiancée commit adultery, and whoever marries her commits adultery.” Jesus appears to be an idiot.

Equally strange is the fact that, according to Betrothal View proponents, a man can allegedly lawfully “divorce” his fiancée during the engagement period if he discovers she has been sexually immoral. However, if she successfully keeps her pre-marital sexual immorality hidden from him, once the actual marriage has taken place, he is not permitted to divorce her. Worse, now that she is married, she can be as promiscuous as she wants, as the window for divorce is now closed permanently. She can become a prostitute, and still he cannot lawfully divorce her. Such a view is as bizarre as it is illogical. It places a higher value on faithfulness prior to marriage than after marriage (which is the exact opposite of Scripture’s valuation according to Ex. 22:16-17 and Deut. 22:22). And it rewards the promiscuous woman who can keep her promiscuity hidden from her fiancé.

But it gets worse. Betrothal View proponents always point out that the “exception clauses” found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 include two Greek words, porneia and moicheo, respectively translated “fornication” and “adultery” in the King James Version. Matthew 19:9 reads, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another woman commits moicheo.” Betrothal View proponents claim that, because Jesus used two different words, He was making a distinction between the sexual sin committed by the immoral woman and the sexual sin committed by the man who divorces and marries another. The immoral woman did not commit moicheo, but rather porneia, so her sin was not adultery, but fornication, a sin that can only be committed by an unmarried person. Thus Jesus must have been speaking of pre-marital illicit sex discovered during the betrothal phase.

This explanation, however, is flawed, as the meaning of the Greek word porneia is not limited to sex between two unmarried persons, that is, fornication, which is probably why the NASB does not always translate porneia as “fornication,” but sometimes as “unchastity” and “immorality.” Greek lexicons show that porneia refers to illicit sex in general, which can include fornication, adultery and incest. Moreover, Thomas Edgar points out that in Hebrew culture “the use of the two different terms…(porneia for the woman) and…(moichao for the man) is exactly in accordance with expected usage. It is much less likely that the same term, rather than the two different terms, would be used, since it was contrary to the customary usage of the time…. The proclivity of that culture to describe an adulterous woman by the term porneia (or verb porneuo) and the adulterous man by the specific terms moichao or moicheuo is alone sufficient to explain the use of the two terms in Matthew 19:9.” (Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, IVP, p. 164, H. Wayne House, editor)

The Betrothal View also raises the question of how those who have never been married can be said to commit adultery in any sense if they marry. Imagine an engaged couple under the banner of the Betrothal View. The man breaks the engagement (“divorces”) for an illegitimate reason (something other than his fiancée committing porneia). Jesus said that if he marries another woman, he commits adultery. But he has never been married. Moreover, should his former fiancée marry anyone else, according to Jesus, she commits adultery. But she has never been married either. So we see that the Betrothal View hangs itself. If the exception clause only applies to those who are betrothed and not to those who are married, then the consequences of an illegitimate “divorce” and the subsequent marriages cannot constitute adultery in any sense. Betrothal View proponents not only wrongly restrict porneia to mean “only fornication,” but they must also wrongly expand moichao to include fornication. All this being so, the “exception clauses” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 only make sense if they apply to married persons, not engaged persons.

Finally, the Betrothal View makes Jesus contradict the Law of Moses, which allowed for a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality regardless of when the immorality was committed or discovered. As I have already pointed out, the “indecency” of Deut. 24:1-4 is discovered by a man regarding a woman to whom he was married, which results in him divorcing her. The Mosaic Law also speaks of a man who, upon taking a wife and consummating his marriage, discovers that she is not a virgin as she had represented herself (Deut. 22:13-21). The penalty for her “playing the harlot in her father’s house” was death by stoning. There can be no denial that the “betrothal view” makes Jesus contradict the Mosaic Law, as the “betrothal view” makes no allowance for divorce after marriage, but only for breaking off an engagement. Again, Jesus would never contradict Himself, and thus He would never contradict the Law of Moses.

Betrothal View proponents similarly grasp at straws regarding Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7:27-28:

Are you bound to a wife? [That is, are you married?] Do not seek to be released. [That is, don’t pursue a divorce, just as I have previously told you above in 7:10-13.] Are you released from a wife? [That is, are you divorced (or possibly widowed)?]. Do not seek a wife [That is, don’t seek to be remarried.] But if you marry, you have not sinned; [That is, if you remarry, you are not sinning, regardless of whether you are divorced or widowed] and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. [That is, the same is true for virgin women, and this special instruction addressed to virgin women confirms that the previous statement, “But if you marry, you have not sinned” does indeed apply to men who have been previously married and divorced.] Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you (1 Cor. 7:27-28).

Betrothal View proponents claim this passage is applicable only to currently- or previously-betrothed virgins, rather than currently- or previously-married people, claiming that context supports such a view because Paul addresses virgins beginning in 7:25. Here is how they interpret 1 Cor. 7:27-28:

Are you bound to a wife? [That is, are you, a virgin man, engaged to be married?] Do not seek to be released. [That is, do not seek to be released from your engagement.] Are you released from a wife? [That is, are you released from being engaged?]. Do not seek a wife [That is, do not seek to be engaged once again and married.] But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. [That is, if you do get engaged once again and marry, you have not sinned; and if a female virgin marries, she has not sinned.] Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you (1 Cor. 7:27-28).

This re-write by itself should be enough for any honest person to reject it. It raises so many questions that expose its dubiousness, including:

(1) How many engaged men could there possibly have been in the Corinthian church who needed to be advised to not “seek to be released” from their engagement because that is something they were actually considering?

(2) And where is mention of the fact that if they were to break their engagement for any reason besides the discovery of their fiancée’s immorality and ultimately marry another, they would be guilty of adultery, as is claimed by the Betrothal View interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9?

(3) How many previously-engaged men who had been “released” from an engagement could there possibly have been in the Corinthian church, and how many of those would have needed to be advised to not seek to be re-engaged again because that was something they were considering?

(4) And again, where is the warning that, if they broke off their previous engagement for any reason besides the discovery of their fiancée’s immorality, they would be committing adultery should they ever remarry any other woman, as is claimed by the Betrothal View interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9?

(5) Why did Paul tell these previously-engaged men they would not be sinning if they were to marry when in fact Jesus said they could well have been sinning, committing adultery, if the previous engagement breakup was illegitimate, as is claimed by the Betrothal View interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9?

These questions, and others that could be asked, show how far-fetched the Betrothal View is when it is applied to this passage.

The most natural interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:27-28 is that Paul was summarizing much of what he had previously written, namely that: “Married people, whether married to a believer or unbeliever, should not divorce. Divorced people, just like widows, are better off if they remain single during the present distress, but if they remarry, they are not sinning. And although I’ve also already advised those who have never been married that it would be best for them to remain single, if they do marry, they are not sinning.”

In Conclusion

As John Wesley was fond of saying after he preached to an unreceptive crowd, “I have delivered my soul.” That is, “I’ve done my best to tell the truth, and so God will not hold me responsible for those who heard me yet who continue down the wrong path.”

I’ve done my best and invested a lot of time writing three articles to help Divine Divorce proponents see what is intuitively obvious to the majority of Christians around the world.

God never intended that any married couple would divorce. He hates divorce because He loves people. However, because He loves people, He’s made some divorce legitimate, and He forgives illegitimate divorce when there is repentance. Remarried people do not live in a continual state of sin or adultery that can only be remedied by divorce. Sin is not repaired by more sin. Sin is repaired by mercy and grace, something of which God has an abundance. May His name be praised. — David

[1] And, of course, neither did Jesus, the author of Deut. 24:1-4, and the one who said to the woman at the well of Samaria, “You have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband” (John 4:18). Jesus viewed her at the time as not having a husband, but as being unmarried, as I also pointed out in my first article. So unless Jesus contradicted Himself, His words about divorce + remarriage = adultery were not meant to be interpreted divorce + remarriage = still married to first spouse.

[2] I am aware that some Divine Divorce proponents claim that Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7:27-28 only have application to those who have only been betrothed, and not to those who are already married, and that they make the same claim regarding the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. I do address that interpretation later in this teaching.

[3] Some question why John apparently expected Herod to keep the Law of Moses, since he certainly was not a professing Jew. But adultery is wrong for anyone and everyone, and it is a transgression of the Law of Conscience that God has placed in every person’s heart, as well as a violation of the Golden Rule.

The post I’m Divorced and Remarried. Am I Living in Adultery? Part 3 appeared first on David Servant.

Last month’s e-teaching generated a lot of interest, receiving 4,700 views on our website so far. In that teaching, I did my best to show that God does not require of divorced and married Christians what “Divine Divorce Proponents” claim He requires, namely that they divorce again and remarry their first spouse, or live celibate lives until that person, to whom they are allegedly “still married in God’s eyes,” is dead. If you didn’t read that article, it would be best that you do before you read what follows.

There is, of course, a diversity of opinion within the body of Christ regarding divorce and remarriage, but Divine Divorce Proponents (or the “Marriage Permanence Community” as they refer to themselves) are definitely on the fringes. Sadly, however, that doesn’t deter them. In fact, some consider their minority status to be additional proof that they are correct since “the large majority of professing Christians are so wrong about most things.” One Divine Divorce Proponent lamented on a Facebook thread, “I don’t know why the faithful [that is, the Divine Divorce Proponents] waste their time attempting to help sexually filthy remarriage adulterers see the light of gospel Truth.”

The narrow way is apparently much narrower than most of us have ever imagined. And hundreds of thousands of professing Christian married couples are going to be very surprised when God casts them into hell for keeping their marriage vows…

During conversations with Divine Divorce Proponents, I’ve actually wondered if I’m on Candid Camera. The conversations seem unreal. I can hardly believe I’m having a discussion with professing Christians who advocate that hundreds of thousands of Christian couples should divorce. Here is what one of them recently wrote in response to my claim that God hates divorce (as God Himself said in Mal. 2:16):

God does not hate the divorce that is a repentance of adultery. God loves repentance. The angels rejoice. By not being on the right side, you are labelling what God loves (repentance), as what God hates, you make yourself an enemy of the cross. Christianity calls for self denial and loving the truth even when it hurts. There are many who have a ticket to hell because they have remarried into adultery. Their destiny will only change if the adultery by remarriage comes to an end. Abandoning such adultery is an act of repentance, which God loves, not hates.

So, they claim, God sometimes loves it when Christians divorce and families are divided. In fact, the angels rejoice when Christians—who have been previously divorced—divorce again. Those who don’t agree with this view are “enemies of the cross.” One zealous Divine Divorce Proponent believes that great revival would come to America if all the Christians who have been previously married and divorced would divorce again.

Divine Divorce Proponents actually believe that a person could be a believing, born-again, self-sacrificing, devoted, fruitful, unashamed follower of Jesus in every sense, even one who spends decades as a missionary to a remote region in an impoverished nation, but if that person dies in the state of being married a second time while his or her original spouse is still alive, that person will be cast into hell. Stranger still, if their original spouse dies one second before they die, they will go to heaven, as the death of their former spouse will release them from their “adulterous marriage.” If you are a divorced and remarried Christian, you not only need Jesus’ death to inherit eternal life. You also need the death of your original spouse at least one second before you die.

Please forgive me, but along those lines, I could not resist posting a satirical story on my Facebook page:

I learned from a Facebook Holiness preacher that, because I’ve been divorced and remarried, I’m living in adultery, but only as long as my former spouse is still alive. And if my former spouse is still alive when I die, I will go to hell as an adulterer. Not wanting to lose my salvation, I considered all the alternatives, including divorcing my Christian wife, the mother of our seven children, which is what the Facebook preacher said God required. But in the end, I did the only logical thing to do. I made sure that that I will out-live my ex-wife. Of course, I led her in the sinner’s prayer before I poisoned her. It feels so good to be holy.

My inference was that I could be forgiven by God for murder, but not “adultery” with my hypothetical second wife.

Life on the Fringes

Naturally, the churches and denominations that embrace Divine Divorce Doctrine do not admit into their membership anyone who has been previously divorced and remarried. Such folks who do seek membership are told that they must separate/divorce until their original spouse is dead. Obviously understanding what an awkward and dangerous thing it is to demand that people divorce to qualify for membership, it is interesting to read the attempts by Divine Divorce Churches to soften their official doctrinal positions. For example, the doctrinal positon of the Southeastern Mennonite Conference reads, “While the final decision to separate from an adulterous relationship [marriage] would be voluntary, God requires it for reconciliation to Him.” Translation: “Although it may seem that we require divorced and remarried people to separate in order to join us, in order to avoid lawsuits from people whom our new members divorce, here is our disclaimer: We don’t force anyone to separate; we only inform them that they will go to hell if they don’t.”

I recently read a book titled, Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (Intervarsity Press, 1990). Four scholarly contributors defend their views, which range from very conservative to somewhat liberal, summarized by the four chapter titles (1) No Divorce, No Remarriage, (2) Divorce, but No Remarriage, (3) Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion, and (4) Divorce & Remarriage Under a Variety of Circumstances. Even among the diversity of opinion expressed by those four contributors on the subject of divorce and remarriage, not one suggests that God might expect someone to separate or divorce because they were previously married and divorced. In fact, the most conservative contributor, J. Carl Laney, a professor of biblical literature at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, who is persuaded there is never a valid reason to either divorce or remarry, does not believe that (1) those who have divorced and are remarried live in a continual state of adultery, (2) that they should abstain from sex, or (3) that they should divorce or separate, and all for very sound biblical reasons that he enumerates.

As you might imagine, Divine Divorce Doctrine is attractive to professing Christians who want out of their current, subsequent marriages. If they’ve been previously married and divorced, Divine Divorce Doctrine gives them the justification they need to, once again, break their marriage vows. Obviously, breaking one’s marriage vows makes one a liar, and one would think that Divine Divorce Proponents would be just as concerned that Scripture warns that all liars will end up in “the lake that burns with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:6) as they are that Scripture warns that no adulterer will inherit God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Obviously, if after a “divine divorce,” a Divine Divorce Proponent were to remarry yet another time prior to the death of his original spouse, that would indicate that he no longer believes his doctrine (or perhaps really didn’t believe it in the first place, but only utilized it to escape his previous marriage). Interestingly, I was introduced to Divine Divorce Doctrine through a Facebook debate regarding a formerly-faithful Divine Divorce Proponent who recently remarried and is now being shunned by the faithful. I suspect their ranks are full of defectors who come to terms with the post-divorce discovery that God has not given them a gift of celibacy and that Paul’s words, “it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:9) contain some relevancy.

The DDD Foundation

As I pointed out in my previous article, the foundation of Divine Divorce Doctrine rests in Jesus’ Four D&R Statements recorded in Matthew 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, in which He equated divorce and remarriage to adultery. I did my best to point out that Jesus was ministering at a time when Israel’s spiritual leaders, the scribes and Pharisees, were teaching that a man could divorce his wife for any cause at all, an idea that was totally foreign to God’s original intent for marriage, and miles away from even the concession that God made in the Law of Moses for divorce due to the hardness of men’s hearts. Yet, at the same time, the scribes and Pharisees were condemning adulterers (like the woman they caught in adultery as recorded in John 8:3-11).

However, taking the strictest literal interpretation of Jesus’ Four D&R Statements, Divine Divorce Proponents conclude that anyone who divorces and remarries is living in an adulterous relationship, and thus the only remedy is yet another divorce, either functional or legal. I did my best to try to point out the biblical reasons why such an interpretation is wrong, including the fact that the apostles and early church clearly did not follow such an interpretation.

Perhaps an even deeper flaw of Divine Divorce Doctrine, one that is found in some more mainstream theologies regarding divorce and remarriage, is the belief that Jesus raised the standard found in the Law of Moses. I would contend, however, that in His Four D&R Statements, Jesus was only revealing, upholding and endorsing the Mosaic Law, as the standards of God’s original intent (one man and one woman for life) were and are unattainable by anyone who has already suffered through a divorce and remarriage, and those same standards are also unattainable now for anyone who is married to someone who is not submitted to God or committed to His original ideal for marriage.

In one sense, however, God’s original ideal is attainable, via a fresh start to those who have experienced His transforming grace, even if they failed in the past to attain to that original ideal. And that is why it is tragic that Divine Divorce Proponents are calling for people to attain to the original ideal by transgressing the very ideal they espouse. They attempt to fix by sin what can only be repaired by grace, and they unwittingly add to the carnage of destroyed marriages and ruined families. What a strange paradox indeed is a group that claims to stand for “marriage permanence” yet calls for millions of people to divorce or go to hell.

In this follow-up article, please allow me to attempt to (1) prove that, through His Four D&R Statements, Jesus was not raising the standard found in the Law of Moses, and (2) show the important ramifications of that fact. In my final article next month, I will address some common objections posed by Divine Divorce Proponents, such as those that revolve around the stories of the divorcing men of Ezra’s time, John the Baptist’s rebuke of Herod for marrying his brother’s wife, the idea that marriage is dissoluble only by death, the disagreement of the church fathers, the “argument of silence” accusation, the “homosexual marriage” comparison, and the Greek verb tenses claim.

What Was Moses’ Standard?

The idea that Jesus raised the standard is often based on a very low view of Moses’ standard. It is crystal clear, however, that the concession made in the Mosaic Law for divorce due to the hardness of men’s hearts was not a concession of “divorce for any reason.” We know that for at least two indisputable reasons.

First, because that is not what we find in the Law of Moses. Rather, we only find mention of divorce for an “indecency” in Deut. 24:1-4. As discussed in my previous article, there were two schools of thought in Jesus’ time among the Rabbis concerning what constituted an “indecency,” and Jesus clearly sided against the liberal view of “divorce for any reason” and sided with the conservative view that identified the indecency as sexual immorality. Jesus was ministering during the old covenant to people who were under the Law of Moses. All of this proves that the standard regarding lawful divorce under the Mosaic Law was not “divorce for any reason.” It was “divorce only for sexual immorality.” So that was the baseline. If Jesus was going to institute a higher standard, it had to be higher than that. And keep in mind that Jesus was the author of the Law of Moses. He certainly knew His own intent when He gave it.

Second, the standard to love one’s neighbor as oneself was an all-encompassing standard in the Mosaic Law (Lev. 19:18). It regulated all relationships, including marriage, of course. Husbands were expected to treat their wives as they themselves wanted to be treated. It goes without saying that “divorce for any cause” violates the Golden Rule and what Jesus called the second greatest commandment.

So if we are going to claim that Jesus raised the standard concerning divorce, we must claim that Jesus raised the standard so that it was higher than “divorce allowed for sexual immorality” as well as “divorce allowed that does not violate the commandment to love your wife as you love yourself.”

Now let’s consider the proof that Jesus did not raise those standards.

The First Proof

In all three instances when Jesus spoke about divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19 and Mark 10 record the same instance), the Mosaic Law was clearly in view. For example, if we read Luke 16:18 in its context we find Jesus said:

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery (Luke 16:16-18; emphasis added).

Clearly, Jesus’ words about divorce and remarriage in the third sentence of that passage serve as an example of His larger point found in the first two sentenes, namely, that every bit of the Law of Moses was still very relevant and binding, even though some folks apparently thought otherwise since John the Baptist started preaching that the kingdom of God was at hand.

To correct that misapprehension, Jesus declared that the Law and its standards were very much still in force. Specifically, and as an example, God’s view and commandments regarding divorce and remarriage hadn’t changed. Divorce and remarriage were akin to adultery, just as they had always been. Jesus was not introducing a new standard.

Divine Divorce Proponents (as well as others) effectively have Jesus saying in this passage:

Before John the Baptist, everyone was preaching from the Law and Prophets. Since John, everyone has been focusing on his announcement that the kingdom of God is at hand, and they seem to have forgotten about the Law and Prophets. Let me assure you, however, that the Law and Prophets have not passed away any more than heaven and earth have passed away. Nothing is any different. Oh, except regarding what the Law teaches about divorce and remarriage…I’m actually altering and upgrading that, so the Law’s words about divorce and remarriage are passing away right now as I speak these words. Under the Mosaic Law, divorce and remarriage were not akin to adultery, but from here on, they are. And although all that I just said may seem contradictory, it really isn’t.

The Second Proof

In the Matthew 19/Mark 10 instance when Jesus equated divorce and remarriage with adultery, the conversation begins with some Pharisees testing Jesus by asking Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matt. 19:3). They were, of course, asking if it was lawful under the Law of Moses.

Their revealing question shows how far the Pharisees had strayed from a biblical understanding of marriage. Jesus responds by referencing what is obvious about God’s original intent regarding marriage in Genesis 2, and it certainly did not include divorce. The Pharisees object, appealing to the fact that the Mosaic Law allowed a man to divorce his wife for an “indecency,” a term term found in the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage that was the subject of debate during Jesus’ time.

Jesus explains that the Law of Moses made concession for the hardness of men’s hearts, but that divorce was never God’s original intent, much less “divorce for any reason” as the Pharisees believed and practiced. And then, to close the discussion about what is lawful under the Law of Moses, Jesus says, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). That is, the indecency of Deuteronomy 24 is immorality, and divorce for any other reason constitutes adultery under the Law of Moses.

To claim that Jesus introduced a new and higher standard is to say what Jesus did not say during a discussion regarding what the Law of Moses taught about the lawfulness of divorce. Also, if such a claim were true, we’d have to maintain that, for some unknown reason, divorce and remarriage were not akin to adultery under the Mosaic Law, but suddenly they were when Jesus spoke. That is not logical.

Divine Divorce Proponents (and others) have Jesus saying in this passage, “The Genesis account reveals a standard of one man and one woman for life, the Law of Moses alters that by making a concession for divorce due to the hardness of men’s hearts, and now, to answer a question about what is lawful under the Mosaic Law, I’ve come up with a new standard that undoes that Mosaic concession.”

The Third Proof

Jesus’ equating divorce and remarriage to adultery in the Sermon on the Mount could be the most obvious proof that He was not altering the standard found in the Mosaic Law, but simply helping His Jewish audience understand the already-existing standard.

Remember that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made reference a number of times to the Mosaic Law, starting with:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:17-20; emphasis added).

So we would expect the next thing Jesus would do is explain to His audience specifically how the scribes and Pharisees were falling short of obeying what the Law and Prophets required. That way His audience could make sure they “surpassed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.” And so Jesus did.

He begins by reciting the Mosaic Law’s prohibition of murder and then continues by expounding on what is actually implied in that prohibition.

We know that when God said, “Do not commit murder,” He did not mean it was OK to strangle someone up to the point of killing them just as long as you didn’t actually snuff out their life. And Jesus follows that line of reasoning all the way back to its logical beginning to show that God is not OK with any of the things that generally precede murder, such as anger, hatred and venomous words.

When Jesus, in effect, said, “You have heard, ‘You shall not commit murder,’ but I say to you don’t be angry and hateful,” He was not communicating that it was OK under the Mosaic Law to be angry and hateful but now was establishing a new standard. We can be sure of that because God said in the Mosaic Law:

You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:17-18).

So Jesus was indisputably not introducing a new standard. Rather, He was endorsing the old, actual, intended standard of the Mosaic Law.

Jesus next quotes the Mosaic Law regarding adultery. We know that when God forbade adultery in the Ten Commandments, He did not mean, “It is OK to be involved sexually with another man’s wife to just about any degree as long as you don’t actually have intercourse.” No, implied in the Mosaic Law’s prohibition of adultery is everything that leads up to adultery, and Jesus follows that logic all the way back to lust, where adultery always begins.

Surely no one would argue that lust was acceptable to God prior to the time of Jesus, or that Jesus upgraded the standard of the Mosaic Law, making lust, which was not a sin, to now be a sin. Lust was forbidden in the tenth commandment, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” And Job had that figured out (perhaps even before the Mosaic Law), as he declared, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1).

And then we come to Jesus’ words about divorce and remarriage, and they follow the same pattern that was established by the first two “You have heard… but I say” passages. Jesus said, “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'” (Matt. 5:31). That certainly describes the lax attitude regarding divorce that was taught by the scribes and Pharisees, all allegedly based on what was taught in the Law of Moses. It was divorce for any reason, and the only thing you needed to worry about was making sure you gave your wife a divorce certificate as you sent her packing.

But Jesus, just as He did regarding the Mosaic Law’s prohibition against murder and adultery, revealed the spirit and true intent of the Law and divulged the only actual “indecency” that actually makes divorce lawful, saying, “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt. 5:31-32).

So, for the third time, one of Jesus’ D&R Statements was an endorsement of the original intent of the Mosaic Law. Divorce was permitted for unchastity, but other than that, the man who illegitimately divorces his wife “makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Divine Divorce Proponents (and others) have Jesus saying in this passage, “You have heard that the Mosaic Law teaches that the only thing to be concerned about when you divorce your wife is to make sure you give her a divorce certificate. And that is true. Previously, I was perfectly OK with you divorcing your wife for any reason, and that is what I revealed in the Mosaic Law. But now I’m raising the standard. From now on, unless your wife is sexually immoral, it is wrong to divorce her, and I will consider the man who divorces his wife illegitimately to be akin to the man who forces his wife to commit adultery, and I will also consider the man who marries her to be guilty of adultery as well. I did not feel this way when I inspired Moses to write the Mosaic Law, but over the centuries I’ve found myself reconsidering some things, and now I’m changing them.”

The Ramifications…

Hopefully I’ve proved to your satisfaction that, in His Four D&R Statements, Jesus was not upgrading the Mosaic Law regarding divorce and remarriage or setting a new standard, but rather was only expressing, using provocative terms, what the Law (including Genesis 2) revealed, in order to help His audience understand what had been God’s unchanging perspective from the very beginning.

This being so, we can say with certainty that God has always viewed divorce (except for the cause of immorality) and remarriage as akin to adultery, previous to and under the Mosaic Law. And how could He not, as His original intention was one man for one woman for life? Every divorce and every subsequent remarriage is a testimony that God’s perfect will has not been attained. Sin, on some level, has been committed and has destroyed what God intended.

Yet, God indisputably not only permitted some divorce under the Mosaic Law, but also remarriage. Divorce and remarriage were social institutions (Lev. 21:7, 14; 22:13; Num. 30:9; Deut. 22:19, 29; 24:1-4; Ezek. 44:21-22). A twice-divorced woman was permitted to remarry anyone other than her original husband (Deut. 24:1-4). Any man, except a priest, could marry a divorced woman (Lev. 21:7, 14).

And naturally, there is no mention in the Law of Moses that God expected divorced and remarried people, regardless of the background of their divorces and remarriages, to divorce again and remain celibate, just as there is no mention of such expectations or practices in the New Testament. These things Divine Divorce Proponents cannot deny.

Moreover, it is indisputable that, under the civil statutes of the Mosaic Law, adultery was punishable by death (Lev. 20:10). This provokes us to ask the question, “If, under the Mosaic Law, God viewed divorce (except for the cause of immorality) and remarriage as equivalent to adultery, why did He permit remarriage, and why didn’t He direct that all divorced and remarried people be executed under the civil statutes of the Mosaic Law?

And the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is the same conclusion that I came to, yet for other reasons, in my previous article. God does not view divorce and remarriage as being exactly like adultery in every sense of the word. God did not view, and does not view, those who are divorced and remarried as “living in adulterous marriages,” or “living in a continual state of adultery,” or “committing adultery every time they have sex,” or “married to their original spouse in God’s eyes.” Otherwise, such “states of continual adultery” would have, under the the civil statutes of the Mosaic Law, required at least as severe punishment that was prescribed for classic adultery. So it is not in any of those senses that divorced and remarried people “commit adultery.”

Thus, if the adultery that Jesus said is committed by some divorce and remarriage is to be understood as literal, physical adultery, it can only occur a single time when the second marriage is consummated. And that does make some sense. By that “singular adulterous act of consummation,” an act that Jesus said is lawful grounds for divorce by an offended spouse (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), an act that seals the Mosaic Law’s prohibition of reconciliation with the former spouse (Deut. 24:4), the final deathblow falls on the former marriage, and from that point onward, a new marriage covenant is established upon vows that should not be broken. Everyone, including God (who made marriage for people, and not people for marriage, by the way), hopes this time it will be different and will attain to His original intent. God does not expect or require such people to divorce again to escape an “adulterous marriage.”

By pointing out how illegitimate divorce and remarriage is like adultery, Jesus was hoping to help his “divorce-for-any-reason” crowds see those things as God has always seen them, and His goal was to prevent future divorces and remarriages, not precipitate millions of more divorces as if He were a Divine Divorce Proponent.

Again, God never intended that there would be any divorce, and so of course He never intended that there would be any remarriage. But hard-hearted people yield to lust and commit adultery, two more things God never intended. And adultery is a terrible sin against a spouse. If there is no repentance, there can be no reconciliation, and God allows divorce and, naturally, subsequent remarriage, just as He did under the Mosaic Law.

Similarly, hard-hearted people sometimes decide for various reasons that they don’t want to be married to their spouse any longer. They might even decide they don’t want to be married because their spouse loves God so much. And so they walk out, a situation Paul described in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. In such cases, God allows divorce and, naturally, subsequent remarriage, just as He did under the Mosaic Law.

A Few More Ramifications

Once we’ve arrived at a harmonious, coherent interpretation of how our unchanging, gracious and loving God views and has always viewed divorce and remarriage, there is much less of a need to engage in hair-splitting debates over Greek nuances, historical suppositions, technical analyses of similar texts, and strained theories about the indissolubility of marriage.

And we also don’t have to try to figure out who is guilty, because we know we are all guilty on some level of falling short of God’s ideal for marriage. Who am I, one who has not always loved my wife as Christ loves the church, or loved her “as myself” (Eph. 5:28), to condemn someone who has been divorced and remarried? That person might well be doing a better job at marriage now than I am. What preacher or theologian who has “committed adultery” by lust can condemn the man who has “committed adultery” by divorce and remarriage? We are all like the woman caught in the act of adultery, at least on some level (John 8:3-11).

With all this in mind, take a look at the following list of people who, according to Jesus, “commit adultery”:

1.) The man who divorces his wife illegitimately and marries another (Matt. 19:9)

2.) The woman who remarries after her husband illegitimately divorces her (Matt. 5:32)

3.) The man who marries a divorced woman (including the woman who has been divorced illegitimately) (Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18)

4.) The man who divorces his wife, perhaps even legitimately, and remarries (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18, where the “exception clause” is missing)

5.) The woman who divorces her husband, perhaps even legitimately, and remarries (Mark 10:12, where the “exception clause” is missing)

6.) The man who looks on a woman to lust for her (Matt. 5:28)

Does anything seem unfair about some of those characterizations? Although it is quite easy to see why Jesus would say a man “commits adultery” who divorces his wife to quickly marry the object of his lust, what about other cases listed, straight from the lips of Jesus?

What about the poor woman whose husband divorced her illegitimately, perhaps because of his lust for another woman? She is simply a victim of his sin and selfishness. How could she “commit adultery” when she remarries?

And what about the sincere man who a year later falls in love with that rejected woman who, through no fault of her own, lost her husband, just like a widow? How could it not be an honorable thing for him to marry her, just as it would be an honorable thing for him to marry a widow? How is it that he “commits adultery”?

What about the woman who divorces her philandering husband, what Jesus seemed to characterize as “legitimate divorce” in Matthew 5 and 19 but not in Mark 10:12? How could she possibly “commit adultery” when she remarries?

Perhaps I am wrong, but the only answer to all these questions that I can think of is that, from God’s standpoint, every divorce and subsequent remarriage, to a greater or lesser degree, involves adultery in some sense, because all reflect that God’s ideal of one man and one woman for life has not been realized. His amazing grace, however, allows a second chance, not just under the Law of Moses but also under the Law of Christ, for such people who “commit adultery” when they remarry, just like His grace allows a second chance for those who “commit adultery” through lust.

I know that some will object to the idea of any grace apart from repentance, but I wonder if any of us have any grasp of the amount of toleration and mercy we’ve each received from the Lord that has zero connection to any repentance on our part. God “causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” said Jesus.[1] If you want to see someone who has received a lot more mercy than he realizes, take a look in the mirror.

The millions of offenses committed every day around the world that God overlooks or patiently endures testify that He often permits and tolerates what He does not sanction. One very biblical example that comes to mind is the story of Israel’s request for a king (1 Sam. 8-9). God expressly declared that it wasn’t His will for them to have a king, but He made a concession, and He even handpicked their new leader. God makes concessions.

Of course, I am writing primarily to help those who have already been divorced and remarried and whom I fear might come under the influence of the Divine Divorce Doctrine. Don’t be deceived into divorcing again. You may have committed adultery in some sense when you consummated your current marriage, but you are not living in adultery now. Forget those things that lie behind (Phil. 3:13). Strive for a permanent, blessing-filled marriage through obedience to Jesus. Keep your marriage vows. You can do all things through Christ who strengthens you. — David

Read Part 3 of This Series Here >>

[1] By the way, the both sun and rain would have been considered blessings to Jesus’ original audience, and “rain” would not have carried the negative connotation that is often carries in among modern city dwellers.

The post “I’m Divorced and Remarried. Am I Living in Adultery?” Part 2 appeared first on David Servant.

Today we’re looking at divorce and remarriage a third time. Is it adultery in God’s eyes to be married again after a divorce? Should Christians who were divorced in the past but are now married divorce their current spouses? And, if possible, should they get back to their previous spouses? In God’s eyes, are they still married to their previous spouses?

You can read the first Little Lesson I did about divorce and remarriage here, and the second one here.

The Most Strict Literal Interpretation of Jesus’ Words

I can understand how folks can up with these questions based upon Jesus’ words about how whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery (Matthew 19:3). But to take the most strict literal interpretation of those words would seem to be foolish in light of other evidence from Scripture.

Jesus said elsewhere,

If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell.
– Mark 9:47

No one takes Jesus in the strictest literal sense in this verse! They look for the real meat of what He was trying to get across. And what He was trying to get across in this verse is that if there is something that is causing you to stumble, cut it off. Of course your physical eye can’t actually cause you to stumble, so it would be foolish to try to remedy your situation by throwing it away!

I heard someone say once,

Plucking out an eye doesn’t solve the lustful man’s problem. He just becomes a one-eyed luster!

Lust is something that’s in the mind and in the heart. That’s where you’ve got to make adjustments. You have to cut off the temptations and the things that would cause you to stumble into lust.

How the Apostles Interpreted Jesus’ Words About Divorce and Remarriage

There are so many things that Jesus said that nobody takes in their strictest literal sense.

It is obvious that the apostles didn’t take Jesus’ words about divorce and remarriage in their strictest literal sense. There is no place in the New Testament where you can read about any of the apostles telling people to divorce! Much less telling Christians to divorce because they’ve been previously divorced prior to their salvation or some time in the past. This conclusion is just not found outside of a very strict literal interpretation of those four divorce and remarriage passages that the synoptic gospel writers recorded.

“ There is no place in the New Testament where you can read about any of the apostles telling people to divorce! —DAVID SERVANT

The Biggest Death Blow to the ‘Divine Divorce Doctrine’

Probably the biggest death blow to the ‘Divine Divorce Doctrine’ that some are promoting is something Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians. There’s a whole chapter in 1 Corinthians that is all about marriage and divorce and widowhood and immorality and what’s right and what’s wrong in these cases. And never once does Paul intimate that anybody should be divorcing anybody.

He tells Christians emphatically, “Don’t divorce! If you don’t listen to me and you do separate, remain single or else be reconciled.” And then he tells Christians who are married to unbelievers, “Don’t divorce! If the unbelieving one is willing to stay, stick it out. Maybe you can win them.” But he says “if they want to go, let them go, you’re not under bondage in such cases.”

The passage from 1 Corinthians 7 below shows, unequivocally, that Paul did not buy into this ‘Divine Divorce Doctrine’ that is being promulgated in some circles today.

What Paul Believed About Divorce and Remarriage

Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. – 1 Corinthians 7:24-26

Virgins in these verses are those people who have obviously never been married, who have never had a sexual relationship with somebody. The present distress could only have been some wave of persecution that was passing through at the time. And persecution does generally come in waves. It ebbs and it flows. And so Paul’s saying, “Right now, if you’re a virgin, I wouldn’t be thinking about marriage right now. This is not a good time to think about marriage.”

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. – v. 7a

Of course! Paul has already said over and over again that you shouldn’t be seeking a divorce. You shouldn’t be seeking to get out of your marriage.

Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. – v. 7b

That fits the advice Paul just gave to virgins. But now he’s saying it those who have been divorced. “Are you released from a wife? You had a wife, now you’re released. Don’t seek a wife. It’s better, at least right now, to be single.” But now listen to verse 28, addressed to the person he has been addressing, who has been released from a wife:

“But if you marry, you have not sinned. v. 8

Christian Couples: You Are Not In Adultery

This passage certainly is the death blow to the idea that you are sinning and living in adultery if you were previously married, divorced and are now remarried.

Of course, divorce always involves sin, right? There’s got to be selfishness in one or both of the parties that drove them to get a divorce. When they got married, both parties loved each other. They were expecting ’til death do us part. That’s what they said. That was the promise they gave.

“ Divorce always involves sin. —DAVID SERVANT

But they let selfishness enter in. I’m not going to point my finger at anybody. I’m just going to say that we can all agree that when there’s a divorce, there’s sin. It doesn’t please God.

God never intended divorce. But, He made provision for it because He knew that it was probably inevitable in light of the hardness of people’s hearts. So under the Old Covenant, divorced women were allowed to get remarried. Israelite men were allowed to marry divorced women. The only exception were priests.

This is the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Law. But the New Covenant is the same.

How Can You Know For Sure?

Paul said, if you marry, you have not sinned. But some will say, “Well, how do you know? How are you sure that Paul is talking to the person who’s been released from a wife?”

I’m sure because in the next clause of this same verse he says, “And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned” (1 Corinthians 7:28). Clearly when he says “But if you marry, you have not sinned,” he’s not talking about the person who’s never been married. He’s talking about the person who has been married and has been released from a wife.

We’ve devoted three little lessons to this subject of divorce and remarriage, and these are ‘Little’ Lessons! But I encourage you to look into this subject deeper. I’ve written a more in-depth article about divorce and remarriage that I encourage you to read if you want to know more.

Thank you so much for joining me on this Little Lesson! Hope to see you next time.

The post Can You Be Married Again After a Divorce? appeared first on David Servant.

We’re going to continue talking about divorce and remarriage, particularly the idea that those who have been divorced and remarried need to divorce again because, allegedly, “in God’s eyes,” they’re married to the original spouse because the marriage covenant is unbreakable.

We left off in our previous Little Lesson considering the basis of the Pharisees’ question of Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” That was the occasion of Jesus then responding with, “If you divorce and remarry, you’re committing adultery.”

The Context of Jesus’ Statement About Divorce and Remarriage

What was the evil that Jesus was trying to address when he made that statement? Well, from the context of the story we’re talking about, found in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, the evil that Jesus was addressing was the idea that it was lawful to divorce your wife for any cause. That was a very popular doctrine back in Jesus’s day amongst the Pharisees. It’s what they taught and lived.

Divorce and remarriage was rampant because you could divorce your wife for any cause lawfully. Of course, anyone who just thinks about that for a minute or two realizes that this is not any different than adultery. If you can get out of your marriage for any reason and just go marry somebody else, how does that make marriage a covenant? It’s no different than just sleeping around!

That’s the evil that Jesus was addressing. Not the “evil” of Christians who have been married for a decade or more but, unfortunately, prior to salvation were married and divorced (and to remedy their “adulterous marriage” must get a divorce themselves and break up their family!)

What Jesus Was Actually Warning Against

Jesus immediately stood against the question that the Pharisees asked. He went back to Genesis 2 and said,

Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. – Matthew 19:4-6

Then the Pharisees said, “But wait a second. Why then did Moses allow for divorce?” Jesus said,

Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. – v. 8

That is, God never, ever intended for anyone to be divorced! But, He knew that because of the hardness of people’s hearts, there would be divorce. So He made some regulations concerning divorce, not because He wanted anyone to get divorced, but because He was trying to mitigate some of the evil that results from divorce.

“ God never, ever intended for anyone to be divorced! —DAVID SERVANT

The Certificate of Divorce

The basis of the Pharisees’ question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” is found in Deuteronomy 24.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance. – vv. 1-4

The big debate in Jesus’s day amongst the Pharisees was what constituted an indecency. The Pharisees had decided ‘anything’! Even if you saw a woman who was more attractive than your wife, that was an indecency. That made your wife indecent and you could divorce her for that cause.

But in this passage, the Lord is only addressing the twice divorced woman or the once divorced, once widowed woman. In both cases, she’s not allowed to go back to her first husband. Why did God make that law? I can only think that He’s trying to mitigate some of the evil of divorce. He’s trying to do something to prevent divorce by causing husbands to think, “Before I divorce my wife, I better think about this because I’m not going to get her back. Once she’s remarried, God says that’s forbidden.”

In this regulation, God is trying to squelch divorce. He knew that people have hard hearts and that we’re not going to be able to prevent adultery entirely. But at least we can try to slow it down.

Of course, the Pharisees were trying to speed it up. They were making divorce the easiest thing; divorce for any cause! Christ totally contradicts their doctrine and ends by saying,

…whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. – Matthew 19:9

Harmonizing Jesus and Moses

This didn’t just become true the day Jesus said it. It was an obvious truth for anyone who ever thought about it for hundreds and thousands of years prior to when Christ taught it. He’s not modifying the law of Moses. He’s not altering the law. He’s endorsing the law of Moses.

The indecency of which Moses wrote about was grievous sexual sin. Again, Jesus said, “It was never my intention for anyone to get divorced. In fact, I allowed it because of the hardness of people’s hearts.”

But a softhearted husband who catches his wife in an affair doesn’t just rush to divorce her. He’s heartbroken that this woman that he loved and has a covenant with has broken the covenant. He’s going to certainly confront her. He certainly might be angry and feel betrayed, but he confronts her and he hopes he can bring her to repentance. If she repents, he gives her a second chance. That’s what Jesus taught about confrontation and forgiveness and reconciliation (see Matthew 18:15-17).

This wasn’t just true when Jesus said it. It was true from the time that God said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

What the Apostles Believed

In the next Little Lesson, I’m going to show that Paul did not believe that Christian couples should divorce if one of them has been married and divorced in the past. That’s certainly not how the apostles interpreted what Jesus said at all.

This doctrine is not found in the New Testament outside of those four proof texts that divine divorce advocates use, and it’s their interpretation. It’s not the apostles’ interpretation. Thanks for joining me. See you next time!

The post Divorced and Remarried? Should You Divorce Your Current Spouse? appeared first on David Servant.

Are you living in adultery if you’ve been divorced and remarried? Let me say right from the start in this Little Lesson that I don’t need to come up with any kind of doctrine to justify myself.

I’m very blessed and fortunate to have married a wonderful woman 38 years ago, and I’m still married to her. And there is no end in sight! Our vows were ’til death do us part, and due in large part to her long suffering, we’re still together.

Both of us are Christians under construction. I kind of jokingly say we’ve never had an argument in 38 years. But we have had some very intense fellowship at times! And of course we’ve never, ever considered divorce in any of those 38 years. We certainly have thought about murder! But not divorce.

So I have been very blessed. We need to be very careful in casting the first stone at people who haven’t been so fortunate. We need to ask ourselves before we do that, “How would I have done if I was married to their spouse?”

Divorce a Second Time?

I’ve encountered some people who believe that if you have been married and divorced and then remarried, you’re living in an adulterous relationship.

And the remedy for this adultery is to divorce again and then remain single until your original spouse dies. And then you’re no longer “married in God’s eyes”. Then at that time, you are free to remarry. But not until that time!

I’m surprised I had never heard of this particular doctrine in the 40 or so years that I’ve been a Christian until just recently. I thought I’d seen it all! But no, this is something new. And it seems to be gaining some degree of popularity.

(I go into more detail about this belief here.)

An Attractive Option for Some

You can probably guess right off the bat that this is a very attractive doctrine for people who are currently unhappily married and were previously married and divorced. Well, now they have a justifiable excuse to divorce and get out of that unhappy marriage!

They won’t be allowed to remarry again, but for people who are in horrible marriages, singleness sounds better than being miserably married! Solomon wrote that,

It is better to live in a corner of a roof than in a house shared with a contentious woman. – Proverbs 21:9

A Biblically Unbalanced Conclusion

Let’s think about this. Where do these people come up with this idea? Well, they get it from the Bible.

As I’ve said before, all spurious doctrine has some source within Scripture, but the mistake is always the same: isolating a few verses at the expense of the rest of the Bible. The Bible has over 31,000 verses in it. Your interpretation of any one verse needs to harmonize with all the rest of the verses, particularly on relevant topics.

So, it behooves us to spend some time looking at everything the Bible has to say about divorce and remarriage before we come to any conclusions.

“ Your interpretation of any one verse of Scripture must harmonize with the rest of Scripture. —DAVID SERVANT

Where This Belief Comes From

Some people have isolated statements of Jesus recorded in three of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke (all three synoptic Gospels), where Jesus said that whoever divorces and remarries commits adultery. And He actually elaborated to extend that adultery to the one who has been divorced and who has been a victim of divorce, as well as the one who marries the victim of that divorce.

You can look into Matthew 5 and 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16 to study this for yourself. We’re not going to take the time in this Little Lesson to do that. I’ve gone into more detail in this article.

“ We need to look at everything the Bible says about divorce and remarriage before coming to any conclusions. —DAVID SERVANT

Once Married, Always Married?

From these statements of Jesus, those who adhere to this Divine Divorce Doctrine have concluded that if you’ve remarried after being divorced, you’re living in an adulterous relationship and, according to Jesus, you need to repent.

The only way that you can repent is if you divorce your current spouse. And If it’s possible to remarry your original spouse then you should get back to the person to whom you are married “in God’s eyes”. These people claim that marriage is unconditionally unbreakable and only death is what breaks the covenant of marriage.

And this all sounds logical, and people are buying into it.

Reading Scripture in Context

But the question that we ought to ask is, is this interpretation of what Jesus said supported by the rest of Scripture? Both the New Testament and the Old Testament?

Now, some would say, “Well, we don’t have to worry about the Old Testament because Jesus brought a new law.” Well, I submit to you that, concerning divorce and marriage, Jesus endorsed the Old Covenant law.

In fact, if you’ll take some time and read in Matthew 19, the Pharisees came to Christ and asked Him this question in verse 3:

Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?

Divorcing one’s wife for any reason at all was obviously what the Pharisees believed. We could go into the history it. There was a prominent teaching by a prominent rabbi some years before Christ that basically said that it was lawful under the law of Moses to divorce your wife for any reason at all.

They even developed a list of reasons. If your wife burnt your food. If your wife talked to another man in public. Probably the worst one on that list is that if you saw a woman who was more attractive than your wife, you could lawfully divorce her!

What Jesus Was Really Addressing

This is the background of what these Pharisees were asking Jesus: Is it lawful to divorce your wife for any cause at all? They were asking this question in respect to the law of Moses. That was their law that God gave them.

Let me summarize what Jesus said: No! It’s not. He said if you divorce your wife for any cause other than immorality and you marry someone else, you’re committing adultery. And He was just simply endorsing what the law of Moses actually said.

The whole basis of the Pharisees’ belief that they could divorce their wives for any cause at all was the Scripture found in Deuteronomy 24. This Scripture goes into detail about a man who finds some indecency in his wife and gives her a certificate of dismissal.

We’ll take a look at that particular Scripture in the Next Little Lesson. Thank you so much for joining me! See you next time.

The post Are You Living in Adultery If You’ve Been Divorced and Remarried? appeared first on David Servant.