http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/remarriagenotadultery.html
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/divorcematt19.html
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/divorceremarriage.html
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/divorcesigns.html
From: http://www.godskingdomministries.org/divorce.htm
Church opinion has long favored the teaching that remarriage
after divorce is adultery, based upon what we believe to be a single
mistranslated word in Matthew 5:32 and a few incorrect assumptions. The result?
A great many people today who are divorced and remarried are being expelled
from their churches. Others are being refused leadership positions or are being
plied with a load of guilt for “living in constant adultery." It is
tragic, and so very unnecessary. Many times it turns people away from God altogether,
either in rebellion against what they feel is an injustice in Scripture, or
else through discouragement over their own inability to remain single for the
rest of their lives.
In order for us to gain a better understanding of the entire
question, we must go back to the beginning, to the days before God gave His
holy law to Israel. We shall look first at the ancient Babylonian law Code of
Hammurabi and then compare it with God's law in this matter of divorce and
remarriage.
But first we must make it clear that this is not intended to
be a book on marriage counseling. We have limited our focus to the question of
whether or not God forbids remarriage after divorce. This book should not be
used to encourage divorce, for the Bible makes it clear that God intended from
the beginning for married people to make a life-long commitment to each other.
On the other hand, it takes two to make a marriage, and it is often the case
that only one marriage partner really wants to make the marriage work.
The fact is, in today’s world there are many, many people
who are divorced, and many of them are now happily remarried. Some counselors
have actually suggested that these should be divorced and seek to remarry their
former spouse. We will show from the divine law that such counsel is not of
God, for God defines such remarriage to a former spouse as a sin. Such counsel
only underlines the importance of our present book.
Hammurabi is the Biblical Nimrod
The oldest known law code from Mesopotamia is the Code of
Hammurabi. Historians date this king of Babylon between 2400 and 2100 B.C. The
book of Jasher 27:2 identifies him with Nimrod “the rebel” and dates him from
1908-2123 years from Adam, which is 1987-1772. B.C. (See our Chronology of
History.) According to Prof. A.H. Sayce, Hammurabi was mentioned in Genesis
14:1 under the name of Amraphel, one of the kings who helped the king of Elam
conquer Sodom and capture Lot. In his book, Monument Facts and Higher Critical
Fancies, page 60, we read:
“Khammu-rabi, like others of his dynasty, claimed divine
honours, and was addressed by his subjects as a god. In Babylonian ilu is
‘god,’ the Hebrew el, and Ammu-rapi would be ‘Khammu-rabi the god.’ Now
Ammu-rapi ilu is letter for letter the Amraphel of Genesis.”
The war with Sodom took place during a time when Babylonia
had been conquered by Chedorlaomer, the Elamite king of Gen. 14:1. Nimrod, or
Amraphel (Hammurabi), was subject to Elam for many years. When Nimrod finally
overthrew the Elamite yoke, he drew up his famous law code. Sayce tells us in
Monument Facts, p. 67, 68:
“The compilation of the code marked the overthrow of the
Elamite domination, the recovery of Babylonian independence, and the
establishment once more of a Babylonian empire.”
Hammurabi’s Law on Divorce
According to Hammurabi's Code, a marriage was a simple
contract, valid only if it was written, sealed (signed), and witnessed (Par.
128). Divorce was allowed, but treated in various ways, depending on which
party broke the contract. If the wife were guilty, he could divorce her with
the words, "I put her away," and he could send her away empty-handed
(Par. 141). In the book by Stanley a. Cook, M.A. entitled, The Laws of Moses
and the Code of Hammurabi, page 120, he quotes from paragraph 141 of the Hammurabi
Code:
“If the wife of a man who is living in his house has set her
face to go out, and has acted extravagantly, ‘has wasted her house’ (bit-za
u-za-ap-pa-ah), and has neglected her husband, one can bring her to justice,
and if her husband formally divorces her, with the words ‘I repudiate her’
(e-si-ib-sa), she goes her own way and receives no uzubu. If the husband does
not pronounce this formula, and takes another woman (zinnistu), she remains in
his house as a maid-servant.”
The wife too had the right to divorce her husband, if her
husband had violated the marriage contract. However, this was a risky thing to
attempt to do, because if the court should find HER to be the guilty party, she
was thrown into the water and drowned (Par. 142, 143). Thus, another serious
consideration for her was whether or not she could obtain justice in the court.
When the husband was at fault, the law was quite generous
with her and took pains to provide for her support. If she had no children, her
husband was to give her her dowry and the equivalent of her bride-price as she
left the house (Par. 138). The dowry was the portion of her father's wealth
given to her when she was married. Although she brought the dowry with her into
her husband's house, it was tied to her for life and was never considered to be
the property of her husband. It was her security in case of disaster or
divorce. After her death, it was to be divided among her children, but never to
go to her husband, even if he outlived her.
The bride-price was usually a lesser amount, which the
suitor gave to the bride's father to secure the marriage. It was usually one
mina of silver (60 shekels, or the equivalent of 120 days' work at common
labor).
The dowry and the bride-price was her means of support after
her divorce. If her husband had given her father no bride-price when he married
her, he still had to give her one mina if he were rich and 1/3 mina if he were
poor (Par. 139, 140).
On the other hand, if the divorced wife had children, and if
the husband were the guilty party, it was handled differently. She received her
dowry, of course, but in place of the bride-price, she was instead to have use
of his property and food from his field or garden. This provision served as
alimony and child support. Further, if he should decide to give any inheritance
to the children, she was to receive a share equal to one son (Par. 137).
If a man should be captivated and deported, his wife could
only remarry if she had lost her means of support. However, if he returned from
captivity, she had to return to him, leaving any children of her second
marriage with their father (Par. 133, 135.) If a man simply deserted his wife,
she had the right to remarry, and if her former husband returned, he had no
claim on her (Par. 136).
The only prohibition on divorce, other than when no one had
violated the marriage contract, was when the wife was incurably sick and in
need of care. In such a case, the husband may not divorce her, although he
could take a second wife (Par. 148).
God Corrects the Law of Hammurabi
God's law had been in existence since the creation and was
thus much older than the Code of Hammurabi. Adam had been given dominion over
the earth at the time of creation (Genesis 1:26-28), and this right to rule the
earth under God was one of the foremost features of the Birthright that was
passed to succeeding generations. Just as Adam was the lawful King of the earth
while he lived, so also were Methuselah and Noah.
However, during the days of Noah, Nimrod (Hammurabi) usurped
the throne with the support of his army. For this reason the Bible calls him
Nimrod, “the rebel.” Shem and his son Eber then migrated to Canaan and built
the city of Jerusalem. Here Shem appears under the title of Melchizedek, the
"King of Righteousness." The book of Jasher calls him Adonizedek,
“Lord of Righteousness” in Jasher 16:11, 12.
11 And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem, went
out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they
remained together in the valley of Melech.
12 And Adonizedek blessed Abram, and Abram gave him a tenth
from all that he had brought from the spoil of his enemies, for Adonizedek was
a priest before God.
This title was continued in Jerusalem (Salem) even after the
line of Shem was overthrown by the Canaanites some time prior to the Israelite
invasion under Joshua. In Joshua’s day we read that the king of Jerusalem was
still called Adonizedek (Joshua 10:1), though by now the rule was in the hands
of Canaanite usurpers. The true Kingship over the earth, the legitimate
Birthright, belonged to the Biblical Patriarchs, who continued to observe the
laws of God and rule the people by its system of justice.
Long before Hammurabi (Nimrod) the people and judges had
altered God's law to suit their own understanding of right and wrong. Hammurabi
himself seems only to have codified it to set the legal standard for Babylonia.
Once again, Prof. Sayce writes on page 68 of his book,
“The individual laws [of the Hammurabi Code] had been in
existence before. They embody for the most part the decisions of the judges in
the special cases brought before them, Babylonian law being, like English law,
‘judge-made’ and based upon precedent.”
The divine law—insofar as it had been revealed to Adam and
his descendants—was centered around Shem, the priest-king in Jerusalem. Because
he lived 600 years, Shem actually outlived Abraham by 35 years. In fact, both
Abraham and Nimrod died the same year, according to the book of Jasher.
(Abraham was 175, and Nimrod was 215.) Shem apparently had some sort of
educational facility to teach the laws and ways of God, for Jasher 24:17 tells
us that Isaac went there after his mother died.
17 And when the days of their mourning passed by, Abraham
went away his son Isaac, and he went to the house of Shem and Eber, to learn
the ways of the Lord and his instructions, and Abraham remained there three
years.
Both laws existed side by side during the days of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, but Hammurabi's Code was the common law of most of the world,
including Canaan. During Israel's sojourn in Egypt, God's law was largely
forgotten. Thus, it became necessary for God to teach the people His law once
again. If God had given lawful judgments on every different situation that was
to arise in the course of history, the law books could not have been borne by
the entire nation of Israel. So we must realize that to some extent, rather
than being an exhaustive law code, God's law gives the basic moral principles
in the Ten Commandments and then continues with only a few hundred specific
statutes to define those principles. Often, God merely corrects the errors of
the Hammurabi Code, and where there was nothing to correct, God did not
elaborate, since custom already dictated that which was right. It is our lob
now to study the principles given to us and apply them to every situation that
we face today.
God's Law on Divorce and Remarriage
A conditional contract (covenant) is one that specifies
conditions that both parties must fulfill; and if one party breaks the
contract, the wronged party may sue at law for damages or annulment of the
contract. By definition marriage contracts are conditional contracts. It was
always so in ancient times, and in this respect the Code of Hammurabi is in
total agreement with the law of God.
Divorce that is, a complete break in the marriage contract
is lawful, because virtually all marriage contracts involve vows made by two
parties. In God's marriage to Israel at Mt. Sinai, Israel (the bride) agreed to
submit to His authority and obey His laws (Ex. 19:3-8). God, on the other hand,
agreed to give them the Kingdom and the blessings of the Birthright. These included
honor, protection, sustenance, and children (Gen. 12:1-3).
Israel violated this contract, being incapable of full
obedience, and refused to repent; and thus, her Husband divorced her and sent
her out of His house. Jeremiah 3:8 says,
8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel,
I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister
Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.
Note that God not only sent her away, but only did so after
giving her a written bill of divorce. This was in accordance with the law in
Deut. 24 that we will quote shortly. Hosea 2:2 also shows that God’s divorce
meant Israel was no longer God’s wife, saying to her,
2 Contend with your mother [Israel], contend, for she is not
my wife, and I am not her husband;
Because God Himself is a divorcee, we can safely say that
divorce itself is not necessarily a sin. It can be a sin, of course, if the one
demanding a divorce does so with evil motives that are not in the will of God.
But the fact that God divorced Israel shows that lawful divorce is the result
of sin, or violation of the contract. It is the final solution to the problem
when all else fails, and when reconciliation is impossible. God's law on
divorce and remarriage is given in Deut. 24:1-4.
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come
to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some
uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it
in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of
his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband
hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and
sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to
be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again
to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the
LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth
thee for an inheritance.
From verse 1 we see immediately that God recognizes there
must be a cause of divorcement. It is not specified in any detail, other than
finding something unclean in her. Some insist that means divorce is only lawful
in case of adultery. But the penalty for adultery is death—not divorce.
Others say it means divorce is only lawful if the husband
discovers that his wife had had illicit sexual relations with someone else
before they were married. However, such a situation also calls for the death
penalty, and this is elaborated upon in detail in Deut. 22:13-21.
Thus, the grounds for divorce in the 24th chapter must be
something else. Since the grounds are not specified, it would appear that the
common law needed no modifying here. Thus, it is helpful to look at the Code of
Hammurabi for a list of the grounds for divorce.
The Code specifies cruelty, slander, waste of family assets,
and running up needless debts as being grounds for a man to divorce his wife.
This is in addition to any other violation that may have been written into the
contract.
The wife, too, could divorce her husband for those same
offenses, but in addition to them, she could divorce him for lack of support
(i.e., food, clothing, and conjugal relations; compare with Exodus 21:10,11.)
We may conclude, then, that these basic grounds for divorce
were similar in both law codes, as God's law passes over the question without
modification. The primary difference between Hammurabi and Moses is that God
takes an interest in the matters of the heart. Hence, even if the outward
grounds for divorce appear to exist, there may well be hidden motives and
sinful attitudes are against the spirit of the divine law. Such things, in the
eyes of God, would make that divorce unlawful.
The divorce PROCEDURE differs in one very important area.
Whereas the Code of Hammurabi allows either the man or the woman to divorce the
spouse with a verbal statement, God's law demands a written document, the
"bill of divorcement." Hammurabi was careful to mandate that the
marriage contract be written (Par. 128), but divorces were purely verbal. This
was bound to cause problems in some cases, so God solved the problem by making
divorces written as well. One could easily imagine a situation where a man divorced
his wife verbally, whereupon she remarries-only to have her former spouse fly
into a fit of jealous rage. He might then deny his verbal divorce and accuse
her and her new husband of adultery. Since adultery called for the death
penalty, this was a very serious charge.
Justice is safeguarded by the written bill of divorcement,
which a divorced wife may produce to prove that her former husband no longer
has any claim upon her. It is her security and her license to remarry. For this
reason, Deut. 24:2 follows on the heels of verse 1, stating that once she has
those divorce papers, she is free to remarry. It is common knowledge among
Bible scholars that this was how all the rabbis of ancient times interpreted
this divorce law. There was never any question of the lawfulness of divorce.
The only problem was their abuse of the divorce law, and this was what Jesus
addressed in Matthew 5, as we will see shortly. Divorce and remarriage was
lawful, but if she were to remarry without those divorce papers, she would be
committing adultery.
Hammurabi's Code had allowed women to remarry if their
husbands had been taken captive, so long as the wives had no means of support.
Then, if and when he should return from captivity, his wife had to leave the
latter husband and any children by him, returning to the former husband. This
law attempted to solve a social problem of the day, but just as often, it
created further difficulty and heartache.
The system of welfare built into the laws of God provided
for the support of a wife whose husband was captivated, so she was not to
remarry while her husband was still alive. Thus, his possible homecoming would
be a joyous affair, rather than a cause for further grief.
Since the Code did allow remarriage to a former husband in
this case, God's law pursues the subject a bit further in Deut. 24:3,4. There,
He forbids marriage to a former spouse, at least after she has remarried. This
law also shows that God recognizes the validity of the second marriage, as well
as the binding nature of the bill of divorcement. "Put away" does not
mean "divorce." The term "put away" generally comes from
the Hebrew words shalach ("to send away") or garash ("to drive
away").
The words differ only in intensity. In reference to a
husband and wife, it refers to the act of separation, where a man sends his
wife out of the house. The term "divorce" is from the Hebrew word
kerithuth. This word refers to the procedure by which the marriage relationship
is lawfully terminated. It is used only 4 times in the Old Testament, and each
time it is used in the full phrase, "bill of divorcement" (Deut.
24:1, 3; Isaiah 50:1; Jer. 3:8).
In the New Testament the Greek word for "divorce"
is apostasion. Apo means "away from;" stasis means "standing;
established (by law)" referring in this case to the written marriage
contract. We can see then that the Greek word apostasion signifies more than a
mere separation, or "putting away." It is the lawful disestablishment
of the marriage contract, accomplished by the written bill of divorcement.
There are those who teach that a true divorce is unlawful in
the eyes of God, and therefore what we term "divorce" is realty only
a SEPARATION in His eyes. Thus, remarriage would be adultery against the
separated spouse. However, as we have seen, the phrase "put away"
refers to lawful separation, while the word "divorce" refers to the
actual lawful termination of the marriage contract. The fact that God allows
not only a "putting away," but divorce as well shows that it is not a
sin to get a divorce, so long as there is just cause to cancel the marriage
contract.
God's law states that a bill of divorcement (kerithuth) must
always accompany the act of separation, or "putting away" (shalach or
garash). Without such a written document, the act of putting away does NOT
constitute a lawful divorce in the eyes of God, and she is not free to remarry.
Thus we see that the two terms are not synonymous, although
by law they always were to go together. If the two words meant the same thing,
it would not have made sense to talk about putting away and divorcing in the
same sentence in Deut. 24:1. This may seem like nitpicking, but this point will
take on great importance when we attempt to understand Jesus' words in Matthew
5:32.
Did Jesus Outlaw Divorce?
In Mark 10:2-9 the Pharisees asked Jesus if it were lawful
to put away one's wife. Jesus asked them in turn what Moses had said. They
answered that Moses had commanded them to write a bill of divorcement and to
put her away. Jesus then replied, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote
you this precept." He went on to explain that divorce did not follow the
perfect order of creation that was set up at the beginning. In other words,
divorce is not a good thing, but because men's hearts are hard, it is necessary
that provision be made for handling broken marriage contracts. For the same
reason, God instituted the death penalty for first-degree murder. From the
beginning it was not so, for God created us to live together in harmony. But
for the hardness of men's hearts, it became a very necessary judgment to curb
such violent crime.
The fact is, ALL LAWS exist only because of the hard-ness of
men's hearts. If all men were perfect, there would be no need for laws, for the
laws would be written in our hearts. We would be totally incorruptible. Paul
wrote in 1 Timothy 1:9, "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
the lawless and disobedient." Thus, so long as there are unrighteous men
on the earth, the law must remain in effect, in order that we may have some
restraint on men's lusts and wickedness. We conclude, then, that in order to
govern men justly in the present state of affairs, God's laws on divorce are
absolutely necessary prior to the time that men come fully under the New
Covenant and are no longer lawless. Divorce, therefore, should not be necessary
among Christians. However, Christians, too, are often lawless and disobedient
to the perfect will of God. For this reason divorce provisions are necessary
even for Christians.
When a marriage contract has been broken, and especially if
one or both parties refuse to repent and restore the lawful order, divorce may
well be the only solution. God does not expect the innocent party to honor the
contract when the guilty party refuses to do so. The contract is always
conditional. Thus, Jesus' statement, "For the hardness of your
heart," should not be construed to mean that divorce itself is a sin.
Remember that God Himself is a divorcee, according to Jer. 3:8, yet He did not
sin in divorcing Israel.
Nor must we believe that the people twisted God's arm and
forced Him to allow divorce. If divorce were a sin, and God allowed it, then
God was legalizing sin. This would be a serious accusation for mortals to make,
especially in view of the testimony of David in Psalm 19:7 that "The law
of the Lord is PERFECT, converting the soul."
Did Jesus Outlaw Remarriage After Divorce?
Matthew 5:31, 32 is by far the most important passage used
by most people to prove that remarriage after divorce is adultery. It reads:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let
him give her a writing of divorcement; 32 But I say unto you, that whosoever
shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
commit adultery; and who-soever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery.
As interpreted by the King James translation, it would
appear that Jesus positively condemned divorce and remarriage, thus showing
God's law to be inferior to divine moral standards. If divorce indeed causes one
to commit adultery, then divorce itself would be a sin, according to God's law
of liability. Remarriage, too, would constitute adultery. However, as we will
show, neither is a sin.
First of all, this passage is a part of His "Sermon on
the Mount," which is for the most part a commentary on Bible law. In
verses 17-19 He disclaimed the idea that He was trying to destroy or undermine
the law. Further, He positively condemned those who would break the shortest
commandment and teach others to do so. From this alone it should be clear that
Jesus did not abolish God's laws on divorce and remarriage.
Then in verse 20 Jesus said that our righteousness must
EXCEED that of the Scribes and Pharisees. With that in mind, He began to give
us examples of Bible law to show how they fell short of the law's righteous
standard. They did not keep the true spirit of the law and misinterpreted it in
many ways.
1.Thou shalt not kill (vs. 21-26)
2.Thou shalt not commit adultery (vs. 27-32)
3.Thou shalt not bear false witness (vs. 33-37)
4.An eye for an eye (vs. 38-42)
5.Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (vs. 43-48)
In each case the law in question is introduced with the
following format: "It has been said (interpreted in the synagogue). . .
but I say unto you. . ." This is not to be construed to mean that Jesus is
putting away all of these divine laws, or that He is replacing each of them
with something different or better. It is not the law of God He is
discrediting; it is the Pharisaical interpretation of the law and a legalistic
spirit that He is disagreeing with. In other words, Jesus did NOT put away the
law on murder when He said, "Thou shalt not kill. . . but I say unto you.
. . ." Nor did He make it lawful to commit adultery, so long as you don't
look upon another woman with lust while you do it.
In a nutshell, then, the purpose of the "Sermon on the
Mount" was to improve upon the law's interpretation and application. The
true spirit of the law had been lost through the traditions of the elders.
With that context in mind, and knowing that Jesus did not
destroy the law, let us look at Matthew 5:31, 32 in greater detail. These two
verses are a part of His comment on "Thou shalt not commit adultery,"
so the final thrust of His comment is to define adultery in relation to the
laws of divorce and remarriage. Verse 31 simply refers to Deut. 24:1, where God
demanded that men give their wives a WRITTEN bill of divorcement before they
could lawfully put away their wives. Verse 2, of course, allowed divorced wives
to remarry after a lawful divorce. So let us take another look at Matthew 5:31,
32, inserting a few key words in the original Greek, so that we get a proper
translation of the passage.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his
wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion). 32 But I say unto
you, that whosoever shall put away (apoluo) his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that
is divorced (apoluo, lit. "put away") committeth adultery.
To paraphrase this: The law says that she commits adultery
if she remarries without a written bill of divorcement. BUT I SAY UNTO YOU that
whoever puts her away (without divorce papers; that is, unlawfully) causes her
to commit adultery (if she remarries under such conditions). Thus, he who
simply put her out of his house without divorcing her properly is JUST AS
LIABLE AS SHE IS. And whosoever marries her that has been put away (without
divorce papers) also commits adultery, because he is marrying another man's
wife.
Jesus is here condemning men who put away their wives
Babylonian style (verbally), instead of putting them away in the manner
prescribed by God's law. Under the laws of liability, this would make him
guilty of adultery if she were to remarry. So we see that the whole point of
this commentary is to bring out a point of law that had not been covered by the
Pharisees in their interpretations.
But what of the phrase, "saving for the cause of
fornication?" What does this mean? Most people assume it means that if a
wife commits adultery, then it is lawful to divorce her. However, it does NOT
say, "except for the cause of ADULTERY." Further, the penalty for
adultery was death-not divorce. So what is meant by "fornication?"
Why is it alright to put away one's spouse without divorce papers in a case of
fornication?
The Meaning of Fornication
The most common type of fornication is prostitution (Ex. 22:16).
This is where a man has sexual relations with an unmarried woman. The solution
is either to get married (Ex. 22:16, 17) or separate (repent and stop doing
it). However, the word also covers other forms of unlawful sexual relations. In
Hebrews 12:16 Esau is called a fornicator; yet there is no record in Scripture
of his buying the services of a prostitute. But Genesis 26:34 does say that he
married Hittite wives. From the account in Scripture, this obviously went
against God's command not to take a wife from among the Canaanites. Thus, it
may be classified as an unlawful marriage.
We find the term "fornication" used again in 1
Cor. 5:1. 1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and
such fornication as is not so much as named among the gentiles, that one should
have his father's wife. Thus we see that Paul uses the term
"fornication" to describe another unlawful marriage or sexual
relationship that had been forbidden in Leviticus 18:7, 8, namely, incest.
In Jude 7 we read of the people of Sodom and Gomorrha who
had given themselves over to "fornication," going after "strange
flesh." This, too, is obviously a sexual sin, and yet the only thing we
have on record of their sexual tendencies is homosexuality, or "sodomy"
(Gen. 19:4-8). Each of these examples have one thing in common: they are
unlawful sexual relationships, and therefore, there is no LAWFUL marriage
contract to bind the two parties together. In other words God does not
recognize the "marriage" in the first place. It is void from the
start.
Thus, when Jesus says it is alright to "put away"
(separate without divorce papers) one's spouse in the case of fornication, the
reason is quite obvious. There was no lawfully-binding marriage contract in the
first place, so how can one appeal to the law of God to have it voided? God
requires no such divorce papers. However, if the couple had obtained a marriage
license from a humanist government such as those of this world order, then they
would have to petition it for a divorce as well, because humanist governments
recognize many marriage relationships that God's law does not. God does not
recognize relationships which are homosexual, incestual, or otherwise forbidden
as in the case of Esau, even if the parties sign a marriage contract. Another
case where divorce papers are unnecessary is in the case of prostitution. Since
prostitutes do not enter marriage contracts with a client, the solution is
separation, not divorce.
Did Paul Ban Remarriage After Divorce?
Since some have been taught that Paul banned remarriage in 1
Cor. 7:10,11, we shall study this passage to show that Paul actually wrote that
remarriage is NOT a sin.
10 And unto the married. . . let not the wife depart
(chorizo) from her husband; 11 But and if she depart (chorizo), let her remain
unmarried (agamos), or let her be reconciled to her husband; and let not the
husband put away (aphiemi, "to dismiss") his wife. 12 But to the rest
speak I, not the Lord; if any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she
be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
At first glance it might appear that Paul is speaking of
divorce and remarriage. However, the word apostasion does not appear here,
since he is not discussing divorce, but rather the problem of separation, as we
see from verse 1.
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is
good for a man not to touch a woman.
Thus, the subject of this discussion is whether or not to
abstain from sexual relations and marriage itself. Apparently, Paul had
previously taught them that "it is good for a man not to touch a
woman," but the Corinthian church had misinterpreted it to mean that
sexual relations prevented Christians from attaining to a truly spiritual life.
Thus, the young people were being discouraged from marrying, and some of the
married couples were even separating.
So here, Paul corrects their error. He had told them that it
was good not to marry, it is true, but NOT because marriage itself was a sin or
a hindrance to one's personal relationship to God. Rather, it was because of
two things: (1) the "present distress" discussed in verse 26; and (2)
to be able to devote more time and energy to spreading the Gospel (vs. 32-35).
In those days a man never knew if he were going to be imprisoned or executed
and his family with him. So because of the dangerous political climate, it may
have been a good idea not to marry, if a person could bear the incontinence.
And, of course, it is quite certain that Paul himself could not have traveled
as he did, if he had been married and had had to support a family. Thus, it was
an advantage to him and to others like him to remain unmarried so long as they
had the gift of continence.
In verse 5 Paul makes it clear that it was not right for
married couples to separate, or even to abstain from normal sexual relations,
except during times of prayer and fasting. (People lose most sexual desire
during fasts anyway.) In verses 7-9 he tells unmarried people that if they can
take a life of celibacy, they may do so; but if they do NOT have that gift,
"it is better to marry than to burn" (with lust).
Regarding the same subject, Paul then turns his attention to
married couples and especially to those couples who had already separated,
thinking this was the spiritual thing to do. Paul's verdict is, "Let not
the wife separate (chorizo) from her husband" in verse 10. But if she does
not heed his advice here, Paul says she must remain agamos, or be reconciled to
her husband. Most people are taught this means the wife should not divorce her
husband, but if she does, she must remain single for the rest of her life, or
else come back and remarry her former husband. However, as the context shows,
this passage is referring to the problem of separation, rather than to divorce.
The Greek word apostasion is not used here. The word translated
"unmarried" is agamos, the negative form of gamos. Gamos sometimes
refers to the STATE of being married, but it usually refers to the occasion
when the marriage contract is put into effect that is, the ACT OF GETTING
MARRIED.
Agamos, then, being the negative form of the word gamos, can
mean either: (1) the unmarried STATE, or (2) the ACT of not drawing up a
marriage contract with someone. The way it is translated in the King James
version, verse 11 is assumed to mean, "let her remain in the unmarried
STATE." However, it is more likely to mean, "Let her not get married
to anyone else," since she is only separated from her husband. So if we
were to paraphrase this passage, we would see that Paul is saying, "let
not the wife separate from her husband, thinking that this is pleasing to God.
But if she does, she should not get married to anyone else, because she is
still under contract with her original husband. Later in this same chapter,
Paul does deal with the question of divorce and remarriage.
He does not use the technical words for divorce and
remarriage, but rather the descriptive terms, "bound" and
"loosed." To be bound by law means to be married by contract; to be
loosed means to be loosed from that contract (i.e., divorced or widowed). 1
Cor. 7:27, 28 reads:
27 Art thou bound (by law) unto a wife? Seek not to be
loosed (from the bonds of marriage). Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a
wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry,
she hath not sinned.
Few verses are plainer than these. If you are married, do
not seek a divorce. If you are divorced or widowed, do not seek a wife (because
of the "present distress" mentioned in verse 26). But if you do
marry, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned either.
In other words, Paul says, remarriage after a divorce is NOT a sin. Thus,
divorce and remarriage is NOT adultery.
The Three Premises of This Study
For those who honestly dispute this conclusion, I offer some
suggestions here. All logical conclusions are only as true as their premises.
This particular study rests upon the following three premises:
1. Marriage is a conditional contract. We showed that God
married Israel at Mt. Sinai and treated Israel as a married wife, until He
divorced her (Jeremiah 3:8) for insubordination and disobedience. If marriage
were unconditional, then God could not have divorced her without tainting
Himself with sin. Therefore, it must have been conditional.
2. "Put away" is distinct from
"divorce." We showed how the law mandates that a man must give his
wife divorce papers before putting her away. One is the legal act of
terminating the marriage; the other is the act of sending her away. This law
was set up to correct the historical injustice left by the loophole in the
Hammurabi Code.
3. God's law was not abolished. Jesus said this in Matthew
5:17-19, Paul said this in Romans 3:31, and John defines sin in terms of
violation of God's law in 1 John 3:4.
You may disagree with some minor parts of this study, and
that is your privilege. But if you find these three premises to be true, then
you must agree that remarriage after divorce is not adultery.
Conclusion
We have seen, then, that not only did the Code of Hammurabi
permit divorce and remarriage, but so did God's law. The main difference was
the legal procedure of obtaining a proper divorce, in order to protect the
women involved. We have also seen how Jesus added teeth to God's law by
proclaiming that he who puts away his wife without a written bill of divorce
causes her to commit adultery, and thus he is fully liable for her sin before
God. Finally, we have seen how the Apostle Paul also understood that a remarriage
after divorce is not sin. Common belief on this subject has put many people
into bondage, either by forcing divorced people to remain single when they are
unsuited to such a life, or else by placing on their shoulders a load of guilt
for remarrying. I hope that this brief study will release many from the hard
bondage of church tradition into the glorious liberty of God's law.
God's Kingdom Ministries
• Home • Tape List • Booklist • The Struggle for the
Birthright • Bible Laws on Righteous Judgment • The Laws of The Second Coming •
The Laws of Wormwood and Dung • The Wheat and Asses of Pentecost • The Purpose
of Resurrection • The Barley Overcomers • God’s Law on Restitution • Principles
Of Intercession • The Seven Churches • Hearing God's Voice • The Purpose of Law
and Grace • Blindness In Part • Creations Jubilee • Secrets of Time • Free Will
• Divorce •
This site has been designed, developed and is maintained by
PottsNet I.T. Solutions.
Copyright © 1998-2002 Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved.
"In New Testament times, only the man was able to
institute divorce proceedings. It was in reality, however, a rare occurrence,
and at that mostly the prerogative of the rich, since poor men could not afford
another dowry or "bride price" for a subsequent marriage. The accused
woman was protected under the law to the extent that her husband's accusations
had to be proved. Thus some scholars have seen the Matthean explanatory clause
as indicating immorality as the sole ground for divorce, following the
contemporary rabbinical school of Shammai, and not for some purely frivolous
cause, as the school of Hillel taught. If this explanation is correct, Jesus
was addressing a Jewish controversy that had no bearing on God's marriage
ideals in the age of grace, and which Mark and Luke consequently ignored
because the exception did not apply to their audiences of Christian
believers."
Is Masturbation a sin? Clearly NOT!!! It is clearly not a sin in the Bible!! http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/masturbationnotsinlev1516.html
Liberated Christian view of Pro-Sexuality and the Bible. God is not against sex or nudity.
He created it, and said it was very good. .. http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/index6.htmlMajor contradiction-- verse used by anti-nudist people. Matt. 5:28 is totally misunderstood and taken out of context. "look at a women with lust...adultery"
http://inkaboutit.homestead.com/Lustmt528.html