Divorce and Remarriage:
The Authority of scripture!
by Tony Warren

A Biblical Exposition

Wedding RingsThe wedding ring was once a solemn token of the lifelong Covenant bond between a man and a woman, but in modern times it has literally become nothing more than a meaningless trinket. The devastating proliferation of divorce and remarriage has reached epidemic proportions in our day. And unfortunately it is one of those subjects that most Christians would really rather not deal with. It is much more convenient to sweep this controversy under a rug, rationalize it's increase, or remain silent in tacit support. With no-fault divorce as commonplace as grass, it has become a post-modern travesty in the Church. And when we search for the reasons for this, it is really not that difficult to discern. We live in an era of narcissism, irresponsibility, uncompromising egotism, non-accountability, and experientialism. An era where divorce is just another symptom of this greater degradation in the world. Indeed there are so many people either divorced (and/or remarried, or who desire to remarry), seeking divorce, or who know someone in this situation, that it is extremely difficult for many to 'truly' be Biblically objective about it. More than that, with the constant bombardment of secular social teachings from the media, people get a warped view of what is right and what is wrong. It becomes much easier to take the humanistic, popular, politically correct viewpoint that no one should stay in a marriage that they are unhappy in. Their philosophy is that it would be psychologically damaging and we would suffer mental anguish. Others reason that a loving God really wouldn't want us to do this (despite what His Word says about Him hating divorce). The Church has become more and more been influenced by the media, people relating sad experiences that tug on the heart strings, and unfaithful or misguided Ministers and Pastors seeking their own answers. Whether saved or unsaved, we all still dwell in the body of this flesh. And therein lies the weakness. In abandoning Biblical fortitude, people often mistake spiritual weaknesses (which results in the lack of wisdom and foresight) for Godly compassion. And in their weakness they reason that God really didn't mean for them to take His Word so 'literally' (seriously) in these particular situations. Often they are told by Ministers that in seeking to obey God's laws in these instances, they become legalistic like the Pharisees. As if seeking to be obedient were synonymous with Phariseeical legalism. And so with this constant stream of rationalization, it is no wonder so many professing Christians find it easy to justify their weakness in forsaking Covenant marriage. Nevertheless, in taking their eyes off the word of God and putting them on themselves and upon others, what they fail to see is the larger picture. Which is that God knew the end, from the beginning, and that His laws are timeless, immutible, and were not given to burden us, nor to be grievous. They were instituted for our well being, both individually as well as collectively. Whether we understand this most basic truth or not does not change the fact that (contrary to popular opinion), the law of God is not subject to changing cultures, social variables or personal circumstances. It is indeed unfortunate that rather than receive what is written, many professing Christians practice "situation ethics," where the understanding of God's word is mitigated and prescribed by the times in which they live. This is the great error of the post-modern Church. In their self-justification they fail to comprehend that God is unchangeable and His laws applied yesterday, they apply today, and they'll apply tomorrow. For though we are dead to the law (that it not condemn us), it having been fulfilled in Christ, it has not been done away with in the sense that we can ignore it. As true Christians, we do not keep the law because we think keeping it will save us (legalism), we keep the law because we have been made a new creation. And in this new birh, the spirit of God moves us that our desire is to "do the will of God." i.e., to faithfully obey God's laws. We don't follow the world, we are "set apart" from the world to follow Christ, without arguing against or disputing truth.

Philippians 2:13-15

The desire to obey God's laws is not legalism, it's God working within us. Those Theologians who look at God's commandments concerning divorce as having been cultural, or old fashioned, or a burden to today's Church, do not understand the nature of God's word, nor the Spirit of Christ within those who are born from above to faithfully keep it. So that is why they often view those who have been moved of God to have a earnest desire to keep His commandments, as somehow being unloving or uncompassionate. It is indeed a sign of the times that many look upon anyone holding to the fundamental tenants of scripture as Pharisaic and judgmental, and subsequently are frequently reviled and labled bible thumpers, or fundamentalists who take God's Word far too bindingly. By contrast, those who forsake God's laws in favor of experience, feelings, political correctness, or culture, are deemed loving and compassionate Christians.

Isaiah 5:20

Some have even charged that those Christians who have an earnest desire to keep God's commandments are attempting to appear more righteous and holy by maintaining this strict position against divorce. But that is an argument from a "baseless presupposition," for they cannot possibly know the thoughts of any Christian, whereby they could determine their motivation. And when we search the scriptures, we find that the usual Biblical references of motivation to obedience to God's Word, has traditionally been the "love of God," and not to appear righteous or Holy. On the contrary, those hypocrites who sought to appear righteous and Holy before men never had an earnest desire to keep God's commandments faithfully. They had a desire to appear holy. They were deluded into thinking they were good people. That is an entirely different matter. It is those who truly are born of God that have the "evidenc" of being faithful to God's holy word.

1st John 2:5

Hereby, or in other words, "this is how we know" that we are truly in Christ and know Him! Our true love of God is evidenced by our earnest desire to be obedient to His word. So God obviously has a totally opposite opinion of those who have a desire to faithfully obey His laws, than these professed Christians alleging it is legalism. Moreover, to claim that it is easy today for Christians to declare that advocating divorce is unlawful is ridiculous. Mere common sense would tell us that nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, it would be infinitely easier for us "not" to maintain a strict Biblical position against divorce. Because then we would all receive the commendations and the praises of men, and of the vast majority of Church leaders. No one receives praise for saying we should not divorce, they receive reviling, condemnation and tribulation. They are called ignorant, uncompassionate, primitive and legalists. The "smooth way" is always easier on Christians. The truth is, it would be easier "not" supporting that which the majority of the Church today disdains. So it is self evident that this charge of taking the easy route is ridiculous even on the face of it. Declare that God says no one can divorce, and no one will speak well of you.

Luke 6:26

No, it is not easy to hold the Biblical position against divorce in our day, because the mindset of modern Christians has changed dramatically in the last few decades. Those who speak out in declaring that God's word says there can be no Biblical divorce receive almost universal condemnation. Rather than being praised for holding to the tenets of the "one flesh undivided" theology of holy canon, they are reviled and ridiculed as foolish and medieval. Rather than spoken of as the compassionate Christians who give witness to the unadulterated word directly from God, they are spoken against as being heartless and uncaring about the plight of women, and the loneliness of men. They receive all these false accusations simply because their desire is to be obedient to what the Holy scriptures bear witness of in the Covenant institution of marriage. But should we expect less? Not at all, we remain faithful and take up our cross and follow Christ regardless of what the world says. For we answer to God, and not men.

Matthew 5:11

To claim that this is legalism, or people do it for show, or that it is easy for a Christian to take this position against divorce is nothing short of ludicrous. For unless that Christian is a masochist, he receives no earthly or fleshly pleasure for his testimony to this truth. Nevertheless, in the believers trial of faith he must not take the easy road, the wide road, simply because it is well traveled or friendly. The straight and narrow (which few tread) is the way of those who fear God and keep His commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:32

Those who desire to walk the straight and narrow (despite their being reviled as judgmental) can only stand upon the authority of the word of God. It is God's word alone that speaks to this issue of marriage. And that is what we intend to concentrate on in this study. God's word concerning it, not man's word. And whether people believe or choose not believe what is written, is up to God.

Romans 3:3-4

God's word is the truth, not the rationalizations of today's pastors and Ministers. What we have all across the world today is the proliferation of the wisdom of man, in the desire to serve a god created in his own image. He really hasn't surrendered his will to "the God of the Bible" wherein he would understand that he cannot do what is right "in his own eyes." He hasn't given up himself that he is obediently following God's word in all areas of his existence. Neglecting this has been the sin of man in almost every fall from the faith, even from the very beginning. Man has always been trying to out-think God, or to decide for himself what is best. But we are not reigning over His word, His word is reigning over us. If we were bought by Him, we are His servant and He is the King, and that can never be turned around. He knew the end from the beginning, and therefore His word does not go out of style after a few thousand years. The word of God is eternal or timeless. Unfortunately, man doesn't seem to understand that it is God's laws, faithfully kept, which keep our house in order assuringthat it is safely resting upon the solid foundation. It is the glue that holds the fabric together. When we chip away at God's laws and commandments, we chip away at that very fabric of the congregation. If we separate [Apostasion] or depart from the authority of the word of God, and do what is right in our own eyes, then we guarantee that our house will be left desolate. It is the word of God, through correction, that keeps us on firm foundation.

2nd Timothy 3:15-17

It is the word, not Church leaders personal interpretations of the word, that is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. For hundreds of years the question has been asked, "can marriage be dissolved by any action except death?" And in the Churches the answer to this has ranged from an emphatic no, to a compromising maybe, to in a few cases an unprincipled and unbiblical, yes. Today most ministers would rather take the position of ignorance or tacit approval rather than offend those of the Church who hold to even the most liberal and abominable views of divorce. This is how far the Churches have fallen from where they once stood. And contrary to popular opinion, this forsaking God's word is a serious matter. God's word is not a Salad bar, where you can take what you like, and leave the rest.

Isaiah 28:13

Consequently, in this exposition of Marriage and Divorce we hope to show by authority of the scriptures alone, that God is very clear on the subject, and that it is only man himself who clouds the issue by his refusal to be subject to the authority which is God's unadulterated word. As we glean through the divinely inspired texts of scripture, we will see that things are not as cut and dried in favor of divorce as some theologians would have you believe. We are thus obligated to do as Christ instructed (when dealing with the Pharisees). We are to 'search the scriptures' and distinguish between what God's word actually says, and what is man's private or personal interpretations of that Word (2nd Timothy 2:15). It is only in doing this that we will rightly divide the Word of truth.

In our study of the Word, may the Lord who is gracious and compassionate above all, guide us into His most blessed truth, and grant us the 'humility' to both surrender to, and with all readiness of mind receive what He has inspired written.


The Weakening of the Foundations

    Most Christians who speak on the issue of divorce are not even aware that there is not one single explicit passage in the entire New Testament that either says that a person may divorce, or that says anyone may remarry after a divorce. People are surprised to hear this 'fact' because they've been led to believe that the scriptures clearly say that we may divorce under certain circumstances. The truth is, there are passages which many Church leaders interpret to 'imply' that you may divorce for one reason or another, and there are passages that some theologians declare are alluding to one being able to remarry after a divorce, but there is not one single New Testament scripture which 'actually says' you may ever divorce or remarry. There is a very good reason for that and it is simply that the Lord has already given us the commandment that, 'What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' In simple terms, when two people are joined together in the institution of marriage before God, they have made 'a Covenant' or sacred promise between themselves and God. They have taken an oath or vow that they are no longer two, but a one flesh union before God demands cannot be pulled apart. And this is exactly the picture that God is painting by saying they are no more two, but one flesh. The illustration of the two, now being one flesh before God signifies that there is no more independence, but an inseparable union. The 'obvious' law in this passage is that divorce is contrary to God's will (God hates Divorce) and the Covenant marriage cannot be abrogated. This 'one flesh, inseparable' precept is not an ambiguous statement, nor is it a vague command. It is very concise, understandable, and not subject to man's private interpreting. The only people who cannot understand this very clear command that 'no man could pull apart what God hath joined in marriage,' are those who are predisposed to not understanding it.

In the marriage covenant we are joined together as one, for better or worse, for rich or for poor, in sickness and in health, so long as we both shall live. And that is how the Churches once proclaimed it, just as God plainly inspired it written, 'till death.' Generally, that is the way it was with Christian marriage for hundreds of years. We are not joined until our spouse lost their temper and screamed at us, or until we fall out of infatuation (Christians are not to fall out of love), or until we are mistreated, neglected, or left alone. We're not joined so long as no real serious problems arise, or until our spouse sins against our person in some way. These are some of the addendums which men have 'added' to the Word of God concerning marriage, but God had no part in these attachments to His Holy Word. We're not joined only for the better, or just so long as we're happy together, we're joined in a 'Covenant relationship' for life. Marriage is a Covenant 'promise' before God to be joined till death do us part.

This is exactly what most all of the Churches would faithfully teach (and would declare in the marriage ceremony itself) up until around the 1940s when the modern, liberal or progressive thinkers came up into our Churches oozing what they deemed was compassion and love. And by these misapplied words they greased the proverbial 'slippery slope' that slid the Churches into degradation. They opened up a crack in the wall of faith, and that crack soon became the giant breach of divorce and remarriage that we have today. Where once the wall stood strong and divorce was almost universally rejected and preached against in nearly all Churches, now the teaching that divorce is permitted is no longer the exception in a few fringe Churches, it is now become the rule, and not only for fornication. It has become a total reversal of the historical Church position. Where once the faithful Church of our fathers considered it a shame and a scandal to divorce, today the Pastor of any Church himself is very likely to have been divorced. What objectivity or righteous counsel can a Pastor possibly give about the law of God against divorce, when he has been divorced himself? He has already shown his rebellion and bad judgment by rationalizing the divorce of his own wife?

Even though a respected Reformed document like the Westminster Confession of faith 'errantly' contained a couple clauses in it allowing for divorce for fornication and desertion (more on this later), STILL divorce and remarriage remained a rarity in the Churches throughout the years. By grace of God His people still shunned divorce for these reasons even in the face of this article, and Pastors continued to counsel against it. But with each change of the leadership in the Churches over the last few decades, more and more of that wall of faith has been torn down. Each successive leader venturing a little farther than the last, beyond the landmarks of scripture, until we are in the situation with divorce and remarriage that we see prevailing among Churches today. The prominent view among most Church leaders now is one of absolution:

"..yes, you may divorce you poor soul, it is not unlawful in your case, because God is not legalistic, you are free from the law, and you are not bound to this sinner. Don't worry, you shall have Peace, for God is love and we know that He wouldn't want you to be unhappy in your marriage."

With this type of counseling, the leaders of the Church have not pastored the flock, but rather have scattered them, causing them to err. They are advising by what seems right in their own eyes, rather than by God's law. And in doing so, they are making a false god in their own humanistic image. They are not worshipping the God of law (The Bible).

Jeremiah 2:8

Jeremiah 23:1-2 No, this is not something which is new in God's Congregation, and it is not something which goes unpunished. The horrible truth is, Church leaders and seminary graduates today are more like shady 'lawyers' looking for loopholes in the law of God for their clients, rather than Pastors and Shepherds looking to uphold the truth. The irony is, they usually do it in the name Christian love and compassion for their fellow man. They advise against God's Word, because they feel for the couple having problems. ..or so they say. But this is not the agape love of the brethren (1st John 5:1-3) required by God, it is in opposition to real Christian love. In the name of progressive enlightenment, they have really darkened the way of the Church. In the name of caring for the family, they have played a significant role in devastating the family. In the name of union with Christ, they have planted the seeds of separation, not only of the 'One Flesh' theology, but also between man and the Word of God. Unfaithfulness to God's Word is like a wicked planting that started out small, but has grown unto a great choking vine that is destroying or choking the life out of everything the Church stands for. The modern congregations have actually deluded themselves into believing this has been a good thing for the people of our day, and that the Church has actually progressed and gotten better because of this (alleged) compassion in allowing spouses to easily get divorced. They seem oblivious to the truth as they turn away from the facts of what is occurring in our Church families.

It never ceases to astonish how so many theologians think that virtually all Churches (pre about 1935-40) who preached against divorce, must have basically all been unlearned people who were really ignorant about these scripture passages which they have since discovered reasons for divorce. In their eyes, the Churches today are somehow more compassionate and wiser in Church affairs and have figured something out that these great writers and thinkers of past Church history obviously didn't comprehend.

The world has been going on for thousands of years and the marriage institution was protected by the laws of the Bible, and it isn't until our generation that the marriage institution has become a shambles because of the plague of divorce. And this 'in no small measure' due to this contemporary unfaithfulness in the Church. You would think that this great catastrophe of divorce and remarriage that has come upon the Holy Temple would have them scratching their collective heads and wondering what went wrong. Or perhaps have them calling for a Church committee meeting to figure out how we managed to get into this terrible situation. ..You would think. But it's been just the opposite in most Churches. Rather than speak against it, they are making excuses for it. It's as if they cannot see what their deeds have done to the Covenant family, for they are blinded to their disobedience. They're deceived so that they generally don't even see what's wrong at all. They routinely justify divorce and claim that the historical and faithful Church was just old fashioned in their thinking about either women or divorce, and that with changing times man's outlook must change. They claim God really said all along that we 'can' divorce for all these diverse reasons, and that we shouldn't really worry about how the Church of our fathers preached against it or be dissuaded by them seldom ever really allowing it in the past. They even turn it into a woman's rights issue, where it was only because men ruled, or only because the women of the past stayed married fearing lack of support. What has that to do with what God says or does not say?

We need to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask 'honestly,' does the evidence show that the Church today is more diligent and faithful to the Word of God than it was pre 1940? The only honest answer is, on the contrary! It shows just the opposite. The Churches today are breaking law after law, forsaking rule after rule, promoting every abomination and rule change that you can think of. They are not becoming more faithful to the laws of God, but are departing from the faith. They have forgotten their 'First Love' for the love of themselves. The love of God has grown cold where they do not reserve it in their heart that they might not sin against Him. Keeping the Word can be Biblically defined as, 'guarding it from loss.' But the Church today is not a watchman to guard the Word, they have strayed from it's age old boundaries which the fathers kept. They remember not the Old Proverb:

Proverbs 22:28

That's what the Churches have done today. They have removed the ancient landmarks to go beyond the boundaries of the Word of God. Privately interpreting scripture they lay claim to teachings of separation and divorce which are 'foreign' to the Bible. It is voice upon voice until those who are simply looking for an excuse to defend their deeds, feel justified in joining the chorus of the unfaithful. A chorus of voices today so deafening that nothing much else is heard over the unrighteousness regarding divorce. They make a mockery of the Church that went before them, and trample under foot the Word of God which it faithfully relied upon.

These Problems have their root in Christians not dealing with the scriptures honestly, as the more noble Bereans did. Since when does, 'it is no longer two, but one flesh,' today re-translate to, 'It is not really one flesh, because it was never really joined by God.' Since when does, 'what God has joined, let no man pull apart,' re-translate to, 'we can pull apart what God joined together if our spouse sins against us.' Since when does, 'bound together as long as we live,' today re-translate to, 'bound just until we find some unlawfulness or sin in our partners.' The question is, since when, and the answer is, since the apostasy began to rear it's ugly head in the Churches and man decided to forsake God's Word and rule by his own fiat in the Holy Temple. He is justifying any and everything that he wants, making his own principles, and changing the laws of God. Whether Divorce, Remarriage, Abortions, Homosexuality, Women Pastors, Authorities over God, Rebellion, Modernism, or whatever is the flavor of the month, it all starts from the same seed of rationalization. That spirit of disobedience which has been man's downfall from the very beginning. It starts with the same question that the serpent asked Eve in the garden:

'..Hath God said?'

Whenever man wants to do something forbidden, he begins to question whether God really 'meant' what He has said. The faithful Christian will review God's Word faithfully and answer the question of, 'hath God said' honestly (as the Bereans). The unfaithful Christian will either ignore it, deny it, or look for avenues where he can rationalize it away, while making it appear that he is not really in disobedience. That is the self deception manifest in the lack of reverential 'fear of God.' But the Lord is not mocked. That's the difference between guarding God's Word from loss (keeping it) and the unfaithfulness of the (so called) carnal Christian who will not 'receive' what God says.

1st John 2:4-5

I am convinced and convicted by the Word that it is the Holy Spirit of truth that will both guide God's servants into what is true, and steer them away from what is not. I would not be so deluded as to think that I am going to teach anyone anything in this study. The Holy Spirit is the teacher, and He teaches through God's Words, not mine. Therefore, if God doesn't say it, then you have no reason to have confidence that what follows is true. However, as the Bereans clearly understood, if these things are written in the Word of God, then they are not only true, but we are bound to faithfully keep the testimony of the Word.

With that in mind, we begin this study on the question of divorce and remarriage. My desire is that the faithful Christian will consider it in the light of what the Bible actually says. Not in light of what I say, or what Pastor Joe says, or what Professor Ihavea Ph.d. declares, but what the scriptures themselves actually declare. That is to say, as opposed to what theologians claim the scriptures mean. To be sure, whatever it says, it has said it all along. What you read today, the fathers read yesterday, for there has been no change in Holy Canon to match the degradation of society. Let us then examine the issue in light of God's eternal Word.

We begin this study at the law of Moses which Christ referred to in his explanation of marriage, in Matthew chapter 19.

The Old Testament Law that allowed for Divorce
    Inevitably in any discussion of the subject of divorce, the passage in Matthew chapter 19 is referenced. I ask one thing in consideration of this study. That you suspend all that you have been taught that Matthew chapter 19 says, and 'actually read' what it really does say. Read it in context, with no preconceived ideas about it. If we do that 'honestly' (which is the key word) and with all readiness of mind, I am convinced there can be no question about what it declares, and what it does not declare.

Jesus had come into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan, and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. In verse 3 we read:

Matthew 19:3

This Greek word translated every [pas] in the KJV is better understood in this context as 'any,' as indeed it is translated in other places. Examples:

Matthew 13:19

Revelation 7:16 Revelation 21:27 Acts 10:14 What is the difference between that word any, and the word every in Matthew chapter 19? The 'truthful' answer is nothing. They are both the exact same Greek word [pas] in the exact same context. Can Peter be saying that He has never eaten 'every' thing that is unclean? No, Peter has never eaten 'any' thing the Jews considered unclean.

The word every [pas] in this context of Matthew 19 means any. If not, then we have confusion because it would not be every reason if it did not mean any reason, would it? We should understand clearly that, to be allowed to divorce for any reason fits the context. It should be self evident that the language 'for every cause' is awkward and doesn't fit the context, tense, and application, because the Pharisees are tempting or testing Jesus by asking Him if it is lawful to divorce, when they already know that the law of Moses said one could divorce for unlawful nakedness (fornication). They are 'testing' Christ, having an answer ready to confront Him with. If the question was of wanton divorce, Jesus could have very easily replied, 'no, you can only divorce for fornication.' That is 'obviously' not what Christ wanted to say as he proceeded to show marriage an unbreakable bond. Three times (in Matthew, Luke and Mark) this episode is recorded, and though this would have been expected, concise, and very easy to say, not once does Jesus ever say this. Not once does Christ say, 'no, you can only divorce for fornication and desertion.' And though few Theologians in our day will highlight this, note carefully that what He does reply in 'answer' to their question is just the opposite, and what would be expected if one had asked if there could be 'any' divorce. He unambiguously reaffirmed lifelong marriage covenant by directing them to God's law declaring that the joining of two into 'one flesh' meant that there isn't even anything that can be separated, because they are no longer two, but have been made one. Listen to Christ's answer to the question:

Matthew 19:4-6

Clearly God is 'answering' their question by asking retorting, 'don't you know the scriptures declare you can't pull apart what has been joined by Covenant before God?' Christ has been asked a question and He has answered it. There is no possibility of separation, because they are not any longer two, but in the marriage Covenant have been made one flesh. In both verses 5 and 6 of Matthew chapter 19, God is illustrating that marriage is an indissoluble union before Him, and gives the warning, 'let no man pull apart this union which God hath joined together.' What could be clearer? Sadly, in our day the clear meaning of these words have been totally ignored or redefined by the Churches in their blatant rationalizing of separating what God has joined. This verse is literally made of 'non-effect' by the additions to the Word of careless theologians. Most of the time these verses aren't even effectively addressed or even considered in their arguments for divorce, but are quickly brushed aside or discarded in favor of humanistic reasoning in defense of dissolving the marriage covenant.

Another tactic which is often used, is that theologians will present a second verse in an attempt to contradict this one. In other words, to make this 'command' about no man pulling asunder, voided by man's actions. But the most basic of sound fundamental exegesis is that, 'you cannot use one scripture to nullify another.' All scripture is true, so it must then be understood in harmony with itself, by comparing scripture with scripture. God's word of, 'let no man pull apart what has been joined in marriage by Him,' is true and trustworthy and cannot be made untrue by claiming another verse made it void. What part of that command is written ambiguously that we could misunderstand it?

The Pharisees have asked Jesus, can there be lawful divorce for any reason, and Jesus has replied and made it abundantly clear to them that the answer is no. There cannot be divorce. And for emphasis He directs them to the original design of marriage in beginning of creation (Genesis 2:24), that they read in the law of Moses where it was written of God that a man and his wife were to be one flesh. And if that wasn't enough, Christ then further warns them, therefore, 'what God has Joined together, let no man pull apart.' The marriage promise or covenant means we're no longer two, but one flesh that cannot be separated. This was the original design, and for the most part, for 2000 years the Church abided by that design and command. Therefore divorce in the Church was considered taboo or a scandalous action. God intends that a man or woman must be obedient to His Word and not put asunder or separate from his/her spouse by divorce. They are to remain as one flesh through trials, tribulations, or any circumstances which may arise (Matthew 19:6; 1st Corinthians 7:10-11).

And let's be crystal clear on this. While Theologians today feign Jesus was not saying this, the Pharisees themselves most certainly understood that this is indeed what Jesus was saying. And the disciples also clearly understood that this is what Jesus was saying. The context is abundantly clear on this matter. They were 'shocked,' and in the book of Mark we read that they even asked him again a second time about it. The disciples were totally astounded that Jesus would say you cannot divorce for any cause because you cannot put asunder (pull apart) what God had joined together. It is wishful thinking to imagine that Jesus wasn't saying that they could not divorce. These Pharisees understood His answer perfectly, and take careful note that is exactly why they asked in the very next verse:

Matthew 19:7

Why would they be referencing this law of Moses to support divorce for fornication, if Jesus was saying you can divorce only for fornication? It makes no sense. This law of moses didn't allow divorce for 'every' cause, it allowed divorce for unlawful nakedness or illicit sexual behaviour (fornication). In fact, Jesus giving an answer like that to address a question of divorce for 'every' cause is totally out of context. Their reply here would be meaningless if they had really asked if they could divorce for 'every' cause. Do not listen to self-serving theologians, listen to the Word itself, and don't forget their question and Christ's answer. Their coming back at Christ with 'this scripture' in support of divorce for 'every cause' makes no sense.

But this reads logically and makes 'perfect sense' when you understand that they were asking if there could be divorce for 'any' cause. When we go to the scriptures with no preconceived ideas about it, the truth shines through. When we go to these scriptures looking for justification, it makes no sense. When we follow the content and the context, instead of listening to unfaithful shepherds attempting to lead the scriptures, there can only be one conclusion. The Pharisees, knowing perfectly well that the law said one could divorce for unlawful nakedness (some fornication) were testing (translated tempting) Christ by asking if there can be divorce for any reason. Jesus replies directing them to the law of Moses that there is not to be divorce for 'any' reason because 'from the beginning' the original design of marriage was meant to be that man cannot pull apart what God hath joined together. And they (understanding this is what He was saying), think they have him trapped and immediately counter asking, why 'then' [oun] did the law of Moses say we could get a writing of divorce (for unlawful nakedness)? They are not playing the game the Church today plays, they 'know' Jesus is telling them they cannot divorce for fornication or unlawful nakedness, and they are countering Christ's answer by the law of Moses in which it was written that they 'could' divorce for fornication. In other words, they are protesting, 'if you say we can't divorce for any reason, why then did the law of Moses say we could divorce if we found some unlawful nakedness?' And also be aware that this is the law that allowed men to divorce their wives for fornication. That is a 'very important' point which should not be overlooked or cast aside as insignificant. It usually is with today's theologians, but we should have this firmly settled in our minds. Jesus is not dissuaded by their question, and has the answer for this also:

Matthew 19:8-9

Jesus says Moses allowed them to 'divorce' because of the hardness of their hearts. And once again, note carefully that Christ did not say Moses allowed you to put away your wives for every cause, but Moses allowed you to put away your wives. If in fact Christ was answering a question of can they divorce for 'every' cause, why is He saying Moses allowed this because of the hardness of your heart? Moses never allowed divorce for 'every' cause. Again, such a reading of the text or the question, makes no sense.

Jesus tells them that from the beginning, this divorce was never meant to be. The permanence of the Covenant marriage union is implied in the original design of the creation ordinance of a man and a woman, and this a lifetime union which Christ 'confirms' by saying, what therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder. It was only because of the hardness of Israel's heart that God allowed divorce. And this law of moses for divorce of a wife because of fornication (sexual uncleanness or unlawful nakedness) was not permanent, it was instituted because of the hardness of their heart. We'll come back to these verses, but again note carefully in the next verse that not only the Pharisees, but now the disciples also (unlike the people of the Churches today) understood perfectly that Jesus was saying there could "NOT" be divorce any longer for fornication or unlawful nakedness by this law of Moses which had previously allowed it. You see they were more 'noble' and thus dealt more honorably with plan scripture.

Matthew 19:10

The disciples are saying that if a man can't divorce his wife by the law of Moses even for her fornication (unlawful nakedness), then it's better that a man not even get married in the first place. They are simply amazed at Jesus' words.

Be forewarned, there are some theologians who attempt to delve into secular history with their scholarly crystal balls in order to try and prove that Jesus said this 'because' people were getting divorced for any little reason (as if this is divinely inspired truth), but that again is simply non-scriptural tradition and rationalization. It's not found anywhere in scripture implicit or explicit and so is not a biblical answer. It should be relegated to nothing more than private, secular, or personal interpretation. Moreover, why in the world would the disciples be 'so horrified' that they couldn't divorce their wives for every little odd thing? To think this of these men is simply ridiculous. They were concerned that they couldn't divorce them for 'anything,' not that they would never be able to divorce them for 'every' little cause. It is abject foolishness to think they wanted to divorce their wives for an issue of blood, her monthly, or some open sore. The whole idea once examined is ludicrous. Read the context. Keep in mind, these disciples were men of God. They weren't sitting around thinking of ways to divorce their wives for 'every' cause. Why then would they be flabbergasted at Christ's answer?

Theologians today do not even attempt to reconcile their ideas with this teaching of Jesus as recorded in the book of Mark, where clearly Jesus prohibits divorce absolutely and gives no possible exceptions. You see they always choose to ignore these passages in favor of ones which are more easily misunderstood compromised. Nevertheless, these verses must be reconciled, and not by decalring that Jesus didn't mean what He said there, nor by forcing exceptions into the text where there are none. Word for Word Jesus declares in mark that there is no possibility of Divorce anymore. It was only because of the hardness of Israel's heart that Moses permitted it. But don't take my word for it.

Mark 10:1-12

The unambiguous meaning of these verses is that marriage to 'one person' is God's intention for man, and it has has always been His intention, and that divorce or the tearing apart what God has joined is not permitted under any circumstances. So striking is this statement of Christ to His Apostles that they cannot divorce for 'any' reason, that after they get into the house away from the Pharisees, they asked Christ again of this (verse 10). But Jesus (unlike pastors today) does not retreat, in answer to their surprised queries, He plainly tells them that whoever divorces his wife commits adultery against her. And likewise the woman. In other words, a restatement of what God's Word says, 'God hates divorce.'

A literal reading of these all these gospels resolves the apparent difference between them as being no difference at all. Because there is not an exception in Matthew chapter twentyfour supporting divorce for fornication (which would make the whole chapter and all that Christ said before, nonsensical), there is the denial of divorce for fornication allowed by Moses, and their is the denial of divorce for any other reason except or besides fornication. That is the only exception there.

That is indeed the very reason the Apostles were so perplexed about this, because they understood that the law of Moses said people could get divorced for fornication [porneia], or in the Hebrew [ervah], meaning illicit or unlawful nakedness (Deu. 24:1), and Jesus said that this cannot be anymore. That verse in Deuteronomy is the law of Moses used for divorcing one's spouse for fornication. But Jesus says no, that law allowing for divorce was because of the hardness of your hearts, but now it's not to be so anymore. The disciples understand and so they respond that if that's the way it's going to be, then it's better if a man never get married at all! And we can understand this. They're thinking is that a wife could do anything, and the husband would be stuck with her regardless. And they are right, for Jesus is telling them this is a lifelong bond. He doesn't retreat from this precept, rather, He reiterates it. In matthew He tells them that all cannot receive this, only to whom it is given. In other words, yes there are many who shouldn't get married because of this, and so don't get married if you cannot 'receive this command of God' and remain committed and bound to your spouse.

Matthew 19:11

It is given to those with the Spirit of Christ who can handle it because they will love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Jesus is saying, yes, you are right that for many it is better that they not get married. There are many reasons not to get married, and this is one of them. O' that the faithful Christian bachelor or bachelorette today would have considered these words before marriage, and tried themselves to see if he/she was able to see it through till death do them part before they entered into that Covenant marriage relationship. Then, as in the days of old, there would be no divorce. For if you cannot receive this saying, then don't marry. For there is no possibility of divorce before God. And that is the teaching put forth here by Jesus.

The true Christian must come to the truth that when we are in Christ, all things are possible. We can forgive seven times seventy, and we can remain married in the face of any trial. If we make Christ our anchor, and keep our eyes on Him and not on ourselves, we will not drift from the safety of the harbor. We can faithfully hold to His commands if we are not feeling sorry for ourselves because of our spouse's sins. This exhortation is that if we can marry, and remain married till death do us part, then we are those who can receive this. If we cannot, it is good for us to remain single. There are many who will remain in the single state, and for many different reasons.

Matthew 19:12

In the new testament the Greek word eunuch [eunouchizo] means literally to 'hold bed.' It signifies a single, celibate, or castrated person. It's taken from the root Greek words [enue] meaning bed, and the verb tense [echo], meaning to hold. By extension a chamberlain or holder of the women's bed chambers. Kings and rulers would often use castrated men or eunuchs as people charged with the management and care of the women's chambers (for obvious reasons), since it would be impossible for them to have relations with the women under their care. In it's narrowest technical sense the word means an emasculated man as a chamberlain, but by implication it means one who remains unmarried or who is not with a woman. This is also illustrated in the Ethiopian eunuch which had charge of the Queen's Chamber. In this context of matthew 19, it is referring to someone who doesn't have relations with women. i.e., an unmarried (celibate) man.

Jesus says for some, there will be no marriage for many reasons. Some People will never get married or be with a woman at all. They are made to be that way (remain single) from birth (defects). Others will never get married because man has made it that way (castration, or medical). Others will never get married because of the Kingdom of God. In other words, like Paul (Who wished that all were as he, unmarried - 1st Cor 7:7). And so Yes, Jesus says, it's not for everyone to get married and keep this law. But to he who can receive this (He who is of God), let them receive it and marry. But if we do marry, then this law applies. What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Any divorce or any pulling asunder what God has joined, is to break the original design of marriage that from the beginning was meant to be a lifetime bond.

So the question now becomes, how is it that so many today think that Matthew chapter 19 has a 'legalistic escape clause' built into it that allows for divorce for fornication? The answer is one of three reasons.

#1. They are unaware that the law of Moses of divorce for fornication is the law that Jesus is talking about in verse 8, and declares it is no more (and this is very possible since few pastors will touch the verse with a 10 foot pole).
#2. Sloppy exegesis mixed with carnal or humanistic thinking or reasoning.
#3. They just don't care what the Word of God says, they want to allow divorce and remarriage and so they will not receive the love of truth, regardless of what these scriptures actually say.
#4. They get hung up on the one word in verse 9, 'except.'

With many, their whole argument for divorce hangs upon this one word. The word 'except' in the phrase, 'except for fornication.' They do not understand that this Greek word is a qualifying negation for the word fornication. Except is the Greek word [eime] meaning 'if not.' Taken from it's root words [el] (IF), and [me] (NOT). It is used here in the context of saying, besides or 'if not' (which is it's actual true translation). Also note, I am not wresting the scriptures here, I encourage anyone and everyone to check this out for themselves in the original Greek. In point of fact, it would be a contradiction if it really meant what these theologians claim it does. The contradiction becomes obvious when we carefully examine the passage. That is, 'if' we carefully examine the passage. Sloppy exegesis lends itself to conclusions which don't even make sense on the face of it (once examined). First of all, the law of Moses that Jesus was talking about is the very law that allowed for divorce for fornication. Check that out yourself. Jesus said in verse 8 that it was allowed only for the hardness of their heart, but it's no longer to be so. Now think about just what Christ has said there. He's saying, 'Yes the law of Moses did allow for divorce for fornication,' but from the beginning it was not to be. It was instituted for the purpose of the law, and with the fulfilling of the law, it is not to be observed anymore. For what God intended 'from the beginning' is in effect. Namely, we are one flesh which cannot be separated. Israel has been divorced under that Old Testament law for the hardness of their heart (Mark 6:52, Mark 8:17, Mark 10:5, Mark 16:14, John 12:40, Hebrews 3:8, Hebrews 3:15, Hebrews 4:7), fulfilling the law that righteousness is 'not' by the law. And so now Christ can have a New Covenant marriage to a wife where it is an eternal bond, and Salvation go to the whole world. Christ is now the husband of the Church/Israel fulfilling the law, and loves us 'unconditionally' that He can never divorce us. As it was to be in the beginning, we are made one with Christ. One Body. He is the Head, and we the Body, his bride inseparable. So it was to be between husband and wife. Two flesh are one, Jew and Gentile in one body, Christ being the head, and all inseparable by man.

So, Jesus has answered the question about divorce for fornication that the law of Moses had allowed for. He says it's not to be. Then He says, and whosoever divorces his wife for anything [if not] (or besides) for fornication, commits adultery. So you see, now He has covered all bases. First He has made it clear that the law of Divorce for fornication is to be no more, and then He declares that divorce for anything (besides) fornication is adultery. Christ has now covered everything. i.e., there can be no divorce for 'any' cause.

This would seem to be the truth of the verses in question. Nevertheless, many Christians bring up the articles of the 24th chapter of the westminster confession in defense of divorce, which states:

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.(l) In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce:(m) and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.(n)

(l) Matt. 1:18, 19, 20.
(m) Matt. 5:31, 32.
(n) Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2, 3.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:(o) wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion, in their own case.(p)

(o) Matt. 19:8, 9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6.
(p) Deut. 24:1, 2, 3, 4.

Reading this they wistfully retort, 'see, we can divorce for fornication and desertion.' But there are three problems with this:

Number one, the Westminster confession while in general an 'outstanding' synopsis of the beliefs of the faithful Church, is not the Word of God. Sadly, some people who understand that intellectually, in practice do not really comprehend what that means. But we must never place Church tradition on a par with God's written Word.
Number two, nowhere does the Word of God say that, "Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract." Again, the Westminster confession says this, but God does not! What God actually says is that, what God hath joined together (by this contract or covenant) let not man put asunder or dissolve. Not exactly the same thing is it? We must be careful that we do not practice the same blind following of Church traditions as the Roman catholic Church. The final authority is the Word of God, not the Westminster confession. Sola Scriptura.
And number three, the statement that, "nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage," is again totally irreconcilable with God's innerrant Word. God says nothing about wilful desertion that cannot be remedied being grounds for divorce. Nor could it be in the New Testament dispensation. We should never lose sight of the fact that these are men's words regarding adultery and desertion, not God's Word or Holy canon.

What God now says about adultery demonstrates how man can never keep the law, and thus how we are to forgive our bride unconditionally, as we as bride of Christ are forgiven unconditionally.

Matthew 5:27-28

The fact is, God declares that if man but glances at a woman and has a moment of lust after her, he has committed adultery already. And not a pretend adultery (as some would have you believe) but in God's sight, the punishable sin of adultery has been committed. Nowhere does God say that only physical adultery is real adultery, on the contrary, He's just declared that it is not. Who then would not under God's law have legitimate grounds for divorce if this doctrine of divorce for adultery today was actually true? God Forbid. Without really realizing it, what these theologians are saying is, 'no, God is wrong, this is not REAL adultery which could be divorced for.' They have effectively said, this doesn't really constitute adultery before God. So, who is right, God or man? Is this lustful thought real adultery, or is God just toying with us? You see when we get right down to it, we're all on shaky ground. And that is 'precisely' what God is illustrating here. Just how none of us without the Grace of God can escape the judgment, no matter how faithfully 'he thinks' he is in keeping the law. That is the whole point. Shall we divorce our wives for adultery, when we have looked upon a woman to lust after her? ..even for a micro second? For that too is adultery in God's sight. The righteous man humbly replies no, I'm guilty as charged. The arrogant reply, no I'm not guilty and it's not the same thing.

Matthew 18:21-22

We have Jesus allowing divorce because of fornication, and yet saying that we are to forgive our spouse her sins seventy times seventy. Does Christ contradict Himself on our actions? No, man does. We are to be forgiving and 'content' with our spouse, knowing that what we do, we do as unto the Lord. We live for the Lord and not for ourselves, and He is ever with us that we keep our eyes upon Him, and not ourselves.

Hebrews 13:4-5

The grass is always greener on the other side, and this is the way of the world. Christians are not to look for a better husband or wife, but to understand that forgiveness is the hallmark of true Christianity. God will judge the adulterer, we will show forgiveness. In all our pain and trial in this world, God is with us and will never forsake us, though we might deserve it. As indeed we should be with our wives and never leave nor forsake them.

In fact, this strong stand against divorce has always been the law of the faithful Church, and the unmentionable 'remarriage of the divorced,' was something that happened only to the scandalous. Where did we go wrong? There is no word 'remarriage' in the entire New Testament. I had someone tell me that verse eight of Matthew chapter 19 in saying, 'except for fornication,' makes all the preceding verses null and void. What kind of Christianity is that? God forbid we should handle His Word so deceitfully. In point of fact, verse 6,7, and 8 'conditions' verse 9. Verse 9 most certainly does not exist in a vacuum. You cannot understand verse 9 without understanding the verses preceding it. Context is always of importance. Verse 9 does not stand alone.

We must go about this systematically. In verse 6 Jesus tells them that from the beginning people in marriage were to be no more two, but one flesh inseparable, and so what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (the way Pastors understand this today makes this statement absolutely meaningless). In verse 7 they are amazed and ask, why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away if there cannot be divorce for any cause? They, (the Disciples and these Pharisees) understand that Jesus is saying that there cannot be divorce for fornication. ELSE, why would they bring up the law that Moses that says they could divorce for fornication to CHALLENGE what Jesus said? And in verse 8 Jesus explains to them just why that law of divorce for illicit nakedness or fornication was allowed. He says, it was Because of the hardness of their hearts it was allowed, but in the Beginning it was not so.

Now how any person honest with himself, and dealing honestly with the pertinent scriptures, claim Jesus is instead saying, 'Yes divorce using this law is still allowed,' is just beyond logic and reason. Jesus is clearly saying it's not to be anymore. Only one with their mind already set on divorce would claim Jesus is re-affirming the law of Moses for divorce for fornication in that verse. No, Jesus says, it was allowed for a purpose, but from the Beginning divorce by this law was not to be so. It was only because of the hardness of your heart (a teaching on the hardness of Israel's heart is a topic for another study).

And then He adds in verse 9, and he who puts away his wife for anything besides or 'if not' for fornication and marries another, commits adultery. Verse 9 is simply covering all "OTHER" bases. He's already talked about the law of divorce for fornication and said it's not to be, and here He says if you put away your wife for anything besides [elme] meaning 'if not' (except) for fornication, you are committing adultery. Jesus covers divorce for Fornication first (it was for the harness of their heart and not to be), and then says divorce for anything except (besides) fornication is adultery. That means divorce for 'any' reason is not allowed. And that is exactly what the Pharisees had asked Him. Can a man divorce his wife for any reason? Jesus answers, you can't divorce for fornication, for that law was for the hardness of your hearts, and if you divorce for anything besides fornication and marry another, you commit adultery. He has covered all reasons, and said no divorce.

By far the weight of emphasis in the Bible is on the terrible sinful nature of divorce. It was from the beginning, not to be so as that the creation precept of marriage was meant to be an indissoluble union [dabaq] (Cling or Cleave to.. -gen 2:24). It's only man today in his (implied) infinite wisdom who dares to tell the Church that union can be dissolved, and that what God hath joined together man can pull apart, and more than that, after he pulls it apart, he can go remarry again in direct defiance of God's Holy Word not to marry a divorced person. Man then innocently wipes his mouth, looks at you in bewilderment saying, 'What evil hath I done, I'm a caring loving person.' Christ Jesus had the perfect opportunity here to tell the disciples, you surely can divorce for fornication. But far from it, He quotes 'the beginning' to confirm that marriage makes two, one flesh, and that it cannot be pulled apart, and declares that law that allowed for divorce for fornication was only because of the hardness of their heart. What's ambiguous? That's not a suggestion Jesus made about two, it's God's command that man not pull asunder marriage.

Remember when Joseph was mindful to put his wife Mary away for what he thought was fornication (matt. 1:19). The law that allowed him to do that is the law that Jesus is talking about here. To base a whole new doctrine on the english translation of one word (except) which really means 'if not' or 'besides,' and to also completely ignore all the preceding verses, content, and the context of the passage, in order to feel self-justified in allowing divorce, is unrighteousness of the highest order. Unfortunately, there are so many people today who are looking for a way 'around' the Word rather than looking to keep it, that they readily accept any rationalization by theologians in order to do so. They have all their understanding of the four verses riding on their understanding of one single word. But we would do well to base our understanding on 'every' single word, in context of the whole, the whole Bible being considered, not just a pet verse (or in this case, single word). This misunderstanding of Matthew chapter 19 incredibly has Jesus (in effect) saying:

"the law of Moses allowing divorce for fornication was given for the hardness of your heart, it's not to be any longer. And I say to you, forget what I just said, this law is still valid and you CAN use this to divorce for fornication."

It's a completely dishevelled interpretation of the verses. It makes no sense at all because Jesus never said that. How can Jesus say, the law was because of the hardness of your heart and not to be, and then turn right around and say, yes, this law is now a valid law for divorce for fornication? Yet that is what theologians have these verses saying, and without a hint of conscience in doing so.

I've had theologians consider this, then admit, 'yes, you're right, but sin can break the marriage relationship.' Wrong, sin cannot break the marriage Covenant. This is the New Covenant age, and just as sin cannot break the marriage relationship between Christ and His Bride (the Church), it cannot break apart our bride and us. What sin could a 'true' Christian sin that could separate or divorce him from the Love of God? God says there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God. Have we learned nothing from that in dealing with our bride? We are secure or sealed in Christ. How many sins did God forgive us? ..ALL! Else we are bound for hell because even one sin not forgiven will send us to hell. That's what God did for his bride. Forgave her all her sins. What sin should a husband not forgive his wife? None. Sin cannot break this bride relationship, for like Christ and His bride, we are one body. Christ the head of the Church, the man the head of the woman. How many times has Christ forgiven us (His bride) our sins? Seven or seven times seven, or always. Then how many sins should we forgive our wife or husband before we divorce them? Seven times seventy. And seven is the number of totality.

It bears repeating, lest we forget, Jesus had already told us that if a man even lusts after a woman, he 'has' committed adultery. That his/her spouse had committed adultery by looking at another woman/man with lust in their heart even for a split second, is grounds for divorce under the fallacy that God says there can be divorce for adultery. Therefore, if this unbiblical idea that these theologians teach was really true, almost any woman or man would have 'legitimate' Biblical grounds for divorce on that basis. We would have Christ Himself knowingly giving Word to allow nearly unlimited divorce. We should seriously think about that 'if' we have a mind to.

The account in Matthew 5

    Some theologians say that since this passage (unlike Matthew chapter 19), does not previously condemn divorce for fornication, that it supports their contention that divorce for fornication is acceptable. However, if we read carefully we will see that by the recurring term 'it hath been said,' God is actually applying a stricter 'law' against divorce in the New Covenant dispensation. Those theologians who look at Matthew chapter 5 and insist that we have to twist this chapter in order to get a 'no divorce for fornication' rendering, are looking superficially at the verse. I ask, aren't they the ones who misinterpret what is stated here? In 'point of fact,' understanding this in the manner they want would be disjointed, and God is not the author of confusion. Since the law of Moses is the law that allowed for divorce for fornication, it would be 'abject confusion' for Christ to be contrasting or 'comparing' this law of divorce for fornication in verse 31 of Matthew chapter 5, with what He says in verse 32 of the same chapter. But that's exactly what He is doing. And carefully examining the text will show this.

In this sermon on the mount Jesus is encapsulating many deep principles of scripture in a few lines. The 'whole chapter' of Matthew 5 is an example of Christ giving an synopsis in a line or two of different doctrines. You can't understand any of what Christ says here unless you go to other parts of the Bible. The fundamental Biblical principle always applies when studying scripture, and that is that the Bible is it's own interpreter. Scripture interprets scripture, man does not. Show me a man getting his interpretation from 'three lines of text' in scripture, and I'll show you a man coming to false conclusions, and who doesn't understand sound hermeneutics.

Let's just look at a few examples. Verse 3 of Matthew chapter 5 says 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." How are the poor in spirit blessed? Is anyone who has low self esteem blessed of God? You see we can't understand what God means by that phrase without interpreting it by the 'rest' of scripture. Verse 4 says, 'Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.' What does that mean? If we mourn when someone dies, does that mean we are blessed and will be comforted? Not at all, so again we can't understand that verse without going through the rest of the Bible which interprets it. Verse 8 says, 'Blessed are the pure in heart.' Who are the pure in heart? Is it Children, Priests or is it new born puppies without guile? Without the rest of scripture as interpreter, you cannot say. That is, unless you choose to privately interpret these lines. Verse 9 says, 'blessed are the peace makers?' What does that mean? Is it a reference to people like Ghandi or perhaps diplomats who barter peace between countries? Again, we can't understand these things unless we search it out in the rest of the Bible. The whole chapter goes that way, 'encapsulating' Biblical precepts, which we understand "ONLY" by comparing scripture with scripture. If we don't understand these verses in the light of the 'rest of scripture,' we are privately interpreting the chapter in a self-serving manner.

And we all know that this is something which every 'false Gospel' does to prove that they have truth. They take a select verse out of context, and then they use that small encapsulation of truth in defense of their false conclusions. Did not even Satan quote a scripture to Christ in the desert, saying look here, 'it is written?' Indeed he did. But what was Christ's reply to the tempter? He replied, Yes, but 'It is written again,' or it is written more (Matthew 4:7). In other words, God is instructing us to consider the 'whole' of what is written in coming to conclusions of what scripture means. Not just a few lines out of context.

Matthew chapter 5 in speaking about divorce is a small encapsulation of the same things Matthew chapter 19 speaks about. Note how in verse 31 of Matthew chapter 5 God points us to the law of Moses which allowed the people to divorce for fornication, saying, "it hath been said" (in the law of Moses), and then He goes on to show the 'true' of what this law meant. i.e., He is declaring that this you've heard in the law of Moses is no longer the case. The same thing He said in matthew chapter 19. When Christ says, 'ye have heard,' He is pointing a finger at scripture (the law of Moses) that said divorce for fornication was permitted, and declaring it is not anymore. Else again, the whole thing makes no sense. Because if this is not the case, then He is bringing up the law of Moses saying this is what they've heard, for "no reason at all." Without understanding this honestly and correctly, verse 31 is out of place. Carefully go through the rest of the Chapter. When God says, 'You have heard,' what is he denoting? He is denoting that this is what is in the law, but then He is countering it saying I have something 'more to say' about it. This is so obvious when we read scriptures in context. Exhibit A:

Matthew 5:27-28

God is contrasting their understanding of the law, with TRUE keeping of the law, which is required for anyone to be Saved under God's terms. What does that mean, my wife is then free to divorce me under God's law because I've committed adultery? That would be true 'if' God really said that divorce for adultery was still permissible. But it's not true, and we can't understand what is being taught by that one small encapsulation, we have to search and consider the 'whole' of scripture on the matter. i.e., by the terminology Christ uses of, "Ye have Heard said," He is illustrating that we should understand the TRUE law is much more strict, and that what 'you heard' (read in the law of Moses) about adultery was an encapsulation of the law of adultery. The law was our teacher, to instruct us of sin. But what we understand reading the law, and how God understands the law, is different. If we think we can escape judgment by strictly keeping the law, then we deceive ourselves for we must keep 'the whole law,' and no one can do that. This is the message here.

Likewise, when Christ said in this chapter, 'It hath been said,' Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement, He is again illustrating that law is passed away in Christ fulfilling the law of Grace or unconditional favor, despite our sins. We can't divorce our wives anymore than Christ will divorce His. We could never keep the law (as any lust of a woman being adultery clearly illustrates), and that law for fornication was for the hardness of the heart. No divorce by this law, and if anyone put his wife away for any other reason besides or saving for fornication, he causes her to commit adultery. And (contrary to popular opinion) He also reiterates that whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Christians know that no scripture or passage stands on it's own. If we read that, "God shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone" in a vacuum, it means we can go out and not be concerned about danger, even cross the street without looking. ..that is, if we read it as Satan would have us, out of the context of 'the whole of scripture' where it stands on it's own. But what many don't see is that no scripture stands by itself. The Bible is an intricate picture painted by God. It is like a gigantic Spiritual picture puzzle, with each piece perfectly fitting alongside the other. When you have a piece that doesn't fit, we don't do as the Scribes and Pharisees and ignore it, we search the box for every single piece and find where it 'will fit PERFECTLY.'

On its own, the meaning of this statement, "and he cannot sin, because he is born of God," is clear and without argument. We will never commit a sin again. Of course in truth, we all know that we do commit sin, and that verse must be understood in light of all others. And this is the point which all false Churches fail to grasp. On the other hand, those who know that God's Words are pure words, must understand this most basic of truths.

I have had theologians tell me that in Matthew chapter 5 Christ is not answering the question about the law in Deuteronomy, He's merely speaking about fornication. But in all honesty (nobility), conscience 'demands' that we acknowledge the "fact" that He is.

Matthew 5:31

Deuteronomy 24:1 That is the law of Moses Christ is speaking about. To find some uncleanness [ervah] in her is literally 'unlawful nudity,' implying fornication, and is the very same law which allowed the Jews to divorce for this fornication. So then, let God be true, and every man a liar. This in fact 'is' what God is talking about in Matthew chapter 5 and contrasting. Else He brought it up there for absolutely no reason at all. The very same thing He was talking about in Matthew chapter 19. This law of Moses which allowed for divorce for fornication. From the language and context it seems pretty clear to me, but each man is led by his own spirit. We all have to decide for ourselves if what He is speaking about is that recorded in Deuteronomy.

Again, some Christians protest that Christ is merely preaching, and unless either He or the Apostle Matthew was absent-minded and forgot to qualify that He was talking about deuteronomy, they refuse to connect the two. But the scriptures are replete with statements without qualifiers in the local context. They are found throughout scripture, and as workmen who needeth not to be ashamed, it's our 'duty' to search them out as the Bereans did. Is Matthew chapter 5 one of those cases? God is the only one who can reveal such truths to man. And each of these 'encapsulations' does just that.

Matthew 5:21-22

Is Christ referencing the law in Deuteronomy and explaining to all how the law is really 'much more strict' than they imagined? Is He telling us how we are guilty of breaking the law of Moses for murder 'even' by our hatred? Would I be justified in any way to conclude, 'no, Christ is not talking about the law in Deuteronomy that says Thy shalt not kill?' It is so ridiculous to conclude this, that it's not even debatable.

If the Church today spent half the time they spend defending unbiblical practices like divorce, on defending Biblical ones, they wouldn't be in the dire straits as it is now. Unfortunately, this is the 'me generation,' and the will of man, foolish pride, and arrogance rules. The Church is not reading the scriptures, they are reading into the scriptures, and are thus not hearing what it actually says, in context.

When the Woman was taken in adultery, and the law of Moses commanded that she be stoned to death, and the Pharisees (again) tempted or tested Jesus. But what did He say? Did He say, 'stone her, for that sin is one where God doesn't want you to forgive?' No, I have no doubt that is what a great many theologians today (who have had all their sins forgiven) would say, but not Christ. The New Testament has not done away with the law debt, but Christ has fulfilled it. Christ demonstrating this principle wrote on the ground as the finger of God writing in the earth. We don't know what He wrote but comparing scripture with scripture we can discern that He probably was writing out the law or commandments of God, just as the finger of God did with Moses on the mountain. Which laws have we broken? Remember the law of lusting being the same as adultery? The law of hating the same as murder. Christ has forgiven us, shall we forgive our wives? And then Jesus spoke and said:

John 8:7

I say, A M E N! When we are matched up against the finger of God, we all come up short, bar none. And they all, from the first to the last, being convicted of 'their own sin,' went away. Let that be a lesson to us about adultery. If we are without sin, then we can divorce our wife for her adultery. Yes, we can cast the first stone. But if we are convicted of our own sin, then we come to realize why Christ will never divorce His New Covenant bride as He did Old Testament Israel, though we are just as sinful as they were. Let us not boast or be proud, it is by Grace we stand. It was for the hardness of their heart that this law was, but that law has been fulfilled. Just as Jesus said of the law of a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth, it is to be no more, we now resist not evil. This Woman righteously by the law should have been stoned to death, but Jesus is illustrating that He came to Save us from the law. He did not condemn her for her sin of adultery to show us that if we believe in Christ, there is no condemnation. Likewise, He that is without sin can divorce their wives in condemnation of her. But in doing this, we label her sins grievous and claim for ourselves a higher righteousness. Or we make her sins worse than our own and guilty of death while ours is not. If not, then we are to forgive her as Christ forgave us. Not a 'pretend forgiveness' as we see so much today where people just mouth the words, and still divorce. But real forgiveness based in real love. And with the love of Christ in us, who could really divorce then?

Many people do not really comprehend what marriage is. It's not a piece of paper, it's not a trial relationship, and it's not a simple sexual union. Marriage is a Covenant relationship. An unbreakable agreement or promise (Covenant or contract) made between a man and a woman before God, who seals (secures) it joining the two into one. It is a legal and solemn binding agreement which is recorded by the presence of God who serves as witness and Judge. In scripture we often see the word Covenant synonymous with the word 'promise' because it is a mutual pledge, oath, or vow taken to do something. The Marriage Covenant is a 'promise' of lifetime commitment between a man and woman secured of God that should never be severed. God indeed 'hates' such abominable breaking or pulling asunder of that pledge before Him.

Malachi 2:14-16

God hates divorce or the putting away of one's spouse, for God's perfect will is the natural (from the beginning) protection of Christian families and future generations through the preservation of the marriage Covenant. When God says He 'hates' divorce, these are strong words the import of which is seldom spoken in the natural strengths of their context. A covenant relationship witnessed before God, and New Covenant marriage witnessed before God is just as the Covenant between Christ and his bride, the Church. As God divorced Israel in the old Covenant because she couldn't keep the law, but in the New is she an unconditional bride signifying her made pure in Christ, so in the New Covenant the law of Moses for divorce for fornication which was for the hardness of their heart, is not to be so. Just as the Old Covenant, it is passed away in being fulfilled in Christ in unconditional marriage relationship. Where is the latitude for Godly divorce in those words of malachi? God Hates divorce, and that leaves no doubt as to His position on the matter. Clearly, the marriage relationship of husband and wife is representative of the "mystery" of the relationship of Christ to the Church. There can be no putting away or divorce, it is a unconditional Covenant (Oath/Promise) relationship.

Ephesians 5:21

Ephesians 5:22 Ephesians 5:23 Ephesians 5:24 Ephesians 5:25 Ephesians 5:26 Ephesians 5:27 Ephesians 5:28 Ephesians 5:29 Ephesians 5:30 Ephesians 5:31 Ephesians 5:32 Clearly, the marriage relationship between the husband and wife is an unconditional Covenant relationship representative of the "mystery" of the relationship of Christ to the Church. Christ will never leave nor forsake the Church, He will forgive "all" our sins, there can be no putting away or divorce because that Covenant relationship is an unconditional Covenant (Oath/Promise) relationship. This nonsense that the Churches are teaching today that the unconditional marriage relationship is "just an ideal" and not actually the law of God, is an absolute travesty. If the Church can say to their husband Christ, that it is without sin and immorality against Him that He shouldn't rightly divorce us, then we can 'righteously' advise divorce. But if we have sin, who are we to agree to a divorce because of some sin against us. For a Husband should love his wife as Christ loves the Church. Which is unconditionally. Not merited favor where the Church does not sin against Him, but unmerited favor. And the wife likewise her husband. Not only if he doesn't sin, but love in spite of our sin. It is a two way street.

Ephesians 5:25

A non seperable love. A binding or tieing love where neither can be put asunder. We trust God completely and thus love our spouse unconditionally, not dependant upon how honorable they treat us. It is no accident that God uses the same word translated 'put asunder' [chorizo] in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9 where it says 'What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.' The word [chorizo] literally means to make space between. In other words, to separate or move apart from something. God says unambiguously, man must not do this in regards to his wife, but love her as Christ loves the church. And He uses this same word demonstrating this love for the Church. How nothing at all can put His love for the Church. This is how a man should love His wife.

Romans 8:35-39

Those words translated 'separate' is the exact same word [chorizo] translated 'put asunder' in Matthew and Mark. No one can separate us or put us asunder from the love of our husband Christ, and that is the relationship God has instituted for man and his wife. As He has declared, let not man put asunder [chorizo] what is joined by God is the marriage covenant. That's the type of love God requires of man for his wife. We don't just stick it out in good times when all is well, we love them in time of trouble and anguish just as Christ does us. Isn't it amazing how theologians and pastors today treat the passage where God commands us to love our wives as Christ loves the Church, and these others, as if they were merely a suggestion. They're not, they are God's command.

John 15:12

We love our wives as Christ loves us. As He forgave us all our sins, as He will never leave nor forsake us, as He will never divorce or put us away, as He laid His life down for us, that is the way it should be with us and our wives or husbands. As if they are one body with us as we are one with Christ. The one flesh theology where God has joined and commanded that it not be put asunder by man. Divorce in the Old Covenant marriage was permitted for a season because of the hardness of the Jew's hearts. Thus God legally could divorced them by law, prefiguring Grace.

Isaiah 50:1

When we looked at Matthew 19 we saw that Jesus was informing the Pharisees that divorce was not to be. It was 'allowed' for a season because of the hardness of their heart, and now (with Christ's death) we are returning to God's original intent which is an unbreakable union of man and woman. This is why Moses suffered this bill of divorcement for fornication. The hardness of their heart. It allowed God to lawfully divorce Israel for her spiritual fornication. God does everything by the law. That's why not one will escape the judgment, and why not one sin will go undetected or missed. Because God's laws must be faithfully followed. Jesus came to fulfill the law. That's why He was the lamb of God that had to be slain, the sacrifice for our sins. He fulfilled the law. That's why He is the Temple of God, fulfilling the law of the Temple. The wages of Sin is death. It's the law. That's why Christ had to die, and he had to have our sins with Him. God couldn't just 'say' you are forgiven, and violate His law. For it was Law that the wages of sin is death, and that price had to be paid. And this is why Israel could be divorced for fornication. It was appropriate UNDER THE LAW because of the hardness of their hearts. But as I've said, that's a topic for a whole different study in itself.

Divorce is one of those issues where so many many people are looking for an out, that they easily accept any false justification. Sometimes even subconsciously. To some, I've make a good point. And to others, it's not even a point worth considering. It's all a matter of who is hearing what scripture says, and who doesn't want to hear it. If they have their mind made up that divorce is permissible, then it usually doesn't matter how much scripture we present, in their eyes, we are still wrong. Humanism tells man that divorce is a better way, and this is really a good thing, a loving thing, a caring thing for the Church to do. Not at all unlike the world rationalizing abortion where it is no longer deemed by society a bad thing, it's now looked at as a caring and loving thing to do for the child's sake. Likewise divorce is now looked at as this caring loving thing for the spouse's sake, and those who speak against it are looked upon as ignorant or cruel. This is the delusion of the master deceiver, the father of lies, Satan. The reality today is that the world and indeed the Church has taken away the stigma that once accompanied divorce, and made this practice a necessity of life. They have destroyed the family structure and few even realize that these changing values are even connected.

The Marriage bond is as long as we live
(till Death do us part)

    Romans chapter 7 is another verse that man tends to ignore in order to hold onto doctrines that they admire. But the virtue of the true Christian is in surrendering his will to do the will of God. And His will in this is very clear.

Romans 7:1

This of course confirms the very same things Jesus said in matthew chapter 19. When we compare scriptures, it's exactly the same teaching concerning the marriage covenant. The Churches today in their arrogance act as if they don't understand what the words 'bound by the law,' mean. They make God's Word of non-effect by asking, as the serpent did to eve, "..hath God said she's an adulteress? ..Hath God said she is bound as long as her husband lives?" and once the seed of doubt is planted, they proceed to tear down what God has said until one begins to wonder if 'bound' is really what God meant.

Luke 16:18

hath God said? Yes, the Serpent is still deceiving the woman, the Church. Many theologians today want to lead the Word of God rather than to follow it. But Marriage is forever and a man and woman are bound together so long as they both shall live. Most Pastors don't even want to say 'Till death do us part' in the marriage ceremony anymore. But the binding until death is an integral part of the marriage vows. Just as by Christ's 'death' on the cross, He set us free from the binding of the law which was represented in Old Covenant Israel, that we could marry another.

Romans 7:4

With the death of Christ, the husband covenant relationship to national Israel (representing law) has ended. There is no argument that this ended the marriage relationship and because of this, Christ can be married to another and will NOT die again. Thus we as the spiritual Israel (as opposed to the representation in Old Covenant Israel) are eternally safe. And along with Christ's death, the law allowing divorce for the hardness of our hearts has been removed forever. And in both contexts, spiritual and ceremonial. The bottom line is that we are in Peace and Safety and our New Covenant marriage union with God cannot be broken. As cannot our New Covenant union with our spouse.

We can only do things one of two ways. We can be unfaithful to scripture and go our own way in our own free will, or we can obey God's Word and take the path God has laid out for us in surrender to His will. We can forsake God's Word, or we can keep His Word.

Matthew 7:13

As Our Lord hath said, many will protest on that Judgment day, "but didn't we do many great things in Thy Name?" And the Lord will say, depart from Me, I never knew you. These are people of the Church who thought that they were Saved but will find out much to late that they were deluding themselves. They were doing their will, not God's will. How does scripture tell us how we really know him? (1st John 2:3-5) ..HEREBY we know, if we keep God's word. Theologians today are doing just the opposite, and because of this are learning the ways of disobedience.

Unbiblical Pastoral Advice!
    I recently received a letter from a divorcee, who told of how he married when he was young and didn't know any better, and how his wife ran off with her employer one day. He told me how his life was changed from one of despair to hope when a young Pastor in compassion told him that it was alright for him to divorce and marry another, because God wouldn't want him to be alone, or unhappy. He said God wasn't interested in us keeping the letter of the law and went on to tell me how she had (supposedly) already divorced him (by leaving him), and how he thought this was great Christian love by his Pastor to tell him that he was not bound to her in such a case. He said to me that this Pastor spoke not from the Word, but from the heart and showed compassion for him in declaring, "I don't think God wants you to suffer the rest of your life in loneliness because of what your wife has done."

Needless to say, he took the Pastor's unbiblical advice and divorced and remarried. Note the telling phrase of his letter, "..This Pastor spoke not from the Word, but from the heart.." Those were his exact words! And in this phrase lies the major problem with the Church today. They speak not from the Word, but from the heart.

Jeremiah 17:9

I don't want to sound insensitive, as I feel for people as much (or more) than anyone else, but let me say, all divorcees have a sad story to tell. All! He is not unique. If we eliminated all divorcees who had a hard luck story to tell from observance of the laws of God, we'd make a mockery of the laws of God. What he was talking about was earthly pleasures. Do we want to enjoy earthly pleasures for a season while trampling the Word of God underfoot? The end of that kind of thinking is death. We could use that type argument to do anything that we wanted. He says his life was in despair, but someone could could just as easily say their life was in despair because they couldn't have a fine house, and so they'll trample God's Word 'not to steal' underfoot so that they can have fine things. It's the very same thing. Put ourselves first, and God's Word last. This is nothing more than situation ethics and carnal thinking. What ever happened to, "..My Grace is sufficient for thee?" Should we change it to, "Grace is not enough, we need a wife, or new furniture, or loving friends?"

Who has deceived us in telling us that not being married was a cause for great despair? Rather than leaning on the words of our unrighteous Pastors or friends, or feeling sorry for ourselves, we should lean upon the Word of God, and He would have taken away that despair from us. Not only can He do it, He would do it.

To this man, his friend giving him unbiblical advice was 'Christian love' when in fact it wasn't love at all, nor was it Christian. It was unrighteous and unchristian.

1st John 5:2

Real friends won't tell us to divorce despite God's commandments not to. Real 'love' would never support our disobeying God's Words. Real Christian love would not tell us in effect, it was God's Word of no divorce that was keeping you in despair (and let's not play games, that's what the Pastor was telling him). Real Christian love would have told him God's commandments of 'No Divorce, and no remarriage,' though seemingly harsh at the moment, was really for his own good, and that God would sustain him. Real Christian love would have told him God's commandments are not grievous, and keeping them is a joy, not a cause for despair. He should have counseled him to fill up that empty space his wife left with Christ, who would turn his sorrow into joy. Christ will guide us through that bad times, and when we feel we can't make it, Christ would carry us. That's real Christian love of the brethren. It is in understanding that this is not our home. We are strangers and pilgrims here. We need to receive that truth, and to start living by it.

Of course there are many theologians today who don't really like what I'm saying. Nevertheless, faith and trust in the Lord is underrated in the Church. Had this man taken his eyes off himself and put then squarely on Christ, he would have known more love and comfort than any Pastor could ever give. Rather than feel sorry for ourselves, we must take all our heavy burdens, and lay them down at the feet of the Lord. There is no real happiness in rejoicing for a season in the disregarding of the laws of the Lord. If Moses thought only of himself, his life, and his happiness on this earth, he would have probably become ruler of Egypt as the Son of Pharaoh's Daughter, but he chose instead to suffer and be among the Children of God. What would it really profit him to be king for a season, and lose his own soul? We wouldn't be surprised if the friends of his day were telling him that he's a fool to put his faith in God instead of enjoying the rich life on earth in Egypt. He's a human being, God made him so he could enjoy the pleasures of this world. Why be poor, driven out, persecuted, alone and in despair when you can be an earthly king?

Hebrews 11:24

The treasure of keeping the Word of God is 'greater' than any earthly pleasure derived from forsaking the commandments of God. Divorce and remarriage for the temporal pleasures of this life for a season only last a minute in relationship to eternity. God says that is not love, and God assures us that His commandments are not grievous. Love (in His defining of it) is keeping His commandments faithfully. If we think that they are/were grievous, then perhaps the problem is deeper than we think.

If we think God's commandments are grievous and we can't keep them, and we don't have the God given earnest desire to 'do' the will of God rather than our own, then we don't have this evidence of true Salvation. No, it's not a cakewalk, but we overcome the world in Christ. For He strengthens us.

Calling this Pastor's advice to this man misguided is being charitable. When he said, "I don't think God intends for you to suffer loneliness the rest of your life because of what your wife has done," that's the only truthful thing that he stated. For God indeed doesn't intend us to suffer loneliness the rest of our life. God intends us to 'understand' that when we are in Christ, we are never alone. And when we forsake the Word of God for friend or foe, for mother or father, for love of Money, or for the love of ourselves, we indeed do walk alone.

Proverbs 3:5

I don't have to point out how misguided and unbiblical man is in his forsaking the Word of God and judging by what is right in his own eyes, for God does. If we will receive it. While the man in this letter seemed to take comfort in the fact that the unfaithful Pastor spoke from his heart and not from the Word, as faithful Christians we should always speak or witness from the Word of God. Then and only then have we truly spoken with a loving heart. Not in man's eyes perhaps, but in God's eyes. Instead of speaking from the heart of man (which is desperately wicked) let us do what is right in God's eyes, and speak the testimony of His Word. Let us examine 'the heart' in light of God's Word, not with the scales of our own.

Psalms 119:2

Psalms 119:7 Psalms 119:10 Psalms 119:11 Psalms 119:32 Psalms 119:34 Psalms 119:36 Psalms 119:69 Psalms 119:111 Psalms 119:112 Psalms 119:161 Do we get the idea that a true Christian speaking from His heart, speaks from the Word of God? In truth we see how intimately they are related in those verses. A Christian who speaks with the love of God from the heart to us would exhort the faithfulness of keeping God's commandments, that are not grievous. He stands in awe of God's Word with Godly fear and reverence. Unfortunately, today the Church seems to only stand in awe of it's own words that masquerade as God's precepts. How many times must we hear the old, "..I don't think God would want this, or ..I don't think that God would want that." What we should be hearing is, "Thus saith the Lord.." or "it is written.." It's the difference between leaning unto the Word of God, and leaning unto thine own understanding.

What was most troubling in this letter was when he told me that this Pastor was guided by his faith, his compassion, and scripture, that to the best of his ability he led him through a difficult time. But Faith? It was his faith in the sound of his own voice, because it certainly wasn't his faith in the Word of God. And his knowledge of the scripture was to counsel this man to ignore it, because God wouldn't want him to be lonely.

1st Corinthians 7:10

Instead, the Pastor counseled, She left you, forget about her, remarry. What form of wresting of God's laws is this? And he closed by telling me, "Real Life, it's hard to avoid." He's right about that. But It's always been. It didn't just start getting hard in our generation, or after divorce became so popular and so easy to get. No one promised us a rose garden. No one said it would be easy. But God did say it was till death do us part, and whosoever could not receive that should not marry. What God hath joined together has become one flesh and man in no wise should pull it apart.

Let me say that contrary to what some might think, it would be so easy for me and other faithful Christians to sit here and be like everyone else and parrot the line that it was a loving Christian act and that this pastor did the right thing. Sure, I could follow what is right in my own eyes, and get pats on the back saying how sympathetic and caring I was, but that is not the Christian way. But there is no one who need worry about a lack of that kind of unbiblical counsel, for there are more than enough Pastors and Churches who will tell anyone willing to listen "whatever they want to hear." But I cannot in good conscience tell anyone what I know is untrue. Those 12 verses of Psalms 119 explained what a Christian speaking from the heart really was. That was giving Biblical counsel, not humanistic reasoning.

I should also relate that when talking with this person, I got the impression that what the Word of God really said was 'immaterial' to the question. He might just as well have come right out and said, "..I don't care what GOD says, I'm going to do whatever I think is best." Friend, I am not judgmental but the Word of God is judgmental. It always has been. It's only the Church of our day who wants to smooth the edges and make what has always been Hot and cold, a lukewarm compromise.

If we're looking for someone to speak to us things that aren't true and that are smooth so that we can feel good about unrighteousness, we won't lack for such theologians or teachers. For the truth is hard for the prideful to swallow, and few there be that want to hear it. But the righteous will light our paths with the Word of God, while the unrighteous will turn us to the right hand and to the left that we not stay on the straight and narrow. Satan has always been the great deceiver. Calling good evil and evil good and taking what God has said, and retorting, "hath God said," has always been the way of death. Even from the very beginning. Well hath Isaiah said,

Isaiah 30:8

If that's what we want, lying lips prophesying smooth things instead of the truth concerning divorce, then that is what we will get. There is no shortage of those calling themselves Christians who will tell us these things, saying, "Peace, Peace, when there is no Peace." But the truth is in obeying God's commandments that are not grievous.

While I corresponded with this man extensively, I didn't personally know him, I didn't know his new wife, his children, his parents, his brothers and sisters or any of their life. And I didn't have to in order to counsel Him to follow God's Word faithfully. Did I have to know him to know what the Word of God says? Would the Word of God change if I had known his circumstances personally? No, of course not! Knowing him is not the point, the point is, are we going to keep God's Word, or lean unto our own understanding depending upon circumstances. That's the point. Whether it's him, the guy down the street, the guy in Spain, or in Africa, is insignificant. If they transgress the law, it is sin to them. Not just for the 'other guy,' to all of us. We all think we're special and our situation is special, but God didn't make an exemption for the guy who put his hand forth to try and help steady the Ark when the Oxen stumbled. God struck him down 'dead' (1st Chrn 13:9). Because He, knowing God's Word not to touch it, did what was right in his own eyes anyway. He disobeyed God's Word, just like this man did. God's Word is not subject to 'situation ethics.' There are no grey areas. And let that be a lesson to all of US. God is not mocked in our justifying disobedience to what He has declared.

I condemn no one, I can only bear faithful testimony or witness to the word of God. Today's Church doesn't want to hear it. The reaction to those few of us left teaching that "there should not be divorce at all," brings to mind righteous Micaiah the prophet. The people didn't want to listen to him as they wanted to listen to all the other prophets who all told them GOOD THINGS. And the King said, I HATE Micaiah (1st Kings 22:8) because he doesn't prophesy good things concerning me.

1st Kings 22:13

And what is righteous Micaiah's reply? Does he say, "you're right, since everyone else is LYING to you and telling you what you want to hear, I might as well do the same?" God Forbid! His reply was as every faithful Christian's should be.

1st King's 22:14

The fool says, "There is the intellectual world of words and ideas, and then there is life, the substance behind the words." But the truth is, the only life that is the substance behind the words is the Life in Christ. Not the life in this world. This is not our home, we're just passing through, as it were. Without Christ, we have no life. Just a miserable temporary existence before the judgment.

John 5:39

Did Jesus say, Hey guys, don't worry about God's will, don't worry that you have the scriptures all wrong, you'll be Saved anyway? No, He told them to search the scriptures, because they 'thought' that they had eternal life when obviously they were mistaken. Deadly mistaken. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. So then, I have no doubt that if Jesus was here today (which He is) he would tell the Church, Search the scriptures, for you think you are Saved, but you don't understand the scriptures at all. Hereby know ye that you are saved, if you KEEP the word of God.

So many Theologians are looking to Old Testament examples to justify New Testament realities. Their retort is most often, "in Deuteronomy, God allowed divorce in the Old testament by the law of Moses, and the law doesn't change, therefore we can divorce in the New Testament." However, they turn right around and refuse to make the same claim with other clear Old Testament laws. Example:

Deuteronomy 23:2

Will they say a person of a mixed race or born out of wedlock cannot be saved, or enter a congregation? Of course they won't, and this is just another proof that they are simply selectively enforcing Old Testament laws, 'as they see fit' and according to which ones they wish to claim are still valid. Rather, they should understand they are all valid, but fulfilled in Christ. They were to be observed literally temporarily, but now Christ commands us to go and preach the gospel to all nations, and peoples and tongues, to sinners and prostitutes, to Jews and Gentiles, baptizing them 'all' and teaching them of these truths. Everyone in the Church realizes this about these verses, but some wish to ignore this principle when it suits their own purposes, such as Christ saying Moses gave this for the hardness of their heart, but is now not to be so. Christ lived and taught under the dispensation of the law (Gal. 4:4), and so He observed Old Testament ordinances such as the passover (a law of Moses), etc., but none of these theologians would dare claim we are to do so today. So it is obvious that their justification on those grounds is seriously flawed. The allowing for divorce was to 'signify' the divorcing of Old Testament Israel because of her sin, and that New Testament Israel could never be divorced, because we don't stand by law, but by Grace.

So this brings us to the question of what to do if we are faced with the prospect of divorce? First of all, we as Christians should never seek or agree to a divorce.

1st Corinthians 7:27

If we are bound in marriage, we are commanded not to seek to be loosed (we are bound so long as we live - let not man pull asunder). Christ would be contradicting Himself if He said we can seek to be loosed in divorce. We should never as Christians seek a divorce, nor should we ever rationalize this because we are married to an unbelieving spouse, as God may save them through our witness. However, if we have an unbelieving spouse who insists on getting a divorce, there is nothing we can do but let him/her leave.

1st Corinthians 7:15-16

A few words about this verse as some Christians make the false claim that this verse 'implies' that Christians are no longer bound to the spouse. However you will note that they are using subterfuge because this word 'bondage' is a totally different word from the word used for the binding of marriage. For example, a few verses down we read:

1st Corinthians 7:39

This word bound is the Greek word [deo], meaning to bind or be tied together. That's the unbreakable binding or knitting together in marriage. By contrast, this word in 1st Corinthians 7:15 is 'bondage' meaning servitude, not bound, as in tied together. it is the Greek word [douloo] meaning to be a slave or a servant. So 1st Corinthians is not saying the marriage binding is broken, but is saying that the wife is not as a bond servant to cling to the unbelieving spouse (as a slave) when the unbeliever no longer wants her/him, but is called to peace. She is released from bondage, or from performing ‘wifely’ duties. The believer should let him/her go and should never attempt to divorce or remarry so long as the departed spouse lives (1st Corinthians 7:39). You can however be reconciled to that spouse so long as they have not taken another spouse in marriage. If they have married again, you may not remarry them, as that would be abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4).

If someone has gotten a divorce before they became a Christian, that does not change anything. The divorce was sin. If we have since become Saved, God has forgiven this sin along with all of his other sins, but we may not remarry so long as the spouse lives. There are several options here. If you or your spouse has not remarried, then you should seek to reconcile if possible, and if the spouse refuses, the only biblical option is to remain in your unmarried state, not thinking of remarriage, but service to the Lord.

1st Corinthians 7:20-22

As long as your spouse is still alive (married or unmarried), you may not remarry. For there is no divorce, and scripture is clear that there were multiple marriages recognized (not condoned) 'as legitimate marriages' in the Bible. Therefore, you cannot remarry while your husband or wife lives even though they be married to another. But if they are dead, the spouse is free to remarry.

If you yourself have remarried, you may not divorce, but honor your most recent vow. For it is a legal marriage. A divorce of the second partner would only compound an already sinful situation. We should stay with our spouse, but submit ourselves before God in mourning and repentance in recognition of this sin of remarriage. We must confess this sin in humility rather than justification of it with self serving rationalizations. When we approach God acknowledging our sins rather than excusing them, God is faithful to forgive us these sins, just as with any other sin.

James 4:6-10

Finally, if we would take our eyes off ourselves, place them solely on Christ where we receive what the scriptures say and stop rationalizing them away, we would come to understand that before a Holy God, marriage is a lifetime covenant relationship that should never be put asunder by man. In Malachi, God declares that He hates putting away (divorce, -Malachi 2:16). That's about as succinct, and yet as clear a statement as can be made. And so knowing that God hates divorce and permitted it only in the Old Covenant temporarily to put-away Israel, are we to conclude that now in the New Covenant period Jesus not only allows that which He hates, but that it is not a sin and He has strengthened the law allowing it. Does God hate that which is not a sin?

Jesus said, from the beginning God never intended for man to divorce his wife. God's divine and perfect will was the preservation of Godly society and future generations by the preservation of marriages. The problem today is that man can't see the forest for worrying about the trees. Marriage being until death do us part is part of His divine plan, which has been perverted in our day.

The excuses and reasons for abandonment of this divine plan are as numerous and as varied as dirt, but they all stem from a lack of security in Christ, and the secular idea that our ideals and strength is in ourselves. The true believer should seek contentment in the spouse God has assigned them. The truth is unpalatable to most people today, for life is not all about me, I, and my wants and needs. It's about serving God, and about the truth that God will give anyone His divine guidance and help in sustaining a marriage relationship, if they indeed want it. But there is the rub. Too many already have their mind made up, and are simply looking for an excuse to condone their actions. But God is the great restorer. He can both sustain us in a difficult marriage, or bring reconciliation of the estranged marriage partner. More often than not it's by His placing of humility within us, that we are delivered from sinful pride. Then are we led to the true understanding of, husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church.

In conclusion, what picture is our marriage painting? God intended the marriage covenant to be a picture of His faithfulness. It is illustrating the Blessed intimate relationship between Christ and His bride the Church. It is not an analogy which men make, but which God has made. Just as there is no intimacy with Christ before our eternal commitment, there is to be no intimacy before the marriage commitment. And just as the Church is to be subject unto her husband Christ, who sacrificed of Himself for it, the wife is to be subject unto her husband, and he is to sacrifice of himself for her. He is to unequivocally love her 'unconditionally' wherein he will never divorce her no matter what trial may come. i.e., love her as Christ loves the Church. These are not 'just words' they are commands.

Ephesians 5:22-25

This is what is missing today, true love which rises above our vain and selfish motives and pride of feeling hurt to the point of non-forgiveness. The Christlike love wherein He will not divorce the Church, though we sin against Him. He is faithful to not only 'truly' forgive us our sins, but that he will never leave us nor forsake us, though the good that we should do, we do not. In other words, the illustration that the Church, the bride of Christ, is an eternal Covenant relationship, an unbreakable bond. Likewise, the marriage relationship of a man and his wife is an unbreakable Covenant bond. From the beginning it was so, that the two should be joined into one, and that no man was to pull that union apart.


Copyright ©1995 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://www.mountainretreatorg.net

Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, so long as the copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the above article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, without cost, and unedited.

Created 5/11/95 / Last Modified 1/25/03
The Mountain Retreat / twarren10@aol.com

[ Top | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Other Papers | Sermons | Apologetics | F.A.Q. | Forum | Search ]