The Bible and Divorce

Matthew 5:31-32 Is Divorce the unpardonable sin? Matthew 12:31-32 (NKJV) "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. The way many Christians treat divorced people you would think that divorce is the unpardonable sin. It is not! On the other extreme there are those who don't think that divorce is a sin at all. This morning I want us to look at what the Bible teaches on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Our society's view of divorce changes, but God's doesn't and the Bible gives us God's view on divorce. Divorce is an issue that effects us all. All of us are touched by it either in our own family or in our circle of friends. Between 1970 and 1996, the number of divorced persons has more than quadrupled, from 4.3 million to 18.3 million, while the number of never-married adults has more than doubled, from 21.4 million to 44.9 million, according to a recently released report by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau. Divorce has reached epidemic proportions in our society. There seems to be a lot of confusion among believers over what the Bible teaches about divorce. It's obvious that many churches have lowered the standard, and any believer who wants to get a divorce is often encouraged to do so. I know a woman who wanting a divorce asked several pastors if divorce was okay. They told her it was fine. Unscriptural divorce is one of the great evils of our time. Many churches are as lax in their divorce laws as were the ancient Pharisees who allowed divorce for "every cause." The New Testament law of divorce is strict. Jesus threw out all causes but the one cause of fornication. Did Jesus, restricting divorce to one cause, bind together men and women who are unhappily married? Yes! Why does He require that they continue their lifelong miserable existence, and leave them, as the poet John Milton said, "Two carcasses unnaturally chained together?" Why? Because they covenanted before God to love each other until death, not until unhappiness. While most have lowered God's standard, some have raised it. Some people look at the divorce rate and say, "We have to stop divorce." So, in order to stop divorce they come up with a doctrine that says, "No divorce for anybody, for any reason, and absolutely no re-marriage for anyone, anytime, who has been divorced." They look at the problem in our society and say, "In order to stop the problem, let's take the Bible's standard and raise

it." Now, that may sound good and that would sure make it simple but there is just one problem with it, it's not biblical. And therefore just as wrong as the lax view because it is not what God states as the standard either. So, on the one hand we have people lowering the standard and on the other hand we have people raising the standard. And what we must understand is what is God's standard, what do the Scriptures teach. Let's remember the words of Agustin, the 5th century church father, who said, "When Scripture speaks, God speaks." So, let's search the Scripture and learn the mind of God on divorce. The first thing that I want you to understand is that God hates divorce. Malachi 2:14-16 (NKJV) Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 "For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously." The Hebrew word for "hate" used here is ane', (saw-nay') and has the idea of "detest." God detests divorce. Has God changed His mind on this over the years? Malachi 3:6 (NKJV) "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. Does God view divorce differently in the New Testament? No! Let's look at what Jesus said in Matthew 19: Matthew 19:3 (NKJV) The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" The Pharisees wanted to bring Jesus a test He couldn't pass, they wanted to discredit and destroy Him. Divorce was a flaming issue throughout Palestine. This issue is known in Jewish history as the "Hillel-Shammai" dispute. Hillel and Shammai were two famous Rabbis who were heads of rabbinical schools in Jerusalem. They lived about a generation before Christ. Hillel taught that a Jew could divorce his wife for any cause whatsoever. Shammai held that divorce was lawful only for the cause of fornication. Rabbi Shammai didn't have a great following because his view wasn't popular with the people. Rabbi Hillel's view was very popular. He taught that you could divorce your wife for burning the dinner, for putting too much salt on the food, for taking her hair down, for speaking to men, or for saying something unkind about her mother-in-law. You could

even divorce her if you found someone prettier. In other words, you could divorce your wife for any reason at all. This was the popular view and the view that the Pharisees taught. The Pharisees were hoping to have Jesus publicly pronounce the reigning monarch of the area as a fornicating adulterer, and thus put his life in jeopardy. Matthew 19:4 (NKJV) And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' Jesus' answer was beyond their customs, beyond their Rabbis, and beyond their traditions all the way back to what God said in the very beginning in: Genesis 1:27 (NKJV) So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 2:24 (NKJV) Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. When Jesus said, "Have you not read" He was pointing out their utter ignorance-- "You have read the law haven't you?" Jesus quotes from Genesis and gives four reasons why it is not lawful to divorce for any cause. 1. God created One man for one woman (Matthew 19:4). God created Adam and Eve. That's it! He didn't create any spares, no Ethel and no Earnest, (just in case it doesn't work, try somebody else). There was nobody else, no spares, options or alternatives. The Divine intention in the very beginning was one man for one woman for a lifetime. He didn't make provision for polygamy, divorce or homosexuality by creating spares. For Adam and Eve divorce was not an option. When God created one man for one woman, He set that standard in motion for all of human history. Just because spares came along as time went on, it didn't change God's intention. 2. Marriage is a strong bond: Matthew 19:5 (NKJV) "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? The word "joined" means: "To have a bond that cannot be broken, being glued or stuck." So God doesn't allow divorce because He created one man for one woman, because of the strong bond of an indissoluble union with no option.

3. Marriage make the two one flesh. Matthew 19:6 (NKJV) "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." You can't divide one. In marriage two people become one flesh. 4. Marriage is a work of God. Matthew 19:6 (NKJV) "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." The word "separate" is the Greek word chorizo, which means: "to divorce." What God puts together, don't divorce. Marriage is a God ordained institution. Marriage is one man for one woman, it is a strong bond, it is two becoming one flesh, and God is the one who made marriage. So, if we divorce, we are destroying what God made and placing ourselves in a very serious position. The Word of God is very clear on this. Exodus 20:14 (NKJV) "You shall not commit adultery. This is saying, "Never violate marriage." The consequence for adultery in the Old Testament was death: Leviticus 20:10 (NKJV) 'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. We see here that adultery could end a marriage. Why adultery? Because according to God's law it resulted in death and there is little question that death ended a marriage. God says, "One man for one woman, strong bond, one flesh, work of God, no divorce." And if you commit adultery, you loose your life. There really was no provision for divorce. In the case of adultery, however, execution would free the innocent party to remarry. Exodus 20:17 (NKJV) "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's." This is saying, "Don't even think about committing adultery." Matthew 19:7-9 (NKJV) They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

In verses 7 and 8, Jesus says the divorce bill was a provision given because of their sinfulness, "but from the beginning it was not so." Then in verse 9, He gives the biblical standard; 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." Divorce was not permitted "except" in the case of fornication. This is the one and only ground for two believers getting divorced. And I believe that where there are grounds for divorce, there must also be grounds for re-marriage. Matthew 19:10 (NKJV) His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Many of the rabbinic sayings were no doubt being thought of by the disciples. The Rabbis had many sayings about unhappy marriages. "Among those who will never behold the face of Gehinnom is he who has had a bad wife." Such a man is saved from hell because he has expiated his sins on earth! "Among those whose life is not life is the man who is ruled by his wife." "A bad wife is like leprosy to her husband. What is the remedy? Let him divorce her and be cured of his leprosy." it was even laid down: "If a man has a bad wife, it is a religious duty to divorce her." (These sayings are from the Talmud.) To men who had been brought up listening to sayings like these, the uncompromising demand of Jesus was an almost frightening thing. Their reaction was that, if marriage is so final and binding a relationship and if divorce is forbidden, it is better not to marry at all, for there is no escape route-- as they understood it-- from an evil situation. The teaching of the Bible is far different from the teaching of the talmud. The Bible holds marriage in high regard. Proverbs 18:22 (NKJV) He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favor from the LORD. Let's go to Matthew 5 and examine the one exception to the Bible's no divorce rule. Matthew 5:31-32 (NKJV) "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Jesus here is narrowing the standard to one exception-- fornication. In verse 31, Jesus refers to Israel's official divorce bill used by the Jews for about 14 centuries.

To understand this divorce question in the New Testament, we must know the history of divorce in the Old Testament. A rule of biblical interpretation is the "rule of usage." The whole Bible may be regarded as written for the "Jew first" and its words and idioms ought to be rendered according to Hebrew usage. All a Jew had to do to divorce his wife was to give her the divorce bill in the presence of two witnesses. The marriage was then legally dissolved and both parties were free to remarry. Deuteronomy 24:1-2 (NKJV) "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 "when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, What is the uncleanness? Some argue that it was immorality, but this can't be true because the unfaithful Jewess was stoned to death. Leviticus 20:10 (NKJV) 'The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. Jesus wouldn't have said that divorce was for hardness of heart (Matt. 19:8) if the woman had been immoral. This is proved by the fact that Jesus allowed divorce for fornication. I want you to see here that at the origin of divorce, the evidence is clear and strong that biblical divorce signified the absolute dissolution of marriage with the right to remarriage. Divorce was widespread throughout Palestine when Christ uttered the words of Matthew 5:32. People were divorcing for every cause. John 4:16-18 (NKJV) Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." 17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband,' 18 "for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly." This woman was not an exceptional case. Jesus seems to have given recognition to the legality of the fact that the woman had been married to five husbands, but the man she was living with was "not her husband." This is a clear distinction of marital status. In Matthew 5:32, our Lord shows that the man who divorces his wife for any cause except fornication causes her to commit adultery in re-marriage. The Lord assumed that the woman would remarry. The reason she commits adultery is that she becomes involved in sexual sin with another man while still the wife of the man who divorced her. The divorce did not dissolve the marriage. She was still his wife and he was still her

husband. The woman did not have the right to re-marriage, neither did her husband. Both sin if they remarry or enter into sexual relations with another. In this case, an undissolved marriage is clearly in view. The divorce leaves the couple still married. The question of dissolution is at the heart of the matter. If the husband put away his wife for fornication, the case is different. The marriage is dissolved and the man is not involved in the sin that the woman commits. Biblical divorce dissolves a marriage. Under Mosaic law, marriage was held so sacred that both the betrothed bride and adulterous wife were put to death for unfaithfulness (Deut. 22:23-24). Sometime after Moses, merciful Jews abolished the death penalty for adultery and substituted the divorce bill. Jesus didn't abolish the divorce bill, He corrected the abuse of it. It wasn't to be used for every cause, but only for fornication. Fornication is the one exception to Jesus' no divorce policy. Matthew 5:32 (NKJV) "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. The word "divorces" is the Greek word apoluo, which means: "To set free, to loose, liberate, radically dissolved, cut loose, as a ship at its launching; discharge, as a soldier from the army; cut apart, to cause all obligation and responsibility to cease." In a biblically authorized divorce (one involving fornication) the wedding chain is broken and the nuptial captive is released, and free to remarry. The word "except" has far reaching importance attached to it. The question of remarriage hangs on it. Does it allow divorce but not remarriage? Except means: "to take out, outside of, to exclude, to leave out, apart from." When a person hears the word "except," he immediately thinks of "not including." He assumes that whatever is excepted is left out. For example: every human being ever born will die and spend eternity in hell "except" those who trust Jesus Christ. So, when a person divorces for fornication, they are free to remarry. What exactly is "fornication?" Fornication and adultery are synonymous terms in the scriptures and they are often interchangeable. In Hebrew and Greek, fornication includes; incest, sodomy, harlotry, perversion and all sexual sin both before and after marriage. The Greek word for "fornication" is porneia. 1 Corinthians 10:8 (NKJV) Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;

The words, "sexual immorality" here are porneuo. We see here that fornication is not just used for sex outside marriage. Certainly not all 23,000 were unmarried. The word encompasses both sex outside marriages and sex that would be constituted as adultery. So, Jesus taught that there is one ground for divorce which included the right to remarry-fornication. Bill Gothard, who does the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, tries to raise the biblical standard by saying that "fornication" means an incestuous or homosexual marriage. So, he says that only someone in one of those marriages can be divorced. He limits the meaning of the Greek word porneia to fit his view of no divorce. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: 24:5 Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract (Matt 1:18-20). In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce (Matt 5:31, 32): and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead (Matt 19:9; Rom 7:2, 3). Some may ask, "Is the exception clause valid? It's only in Matthew-- Luke and Mark give no exception." The synoptic Gospels add and delete different details. There is absolutely no textual ground for doubting the words in Matthew. Another question that might be asked is, "Well, from the beginning God did not allow for divorce, why would Christ change that?" Remember from the beginning men killed adulterous wives, no need to divorce them when they killed them. Fornication was an exception to all that Jesus taught about marriage and divorce. To those who have been divorced: The question might be, "I was a believer and so was my spouse and we were divorced without biblical grounds, what is my status?" You're a sinner! Confess your sin before God and return to fellowship, remembering you reap what you sow. "Is my service for God limited if I have had an unbiblical divorce?" Only in the capacity of elder or deacon. To the married and miserable: "Am I stuck in a life of misery?" No. But you are stuck with your spouse. If you live a life of dependant obedience to God and love your spouse , you can live a blessed life, no matter how your spouse responds. You're not responsible to change your spouse. You are responsible to change yourself. If your marriage is miserable, blame yourself, not your spouse. Then confess your sin and begin to trust God to give you the strength to live a life of obedience to Him.

Let's hold to the biblical standard without raising it or lowering it. God hates divorce, so may we, His people, strive to live godly lives that promote healthy marriages. This message preached by David B. Curtis on October 25, 1998

uments pt ece el r East er sia me

ls

y s A-G s H-M s N-Z hes haeology esources ory Science History rt ental

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

search

Customs graphy rophecies

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y

& Beliefs story Works Studies

DIVORCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Charts Warfare ry

ture

di-vors': 1. Subordinate Position of Woman: Woman, among the Hebrews, as among most nations of antiquity

occupied a subordinate position. Though the Hebrew wife and mo was treated with more consideration than her sister in other land in other Semitic countries, her position nevertheless was one of inferiority and subjection. The marriage relation from the standpo Hebrew legislation was looked upon very largely as a business af mere question of property. A wife, nevertheless, was, indeed, in m homes in Israel, the husband's "most valued possession." And ye this is true, the husband was unconditionally and unreservedly th of the family in all domestic relations. His rights and prerogatives manifest on every side. Nowhere is this more evident than in the of divorce. According to the laws of Moses a husband, under certa circumstances, might divorce his wife; on the other hand, if at all possible, it was certainly very difficult for a wife to put away her husband. Unfortunately a double standard of morality in matters pertaining to the sexes is, at least, as old as Moses (see Ex 7 thro 11). 2. Law of Divorce: Deuteronomy 24:1-4: The Old Testament law concerning divorce, apparently quite clea recorded most fully in Dt 24:1 ff. A perusal of the commentaries w nevertheless, convince anyone that there are difficulties of interpretation. The careful reader will notice that the renderings o King James Version and the Revised Version (British and America materially. the King James Version reads in the second part of Dt "then let him write a bill," etc., the Revised Version (British and American) has "that he shall write," etc., while the Hebrew origina neither "then" nor "that," but the simple conjunction "and." There certainly no command in the words of Moses, but, on the other ha clear purpose to render the proceeding more difficult in the case husband. Moses' aim was "to regulate and thus to mitigate an ev he could not extirpate." The evident purpose was, as far as possib favor the wife, and to protect her against an unceremonious expu from her home and children. 3. Marriage a Legal Contract: As already suggested, marriage among the Hebrews, as among m Orientals, was more a legal contract than the result of love or affe It would be, however, a great mistake to assume that deep love w often present, for at all times the domestic relations of the Hebre married couple have compared most favorably with those of any people, ancient or modern. In its last analysis it was, nevertheles business transaction. The husband or his family had, as a rule, to certain dowry to the parents or guardians of the betrothed before marriage was consummated. A wife thus acquired could easily be regarded as a piece of property, which, without great difficulty, c

disposed of in case the husband, for any reason, were disposed to himself of an uncongenial companion and willing to forfeit the mo which he had paid for his wife. The advantage was always with th husband, and yet a wife was not utterly helpless, for she, too, tho practically without legal rights, could make herself so intolerably burdensome and hateful in the home that almost any husband w gladly avail himself of his prerogatives and write her a bill of divorcement. Thus, though a wife could not divorce her husband, could force him to divorce her. 4. Divorce Applicable Only to Wives: The following words of Professor Israel Abrahams, Cambridge, En before "the Divorce Commission" (London, November 21, 1910), the point: "In all such cases where the wife was concerned as the moving party she could only demand that her husband should div her. The divorce was always from first to last, in Jewish law, the husband's act." The common term used in the Bible for divorce is shilluach 'ishshah, "the sending away of a wife" (Dt 22:19,29). We read of "the sending away of a husband." The feminine participle gerushah, "the woman thrust out," is the term applied to a divorc woman. The masculine form is not found. 5. Process and Exceptions: The Mosaic law apparently, on the side of the husband, made it a difficult as possible for him to secure a divorce. No man could unceremoniously and capriciously dismiss his wife without the semblance of a trial. In case one became dissatisfied with his wife had to write her a BILL OF DIVORCEMENT (which see) drawn up b constituted legal authority and in due legal form. In the very natu the case, such a tribunal would use moral suasion to induce an adjustment; and, failing in this, would see to it that the law in the whatever it might be, would be upheld. (2) Such a bill or decree m placed in the hand of the divorced wife. (3) She must be forced to the premises of her former husband. Divorce was denied two clas husbands: (1) The man who had falsely accused his wife of anten infidelity (Dt 22:13 ff), and (2) a person who had seduced. a virgin 22:28 f). In addition, a heavy penalty had to be paid to the father damsels. It is probable that a divorced wife who had not contracted a seco marriage or had been guilty of adultery might be reunited to her husband. But in case she had married the second time she was fo barred from returning to her first husband, even if the second hus had divorced her or had died (Dt 24:3 f). Such a law would serve obstacle to hasty divorces. Divorces from the earliest times were common among the Hebre

rabbis agree that a separation, though not desirable, was quite la The only source of dispute among them was as to what constitute valid reason or just cause. 6. Grounds of Divorce (Doubtful Meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1): The language in Dt 24:1 ff has always been in dispute. The Hebre words, `erwath dabhar, on which a correct interpretation depend not easy of solution, though many exegetes, influenced possibly some preconceived notion, pass over them quite flippantly. The p troubled the Jewish rabbis of olden times, as it does Jewish and C commentators and translators in our day. the King James Version renders the two words, "some uncleanness," and in the margin, " of nakedness." The latter, though a literal translation of the Hebre quite unintelligible. the Revised Version (British and American) an American Standard Revised Version both have: "some unseemly Professor Driver translates the same words "some indecency." Th German the Revised Version (British and American) (Kautzsch) ha "etwas Widerwartiges" ("something repulsive"). We know of no m version which makes `erwath dabhar the equivalent of fornication adultery. And, indeed, in the very nature of the case, we are force make the words apply to a minor fault or crime, for, by the Mosai the penalty for adultery was death (Dt 22:20 ff). It is, however, a question whether the extreme penalty was ever enforced. It is we known that at, and some time before, the time of our Saviour, the were two schools among the Jewish rabbis, that of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai and his followers maintained that 'erwath dabhar signified nothing less than unchastity or adultery, and argued tha this crime justified a man in divorcing his wife. Hillel and his disci went to the other extreme. They placed great stress upon the wo she find no favor in his eyes" immediately preceding `erwath dab 24:1), and contended that divorce should be granted for the flims reason: such as the spoiling of a dish either by burning or careles seasoning. Some of the rabbis boldly taught that a man had a pe right to dismiss his wife, if he found another woman whom he like better, or who was more beautiful (Mishnah, GiTTin, 14 10). Here some other specifications taken from the same book: "The follow women may be divorced: She who violates the Law of Moses, e.g her husband to eat food which has not been tithed. .... She who v but does not keep her vows. .... She who goes out on the street w hair loose, or spins in the street, or converses (flirts) with any ma a noisy woman. What is a noisy woman? It is one who speaks in h house so loud that the neighbors may hear her." It would be easy extend the list, for the Mishna and rabbinic writings are full of suc From what has been said, it is clear that adultery was not the onl

reason for divorce. Besides, the word adultery had a peculiar significance in Jewish law, which recognized polygamy and concu as legitimate. Thus a Hebrew might have two or more wives or concubines, and might have intercourse with a slave or bondwom even if married, without being guilty of the crime of adultery (Lev 19:20), for adultery, according to Jewish law, was possible only w man dishonored the "free wife" of a Hebrew (Lev 20:10 ff). Divorcement, Bill of: This expression, found in Dt 24:1,3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8 is the transla the Hebrew cepher kerithuth. The two words, literally rendered, s document or book of cutting off, i.e. a certificate of divorce given husband to a wife, so as to afford her the opportunity or privilege marrying another man. The Hebrew term is rendered by the Sept biblion apostasion. This is also found in the New Testament (Mk 1 5:31 has "writing of divorcement" in English Versions of the Bible 19:7 the King James Version has "writing," while the Revised Vers (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Versio "bill." The certificate of divorce is called geT, plural giTTin, in the Talmud. There is an entire chapter devoted to the subjects in the It is not positively known when the custom of writing bills of divor commenced, but there are references to such documents in the e Hebrew legislation. The fact that Joseph had in mind the putting a his espoused wife, Mary, without the formality of a bill or at least public procedure proves that a decree was not regarded as absol necessary (Mt 1:19). The following was the usual form of a decree "On the____day of the week____in the month____in the year____fro beginning of the world, according to the common computation in province of____I____the son of____by whatever name I may be kno the town of____with entire consent of mind, and without any cons have divorced, dismissed and expelled thee____daughter of____by whatever name thou art called, of the town who hast been my wi hitherto; But now I have dismissed thee____the daughter of____by whatever name thou art called, of the town of____so as to be free own disposal, to marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without hindra from anyone, from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for a (who would marry thee). Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Is ____, the son of____, witness Spiritual Application. The Hebrew prophets regarded Yahweh not only as the father and of the chosen people, and thus entitled to perfect obedience and on their part, but they conceived of Him as a husband married to Isaiah, speaking to his nation, says: "For thy Maker is thy husband

Yahweh of hosts is his name" (54:5). Jeremiah too makes use of s language in the following: "Return, O backsliding children, saith Y for I am a husband unto you" (3:14). It is perfectly natural that Ne Testament writers should have regarded Christ's relation to His c under the same figure. Paul in 2 Cor says: "I am jealous over you godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might p you as a pure virgin to Christ" (11:2); see also Mt 9:15; Jn 3:29; R Any unfaithfulness or sin on the part of Israel was regarded as sp adultery, which necessarily broke off the spiritual ties, and divorc nation from God (Isa 1:21; Ezek 16:22; Rev 2:22). See also MARRIAGE.

LITERATURE. Amram, Jewish Law of Divorce according to the Bible and Talmud London, 1897; Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, London, Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898; The Mishna, Translated into English, De Sola and Raphall, London, 1843; Benz Hebraische Archdalogie, Freiburg, 1894; Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archdologie, 1894. W. W. Davies

Bibliography Information Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Definition for 'DIVORCE IN TESTAMENT'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". biblehistory.com - ISBE; 1915. Copyright Information International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Home Bible History Online Home Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) Online Bible (KJV) Naves Topical Bible Smith's Bible Dictionary Easton's Bible Dictionary Fausset's Bible Dictionary Hitchcock's Bible Dictionary

Divorce and Remarriage

What Should Christians Know?

Divorce in Christ's Time Divorce Regulations What Ervah Means What Is Porneia? What Zanah Means "Hath Found Some Uncleanness" When Can the Exception Clause Be Used? What Christians Should Know

Divorce can be described only as the American tragedy. The United States leads the world in divorces; the national average is one out of two marriages. In some localities the rate is even greater. The moral, economic, and emotional costs can hardly be calculated. And, along with the great civilizations in the past whose dominance in world leadership declined as the divorce rate went up, the United States, the bulwark of the West, is rapidly following suit. The present generation can be likened to that of the time of Christ when divorce was so rampant. He labeled it "an evil and adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39).

In any groupclub, society, lodge, association, fraternity, or churchwill be found divorced singles and remarried couples. This is an inescapable fact of life

which cannot be altered. It is a major concern for the conscientious Christian, not only because of the effect divorce has on society in general, but because of its potential harm to the church. Some churches, in order to protect themselves against this possible moral intrusion, have set up administrative apparatuses designed to prevent the divorced from tainting the Body of Christministerial machinery which calls for a committee to evaluate all prospective members for the purpose of determining who is and who is not legally married in the sight of God. Those found to be "living in adultery" are required to separate in order to enter into church fellowship. Of a certainty these committee decisions are based on "doctrinal" considerationswhat constitutes a marriage in God's sight and what conditions must be taken into account in order to determine one's marital state.

Old-time members of the Church of God are well aware of what was both spoken and published regarding the sanctity of marriage. They knew from the Old Testament that divorce was permitted and that a betrothal was considered a marriage even though it had not been consummated. A betrothal was a completed contract legalized by a payment called the mohar. Once this payment was made the girl was legally married, which explains why one who violated a betrothed woman was regarded as an adulterer. Marriage, then, from the Old Testament teaching was a type of the covenant relationship God made with ancient Israel, clearly demonstrated to be a marriage (Ezek. 16:8; Jer. 3:14). Church members knew that the New Testament teaching expands and amplifies that of the Old Testament. Christ made it clear that marriages were bound for life and that the only justification for divorce was "fornication" (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). These are the Bible teachings the laymembers of Church of God were told, but there was a vast amount of information having to do with the administrationdeciding who was married and who was notthey were not told. They were not informed of these technicalities for obvious reasons. Since it was the "duty" of the ministry to determine who was married and who was not, these matters were not the laymembers' concern, unless they were members or prospective members directly involved in a divorce and remarriage situation. This leads to a number of questions. If divorce and remarriage cases were determined by the ministry in the past, why should not this be done today? If not, why not? Does the failure of the ministry to decide divorce and remarriage cases constitute a dereliction of duty? And what is necessary for the laymember to know regarding the subject of divorce and remarriage?

One thing can be said about the past church administration of the divorce and remarriage doctrine. It gave the membership a sense of security, a feeling that

somehow the church was free from the corrupting influence of "adulterers." But there was one thing wrong. The decisions reached regarding divorced persons were entirely predicated upon the evaluations of fallible men, and when the doctrinal changes occurred in the early 1970s all confidence in the ministry and in the truth regarding divorce and remarriage ended. In fact, this loss of confidence in the doctrine of divorce and remarriage, which was generated by a faulty administrative system, was a fait accompli long before any doctrinal changes took place. It occurred because of an utter failure on behalf of the leadership to recognize that the problems involved in the entire divorce and remarriage matter were administrative, not doctrinal.

The New Testament makes plain that the church is not the continuation of the Old Testament monarchythe letter-of-the-law administration. Obedience under the terms of the New Covenant is to be from the heart, not predicated upon a fear of men in authority who have the "power of life and death" at their disposal. The power of life and death is in the hands of God alone. It is God and His Truth men should come to fear and respect. It is the duty of the ministry to shepherd the flock, to preach the truth, to set the example. It is the duty of the membership to live up to what is taught, according to the best of their ability. Church government is for the purpose of carrying out God's intent for the body as a whole, for preventing the spread of heresy, to maintain peace and brotherhood. Christ did not place government in His Church for the purpose of exercising authority over the personal lives of the membership. There are many matters of conscience that must be left to each individual to decide. Paul said, "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God" (Rom. 14:22). Of the ministry he stated, "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand" (2 Cor. 1:24). It is not the responsibility of the ministry to involve itself in the myriad decisions required in each laymember's life. It is the duty of the ministry to preach the truth, but it is the duty of each laymember to decide how to live that truth based on his or her own level of faith.

How personal and subjective is one's involvement in a divorce and remarriage situation? Is it really possible for any outside party, apart from God, to be able to truly ascertain what was initially in each individual's heart and mind at such a crucial period in lifea time and event that often goes back years or decades? It has been correctly stated that there is no example in the entire New Testament of any divorce and remarriage decision. Wisely so. This absence can mean one thing only. The apostles and ministers of the New Testament church did not involve themselves in divorce and remarriage decisions. This was the

responsibility of the parties involved, just as were all other spiritual matters. A church ministry choosing to assume this responsibility is asking for many problems and much sorrow. Men simply do not have the capability and discernment of God to read hearts and minds. The many technicalities involving divorce and remarriage decisions were held in confidence by the ministry of the Church of God. From their viewpoint, when the doctrine itself was discarded there was no need to make this information known. Since the New Testament makes it obvious that the responsibility to decide the disposition of divorce and remarriage cases is left up to the parties involved, it is imperative that these technicalities be made known. This is the purpose of this article.

Divorce in Christ's Time

That divorce was common in Christ's time can be seen by His remarks regarding divorce and remarriage. He stated, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:3132).

Christ's statement challenged the commonly accepted Jewish practice. Immediately the Jews responded to this challenge. When Christ said, "It hath been said . . ." He was referring to a precedent. This precedent is found in Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four. The Jews said to Him, ". . . Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" (Matt. 19:7). Notice in Matthew, chapter nineteen, the Jews had asked Him, ". . . Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (v. 3). This was a loaded question, intended to drag Jesus into the divorce and remarriage controversy between the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai. In Deuteronomy it states, "When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness [matter of nakedness] in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (Deut. 24:1). The School of Shammai interpreted this uncleanness or indecency to mean unchastity, a breach of conjugal fidelity, or adultery. The School of Hillel emphasized the clause, "that she find no favour in his eyes," and interpreted the verse to mean one could divorce his wife for any cause, no matter how trivial. Jesus refused to be dragged into the controversy but

instead went back to the very beginning of marriage. He said, ". . . Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:46). Jesus knew the first question was loaded and quickly saw that their following question was inaccurate. "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" (v. 7). Moses did not command a writing of divorcement. Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, is the Word of God, not the permission of Moses (Ex. 21; Deut. 6:1; 11:1; 12:1). What God permitted, by adding additional restraints, was a long prevailing practice too deeply entrenched to be set aside. Divorce was taken for granted (Lev. 21:7). God's intention was to prevent even greater evils by a people who, by reason of contact with Egypt's practice of trial marriages and divorce, would stop at nothing to rid themselves of unwanted wives. This law required a written document which involved legal formalities. It was to be given into the repudiated wife's hand either privately or publicly in the presence of two witnesses. And if the divorced wife remarried, under no circumstances could she ever remarry her first husband. What Moses permitted was above and beyond this Law of God in Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four. He "suffered" them to put away their wives for every cause, and it was this practice which continued to the time of Christ. This was why Jesus said, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:8).

So, what we see is that in Christ's day divorce was practiced for every cause. The Jews reacted to Christ's statements because they were following the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. The result of these teachings was rampant divorce. Christ's response was to go back to the foundational principlemarriage is the making of one out of two and is bound for life; divorce is the cutting asunder of this union. In order to justify their practice of divorce the Jews appealed to Moses, thus making Moses appear to be in opposition to Christ. What was given in Deuteronomy was not the permission Moses granted. The Jews failed to recognize that what Moses permitted was not the original Biblical principle ordained at Creation. What Moses permitted was above and beyond what is found in the statutes and judgments of God. Therefore, any appeal to Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, was not an appeal to Moses since these were the instructions of God.

In Matthew, chapter nineteen, Christ's teaching on divorce and remarriage is clear. After stating that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their

hearts, Jesus said, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (v. 9). What Jesus was correcting by this statement was the wrong interpretation given Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, by the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, was not the permission Moses granted. Since Christ was the God of the Old Testament (1 Cor. 10:4), Deuteronomy is Christ's instruction. He, as the Word or Spokesman, came to magnify the Law and make it honorable (Isa. 42:21). Christ referred to, as recorded in Matthew, both chapters five and nineteen, a writing of divorcement. The only text in the law that refers to a writing of divorcement is Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four. It is this text that is pivotal in understanding the Bible teaching on divorce and remarriage.

In Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, we read: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled" (vv. 14). This is the only text which contains an exception clause and includes a writing of divorcement. This exception clause is ". . . that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness [matter of nakedness] in her. . . ." The Hebrew for "uncleanness" or "matter of nakedness" is ervah. Is Jesus Christ, the God of the Old Testament, the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), now contradicting in Matthew, chapter five and nineteen, what He stated in Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four? Or, is He merely repeating the same exception rule which He gave during the time of Moses? An examination of the Hebrew and Greek words involved in these texts will decisively answer these questions.

Divorce Regulations

Before examining the Hebrew and Greek words regarding "matter of nakedness" and "fornication," it would be beneficial to look at some of the divorce regulations found in the Old Testament. As noted earlier, divorce as an institution

was taken for granted. In Leviticus priests were forbidden to marry divorced women (Lev. 21:7). In Exodus we find a regulation which forbids a master from betrothing a maid either to himself or to his son and then later selling her to a foreign nation (Ex. 21:78). She shall go out free and unmarried under such circumstances because he had dealt deceitfully with her. Since a betrothal was regarded as a marriage she is granted wife status at that time, but if her master is deceitful she is free to leave. There is no marriage tie. This text demonstrates that deceit is a basis for divorce because this deceit existed before the betrothal. Deceit in the marriage consideration means to be treacherous. This is illustrated by a wife who departs from her husband as Israel did God (Jer. 3:20), and by adulterous men who are regarded as treacherous (Jer. 9:2). Deceit involves a betrayal and includes the principle of lying and taking advantage of the good intentions of others. The clause ". . . seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her" clearly depicts a fraudulent intent.

In Exodus and Deuteronomy we find that fornication can be a cause for marriage (Ex. 22:1617; Deut. 22:2829). Once the fornication is made known only the "utter refusal" of the prospective son-in-law by the damsel's father can prevent the marriage. This text alone should make it clear that the word "fornication," used in the exception clause made by Christ in the New Testament, cannot only be used as a justification for divorce under certain circumstances, but equally as a cause for marriage. In the one instance, both the man and woman knowingly cohabit and are required to marry. In the other, the innocent third party who was deceived into believing his or her mate was a virgin can utilize fornication as a reason for divorce. The most apparent example of this is seen by Joseph's intention to put away Mary, the mother of Jesus. From the human standpoint she could have only become pregnant as a result of fornication with someone other than Joseph, since they had not yet consummated the marriage (Matt. 1:1819). Note, here she is called his wife (v. 20) because a betrothal (called espousal in the King James Version) was regarded as a marriage.

What Ervah Means

Since the only exception clause in the Old Testament uses "uncleanness" or "matter of nakedness," it is imperative that we examine all the usages of the word ervah. We cannot pick and choose those applications which fit our preconceived ideas while rejecting those which do not. The words "matter of nakedness" aptly

describe what occurs in marriage. What is prohibited before marriage is sanctified in marriage. Physical nakedness brings to light the individual's true philosophy and reveals how one thinks. It is in this physical relationship alone that what was previously unknown can be made known.

Let us keep in mind that Christ did not come to destroy the law. He said that until heaven and earth passed away not one jot or tittle of the law would vanish (Matt. 5:1718). He came to magnify the law and to make it honorable (Isa. 42:21). There is the tendency to think that what was written in Deuteronomy is the teaching of Moses, amplified by the Old Testament administration, but corrected by Christ. Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, is the teaching of Christ. Christ did not come to contradict Himself or to destroy the principles He instituted in Israel. The only thing ever abolished, according to Bible teaching, is the sacrificial system. Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, and Matthew, chapters five and nineteen, are all a part of the Law of God. As we shall see the Greek word porneia used in Matthew, chapters five and nineteen, is the New Testament equivalent of the words used in the Old Testament.

The word ervah has five basic definitions. It applies to homosexuality (Gen. 9:2223). It refers to incestuous relationships (Lev. 18:618; 20:11, 17, 1921). It relates to women during their menses (Lev. 18:19). It is associated with idolatry, including the nakedness and sexual activity that accompanies it (Ex. 20:26). And, it refers to filthy personal habits (Deut. 23:14). The application of these examples in the exception clause of Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, therefore, is quite broad and can include a number of circumstances and situations. Inasmuch as the Greek word porneia is used in the New Testament in Christ's reference to Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, its broad usage also becomes apparent. All of these usages of ervah demonstrate the refusal to honor the purposes of marriage in one way or another and place unlawful sexual and mental activity, as well as habits, above the Law of God. One who engages in unlawful sexual activity, such as homosexuality, incest, fornication in idolatrous rites, or relations during the menses reflects a philosophy that is bound to have a detrimental effect on any marriage. They reflect the refusal to be subject to the laws God placed here for the good of man, as well as to exemplify the relationship which exists between God and man. Filthiness of body and mind often leads to the unlawful activities just mentioned. Major diseases which affect the world today, as well as in the past, have been the result of filthiness of body and mind.

What Is Porneia?

A look at Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, will quickly dispel the notion that the meaning of "fornication" is limited to sex relations between unmarried persons. It lists:

(1) voluntary sexual intercourse between an unmarried woman and a man, especially an unmarried man: it is generally forbidden by law. . . . Fornication (is) the act of incontinency in single persons; if either party be married, it is adultery.Wharton

(2) in the Bible, (a) any unlawful sexual intercourse, including adultery; (b) a forsaking of the true God and worshiping of idols.

Most people who believe "fornication" is limited in meaning to sexual intercourse between unmarried persons do not have access to an unabridged dictionary. But since we are concerned with the Bible, it is the Bible definition, as demonstrated by usage, that is our objective. In the New Testament (King James Version) fornication is the English translation for the Greek word porneia and its cognates. In the Old Testament fornication is a translation from the Hebrew zanah and its cognates. In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, porneia is the word translated from the Greek zanah. This means that porneia and zanah are equivalents. How, then, is porneia used in the New Testament?

One of its primary meanings is illicit sexual activity in general. This is seen in Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 5:3. Romans 1:29 cannot limit the meaning of porneia to premarital sex, otherwise this text does not condemn adultery or homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 5:1 we see unlawful intercourse between a man and his stepmother. According to the definition given above in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary this should be called adultery, yet the Bible uses the word porneia. First Corinthians 6:13 and 18 do not limit the meaning to premarital sex, otherwise again adultery and homosexuality are not condemned. First Corinthians 7:2 excludes the possibility of adultery if premarital sex only is intended. Second Corinthians 12:21 and Ephesians 5:3, like

the texts above, fail to condemn adultery and homosexuality if premarital sex only is intended. In 1 Thessalonians 4:3 it would again exclude adultery as a sin.

Porneia refers to the worship of idolsreligious perversion. In Revelation, for example, this idolatry is associated with fornication (Rev. 2:14, 2021). In the Old Testament period literal fornication (Biblical) was very much a part of pagan worship.

Porneia is used in reference to those who are corrupt in moral conduct. See Revelation 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 19:2. While this can and often does include literal fornication, the meaning does not exclude a general lifestyle and way of life that is destructive and demeaning to all parties involved.

Perhaps porneia can best be defined as a way of lifea perverse lifestyle that involves elaborate sexual activity of mind, heart, and body, as well as heathenistic philosophical tendencies. By the usage of porneia in the New Testament, it is easy to see its meaning is broad and not at all limited to premarital sex. Next it will be imperative to examine the Hebrew word zanah, the Old Testament equivalent of porneia.

What Zanah Means

Zanah is translated "fornication" in the Old Testament. Along with its cognates it is also translated "harlot," "whore," "whoring," "whoredom," "whoredoms," and "whorish." The basic idea of the word is "to commit illicit intercourse," and is used in both the literal and figurative sense (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament). The Septuagintthe Greek version of the Old Testamenttranslates zanah as porneia. This is significant because it is believed many of the quotes Christ used from the Old Testament were taken from the Septuagint. This means that Christ equated porneia with zanah, making the two words identical. Old Testament usage of zanah is quite broad. It refers to physical prostitution or fornication while in an unmarried state (Gen. 38:24; Lev. 19:29; 21:9; Deut. 22:21). It means physical fornication or whoredom within a married state (Ezek. 16:8, 15; 23:5; Judg. 19:2). Figuratively, it refers to a lifestyle of

"playing the harlot" after married, though estranged (Jer. 3:1). Figuratively, it refers to illicit international relations between nations, and between God's people and foreign nations (Isa. 23:17, Hos. 2:2). Zanah can involve idolatry and an attraction to the occult (Lev. 20:56). Zanah involves a way of thinking, a fundamental philosophy and way of lifea lifestyle (Ezek. 6:9; Hos. 1:2; 4:12; 5:4). What becomes obvious by these Bible examples is that we find the same fundamental usage of porneia in the New Testament as zanah in the Old Testament. It should be clear from this why Christ equated the two. Since ervah has the same fundamental meaning as zanah and porneia (for example, homosexuality, incest, and idolatrous rites can certainly involve fornication), ervah, zanah, and porneia are synonyms. They all mean the same thingan immoral, perverse way of life which involves elaborate sexual activity of mind, heart, and body, as well as heathenistic philosophical tendencies.

"Hath Found Some Uncleanness"

Christ's exception statement in Matthew 19:9 was a corroboration of what He said in Deuteronomy 24:1. In the New Testament period the Greek word porneia was used in the exception clause. In the Old Testament period the Hebrew word ervah was used. Both include premarital sex, as one aspect.

In Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, we read ". . . that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her. . ." (v. 1). He then may give her a bill of divorcement. "Found" is from the Hebrew matsa, meaning "to come to," i.e., "to attain to," "to arrive at," "to obtain," "to acquire," "to receive" (Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, by Gesenius). In the context of Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, it means "to discover."

Note the time element, "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass. . . ." What is the time element here? They are already married and at some point in time after marriage he discovers some uncleanness in her. In no place does the Bible limit this time period. What is important is not when the discovery occurs but what the husband does at the time the discovery is made. "It come to pass" denotes the passage of time without a limitation. See, for example, in Genesis and First Kings, where the very same Hebrew word is used (Gen. 4:14; 1 Kings 20:6). The interested reader may check any of the reference works

available to see the usage of "found" as used in this verse. It means "to discover" or "to come to the knowledge of something that was not previously known." Ervah in Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, refers to that which under normal circumstances could not reasonably be known, but by means of some intimate circumstances is made known.

When Can the Exception Clause Be Used?

The key here is the word "found." Matthew 19:9 can be understood only in the light of Deuteronomy 24. Deuteronomy 24 means that something hitherto unknown is discovered. This uncleanness cannot refer to the obvious. It is something that has been deliberately hidden and involves the continuing attempt to keep it hidden. It involves deceit and fraud. Exodus 21:8 tells us that God does not hold the innocent party responsible for a marriage when deceit is involved. Fraud or deceit is not only an important factor before marriage (Ex. 21:8) but during a marriage as well (Mal. 2:1415; Jer. 3:20). The Hebrew word for deceit is often translated "to betray" or "to be treacherous." The matter of nakedness or uncleanness can refer to a hidden lifestyle which occurs before marriage but which continues after marriage. This is why both zanah and porneia are used to refer to sexual conduct both before and after marriage. It is when a matter of nakedness or uncleanness begins as a lifestyle before marriage that Deuteronomy 24:1 and Matthew 19:9 apply. This was the law Joseph was contemplating exercising when he intended to put away Mary, the mother of Jesus. The correlation of ervah to fornication (porneia) is clearly seen here. Mary was pregnant prior to the time they came together. Joseph could assume only one thing: He had been defrauded. He thought Mary was pregnant as a result of fornication. As the reader is aware, fornication or premarital sex is one of the meanings of porneia.

In the figurative sense, this tells us why Christ, the God of the Old Testament, did not remarry after He put Israel away. He knew what Israel's conduct was before He married her (Ezek. 23:13). He witnessed the promiscuity with her neighbors and the idolatry with their gods while He was married to her (Jer. 3:13). He knew her incapacity to live up to His holy and righteous law (Deut. 5:29). Christ, by virtue of His own law, had no justification for a remarriage. He had to die first. Therefore, any "matter of nakedness" which was either known or was not practiced as a lifestyle before a marriage cannot be a valid justification for use of the exception clause.

The matter of nakedness in the exception clause implies something discovered in order for it to be known. The tie of ervah to zanah and porneia demonstrates a fundamental attitude of dishonesty by the guilty party. In connection with zanah such a flippant attitude of irresponsibility is called the spirit of whoredom (Hos. 4:12; 5:4). Any honest person who would never knowingly accept such a person in marriage but is deceived into thinking otherwise can utilize the exception clause of Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-four, and Matthew, chapter nineteen. What is important, though, is the timing. What could have reasonably been known in advance is not a justification. And once the matter of nakedness is discovered the action must soon be taken. One cannot wait until the marriage goes sour and then decide to use the exception clause. It must be utilized very soon after the discovery.

What Christians Should Know

A marriage is a covenant which contains vows. "I do" or "I will" constitutes a covenant which has stipulations and agreements. We bind ourselves by commitments. Vows should not be broken (Num. 30:2; Psa. 15:1, 4). But what if one party is an honest, sincere person of principles while the other is deceitful? Matthew 19:6 says, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." God binds a marriage when there is no deliberate deception on the part of either party. When deceit occurs the exception clause applies. Such a marriage is not bound by God, though it may be thought to be a marriage in the sight of man.

The great sin in the whole marriage scene today is that man needs a change of heart. God has overlooked man's hardheartedness in the past, but now commands all men to repentto have a change of heart (Acts 17:3031). The majority of people today would rather remain hard in their attitudes toward others, including their mates, than to resolve their problems. God gave the exception rule to ancient Israel, but by perverting its intent they divorced their wives for "every cause." Today, Christ allows the same exception clause He gave to Israel. This exception rule does not allow divorce for every cause. It is allowed for porneia, the composite of ervah and zanah. This exception clause must be applied very soon following the discovery of porneia. It may take some time to resolve all the

problems involved in "putting away" a mate, but the mental decision must be immediate and final.

Equally as bad as the hardness of heart seen in marriages today is the hardness of heart expressed by those who judge the divorce and remarriage situations of others. This judging is often done on the basis of their own convictions and level of faith, as they attempt to force others to act in the way they evaluate the situation (most often without all the facts), demanding the others to live according to their legalistic interpretation. This hardness of heart surely is as bad as the other. It is the individual involved in divorce and remarriage situation who alone has the most facts and is therefore the most qualified to judge. Those who are sincerely seeking to do the will of God will take no chances. This is what they should do. All things will eventually be brought to light and those who are dishonest before God will surely pay for their dishonesty. Human weaknesses and faults have nothing to do with porneia unless they involve a hidden lifestyle. Judgment requires specific facts and the ability to read the intent of the heart and mind. One who is not involved in a divorce and remarriage situation does not have access to those facts. But this is the case in the application of all the laws of God, not just the Seventh Commandment. Judgment belongs to Christ alone (Acts 17:31). It is our responsibility as Christians to neither approve nor disapprove of divorce and remarriage situations. All that is hidden will eventually be brought to light (Matt. 10:26). It is our duty to live up to what we know is right in our own personal lives and not to judge others. It is our duty to work on ourselves to build the necessary character for the Kingdom of God and to wait for that time of revelation. We must remember God looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). It is God alone who can read the hearts and minds of all men, and in the day of judgment will condemn or save accordingly. The wheat and tares must grow together until the Judgment. To attempt to pluck out the tares prematurely will damage too much wheat (Matt. 13:29). Jesus said, "Leave them alone." God will judge all adulterers, but this includes spiritual adultery as well. So, we are admonished to judge nothing before the time (1 Cor. 4:5).

What we have seen is this: All laws are of God, including Deuteronomy 24:14. Since Israel of old had no access to the Holy Spirit and could not overcome their hardness of heart, Moses permitted them to put away their wives "for every cause." They were permitted to do those things which we are not permitted to do today. The majority of the Israelites of old could neither overcome their emotional and mental difficulties nor the temptation to demand the letter-ofthe-law application and enforcement of all the laws of God.

Ervah, which is the basis of the reference to porneia, is not limited to simple premarital sex. As has been demonstrated, it refers to a number of things. Ervah implies an immoral, perverse, deceptive way of life and is the direct basis for Christ's statement regarding porneiathe only possible premise for Christ's exception clause. The English word "fornication" is not the proper translation for porneia. Its meaning is too limited and while it is included in porneia, it is not limited to it. Fornication can be both a cause for marriage and for divorce depending upon conditions.

The exception clause can be applied only if one has made known that he or she is a person of principle, one who holds scruples and is sincere, and then finds that the partner has hidden significant factors. One cannot be totally unconcerned or indifferent about the background and proclivities of the other and then attempt to use some flaw as an excuse to find a way out of the marriage when it goes sour. If a marriage is entered in to knowing the weaknesses and background of the other party, these known factors cannot later be used to justify use of the exception clause. Now, some may fear others will abuse the exception clause. They did in Christ's day. They did in Moses' day. Some probably will do the same today. But, what did Christ and Moses do? Moses permitted them to put away their wives for "every cause." Christ condemned this practice but neither He nor the apostles attempted to regulate it. This will occur only at the time of the Judgment. It is in the Judgment when all will be brought to light by Christ, the righteous Judge. In the meantime let us be willing to admit what we do not know. Let us not try to take the place of the Almighty. Let us be equally aware of all of the Ten Commandments, not just the Seventh. Deceit and fraud are involved in porneia. Deceit means the same as treachery, as we have seen, defined as the spirit of whoredom. We must be careful not to limit the scope of porneia only to physical premarital sex on the basis of the narrow definition given by most abridged dictionaries.

We should recognize the limited scope of time involved in exercising the exception clause, and that its meaning has broad application. The exception clause does exist, but so does adultery, which often is the direct result of divorce and remarriage. There is perhaps one hundred times more said in the Bible about judging, gossiping, whispering, heresy, and strife than there is about the marital status of couples in the New Testament church. The Church of God does not approve of adultery. But neither does it approve of Sabbath-breaking or the

breaking of any of the laws of God. We must remember unknowns will remain as unknowns until the Judgment. We believe in the sanctity of marriage, but also recognize we are not greater than the Almighty. If Jesus Christ and the apostles did not involve themselves in judging divorce and remarriage situations, should we?

While the word "fornication" was used to explain the exception clause in past Church of God literature, its understanding within the ministry, as it was applied in rendering divorce and remarriage decisions, was far broader than the limited dictionary definition. Most, if not all, of the technical information given in this article was employed in rendering these divorce and remarriage decisions from the 1940s on. What has been written in this article completely corroborates what was known and understood for years within the ministry. The first booklet on the subject of divorce and remarriage, written in the Church of God, was published in 1953. It did not explain the technicalities given in this article. There was no need to do so because it was the ministry, not the laymembers, which was involved in rendering divorce and remarriage decisions. It was a faulty administrative system which rendered divorce and remarriage decisions that was partly responsible, at least, for the deterioration and loss of confidence in the church and in the doctrine. Let us recognize where the fault lies. Let us hold fast to the original doctrine. But, let us also recognize we are not the Almighty. It is God alone who is the righteous Judge, and He will judge all divorce and remarriage situations when He is ready. In the meantime it is the responsibility of those involved to render their own decisions, but know for certain that they must not take this matter lightly. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:32).

Home | Fundamentals of Belief | Who We Are | Articles | Monthly Letters | Sermon Transcripts | Audio Sermons | Video Sermons | Contact & Locations