Divorce and Remarriage: May Both Parties in a Divorce Remarry?

My answer to this question is going to cause some people to jump off my bandwagon. Many Apostolics believe that the "innocent party" may remarry, but the "guilty party" may not remarry. In most cases, terms like "innocent" and "guilty" are are misleading. The Bible does not discuss the MDR question in terms of guilt or innocence. Rather, it discusses MDR in terms of covenant. The concept of covenant brings me to my first question. 

Whom Does A Broken Covenant Release?

For those who do not believe both parties are freed to remarry in divorce I have a question:

• Is a broken covenant still in force? The answer to this question is, "No, it's broken." If it is broken enough for the party who did not break the covenant to remarry without committing adultery, then it must no longer be binding. If the covenant is no longer binding, then what covenant is being violated if either party remarries? The covenant can't be binding for just one party; it's either binding for both or neither. The only biblical answer is that once the covenant has been broken legitimately then both parties are free to remarry. 

In Deuteronomy 24.1-3 the woman in whom the uncleanness was found was free to go be another man's wife after she was put away with a bill of divorce.  She could not be another man's wife just being put away, because there was a covenant still in place. But if she was given a bill of divorce—even though the uncleanness was in her—she was free to remarry. There was no way to release just one party from the covenant. Again: it's both or neither. So the answer to the question about the so-called guilty party remarrying is, "Yes, they can!"

Fruit of the Spirit

The fruit of the spirit as mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23 are: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. I want to simply point out that these attributes are the "fruit of the Spirit," and as a result can only be produced by the Spirit.

When the text says that the fruit of the Spirit is love, it does not refer to the natural love of a mother for a child, or the mutual love of family or friends. These demonstrations of love are natural and do not need the Spirit to produce them; this love is not the "fruit of the Spirit."

The love that is, and must be, produced by the Spirit is a love that does not come natural. This kind of love defies logic and nature. This is the kind of love that compels you to love someone that hates you. This kind of love compels you to love someone who actively seeks your harm and destruction. It is love that does not make sense to the natural man.

"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them." Luke 6:32 ESV

This verse is natural love that does not need the Spirit's influence. It is the kind of love that the unregenerate sinner has apart from the Holy Spirit. There is, however, dimension of love that only comes from God.

"and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us". Romans 5:5 ESV

The same is true of all of the fruit of the Spirit. Whether it is love, peace or any of the other attributes of the Spirit, there is a natural counterpart; however, they can only reach their fullest potential when they are quickened by the Spirit of God.

In other words: no one should love like someone filled with the Spirit. No one should have peace like someone filled with the Spirit. No one should have joy like someone filled with the Spirit. Let the Holy Spirit maximize your capacity to live!

Caricature of God

I can pick on the above gentlemen as I too have been abundantly blessed with ears. The artists have over emphasized the ears of Barak Obama and Ross Perot. While they have big ears, these pictures are obviously an exaggeration of their size. The artists have focused on a particular attribute of their persons.

Many times this is what men do with God. They over emphasize a particular attribute of His nature until the picture they have of God is not true, but a caricaturization of Him. What we must do is put each of God's attributes in proportion to all his attributes, and not to the minimization or elimination of some.

Some people focus so heavily on the holiness of God that barely no one can be saved; after all their best efforts they even worry about themselves. Others focus so heavily on the mercy of God that no one will be lost, including: Dahmer, Hitler, Stalin and Hussein (not Barak). When you do this you have a distorted view of God. The mercy and holiness of God are not competing ideas that you have to accept one or the other. Both are true and are complimentary of each other.

"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Psalms 85:10 KJV

Let's view God how He is, and not how the human mind would portray Him by exaggerating the aspects of God's nature that we choose to emphasize.

Matthew 19:9: Espoused or Married Wife Part 2

In recent discussions with various friends on the subject of divorce and remarriage the issue of Matthew 19:9 came up. As I am aware there are only two ways to view this verse: 1. The wife of Matthew 19:9 is the espoused wife (Deuteronomy 22:23, Matthew 1:18-20). 2. The wife of Matthew 19:9 is not an espoused/betrothed wife, rather she is a married wife (Deuteronomy 24)1. Let me state here, in case you have not read my other blogs on this issue, I hold to the second view.

Two things should be noted about the first view: Why they conclude that Matthew 19:9 is the espoused/betrothed wife and not the married wife. The way they arrive at that conclusion. The why and the way are important to understand. The way they arrive at their conclusion is baseless. The why is equally unwarranted.

Firstly the why. The reason why they conclude that the wife of Matthew 19:9 is the espoused wife, and not the married wife, is to avoid the obvious implication that infidelity on part of a married person is grounds for the innocent party to divorce and remarry. However, this is the necessary implication of this text if a married wife is under consideration as I contend.

Secondly the way. The way they attempt to prove that the wife of Matthew 19:9 is the espoused wife, and therefore hold to a no divorce and remarriage for any reason view, is by appealing to Matthew's use of the word fornication. Among those who reject that the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 applies to married persons there are two arguments made about the word fornication: 1. Married people cannot commit fornication; therefore the term fornication demands that the Matthew 19:9 wife is an espoused wife. 2. The word fornication, if used alone, can include adultery; however, when both fornication and adultery are used in the same context they are being contrasted and cannot refer to the same thing. I have responded both of these arguments in other blogs. 2, 3

When you look at the context of Matthew 19 you readily understand that the married wife is the kind of wife that is under consideration:

1. With the wife under consideration they had been "joined together" by God, and they had become "one flesh," an obvious euphemism describing sexual union (1 Corinthians 6:16).
2. The wife they were discussing had to be given a bill of divorcement as prescribed by Moses. The only possible law they could be appealing to is Deuteronomy 24:1. The wife of Deuteronomy 24:1 was the married wife; when she was given the bill of divorcement by her husband he "sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house." Surely no one would suggest that this describes the espousal period, as cohabitation would not have been permitted by the law.

These facts demand that the married wife be under consideration in Matthew 19. To consider otherwise is, in my opinion, not being honest with the context.

This finally brings me to the purpose that I am writing this particular blog. In response to my argument, based on Deuteronomy 24, that the wife of Matthew 19 is the married wife and not the espoused wife, a friend of mine argued that "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24 cannot be sexual in nature. I want to try to honestly set forth his argument and then give a response.

My friend's argument is: uncleanness in Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot be sexual because the punishment for uncleanness is she is put out of her husband's house; however, the punishment for sexual sin demanded she be put to death (Deuteronomy 22). If the sin of uncleanness was sexual, she would be put to death, not merely put out of her husband's house. His argument is that death was mandatory for sexual sins, therefore "uncleanness" could not be sexual.

If I can demonstrate a single case which shows this premise to be false, then his argument fails. One of the cases that carried the death penalty was the unfaithfulness of a betrothed woman.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 ESV

23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,

24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

This describes a situation where a betrothed virgin willingly lies with a man other than her intended, and her penalty was that she was to be put to death. Is death the only option for the betrayed husband? No. If the betrayed husband finds out about the unfaithfulness of his betrothed must he have her put to death? No. Is there ever case where the betrothed betrays and is spared death? Yes.

Matthew 1:18-20 ESV

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

It must be pointed out that when Joseph realized that his betrothed was with child, the only logical answer in his mind was betrayal. He was unaware that a miracle had taken place. It was only later that he was visited by the angel and became aware of this fact. He decided, while fully convinced that she had been unfaithful, to "divorce her quietly." You mean there was an option other than death that was available to him? Yes.

So, it is entirely possible, as we have an example, that a wife could commit an act punishable by death and merely be "put away (KJV)," and not "put to death." Therefore, uncleanness could include something of a sexual nature. The same would also have to be true of the other cases in Deuteronomy 22. I will examine this in more depth in a later post.

Secondly, it would not matter if uncleanness did not include a sexual sin. Let's say that it does not. Jesus contrasted what He taught with what Moses taught and narrowed the parameters. The original question in Matthew 19 was, "can a man put away his wife for ever cause?" Jesus said they could not, "except for fornication." Therefore, even if uncleanness was term used to apply to nonsexual things, Jesus restricts the bill of divorcement to fornication alone and not other causes.

What this does serve to prove, and that the no divorce and remarriage view cannot handle, is that the discussion in Matthew 19 was concerning the married wife of Deuteronomy 24, and consequently proves the wife of Matthew 19:9 is the married wife. This without question allows for divorce and remarriage for fornication.

I just finished this at 1:11am. It probably makes no sense. Please feel free to ask questions for clarification.

Not Under Bondage: The Pauline Privilege?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 KJV

There are two marital demographics that Paul addresses in this text, “the married” and “the rest.” I am going to demonstrate that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers, and “the rest” refers to marriages where one is a believer and the other is a unbeliever. Paul never explicitly addresses marriages where both are unbelievers, although I believe that he implicitly refers to them in 1Corinthians 7:14.

Unto The Married

An important point to be made at the outset is the audience that Paul is addressing is the Church. The instructions in this text are given to Christians, unless otherwise stated; therefore, are to be understood as regulating marriage within the Church. Let us demonstrate that when Paul says, “unto the married (verse 10),” he is speaking to Christian marriages, and not to marriages of unbelievers or to mixed[1] marriages.

He is writing to those who had written to him (1 Corinthians 7:1). He is writing to people who pray and fast (1 Corinthians 7:5). He is writing what he ordained in all the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17). He is writing to the called in the Lord (1Corinthians 7:22-24). He is writing to the brethren (1Corinthians 7:29). He is writing to those who care for the things of the Lord how they may please and serve him without distraction (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

These are the people that Paul is writing to in verse 10, namely believers. “The married” cannot be speaking of marriages where one is believer and the other is not. Paul addresses the religiously mixed marriages in verse 12 and calls them “the rest,” and “such case.” I think it is obvious from the context that “the married” are both believers. I am not alone in this understanding as the majority of scholarship also agrees.

““the married,” 1Co_7:10, where both husband and wife are believers”[2]

“in which he has respect to such as were upon equal foot in matters of religion, who were both of them believers in Christ”[3]

“to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10).”[4]

The text as well as these scholars agrees that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers. The rules that Paul gives concerning equally yoked marriages is: The first rule says, “Let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10b)…and let not the husband put away his wife(1 Corinthians 7:11b).” The second rule says, “let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” This going to be set in contrast to the rules that Paul gives about marriages where one is a believer and the other is an unbeliever.

But to the Rest

What does Paul mean by the phrase, “but to the rest,” and what are the implications? “But to the rest” must refer to the marriages of a believer to an unbeliever. Paul says, “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:12-13).”

Notice Paul modifies his language for the unequally yoked marriages. To “the married” he says, “let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10);”however, “to the rest (unequally yoked marriages of a believer to an unbeliever),” he modifies his command to, “if he be pleased dwell let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:13).” Paul does not place this qualifier on “the married;” their command is unequivocal, do not depart.

Paul gives a different rule to the equally yoked marriages than he does to the unequally yoked marriages. Evidently Paul and God viewed the two classes of marriages differently and placed different rules on them. It could not be clearer to the open mind that two different rules about departing exist in contrasting these two groups.

Not only did the departing rule differ, but the response rule for if they do depart differed also. For “the married (equally yoked)” the rule is “let them remain unmarried or be reconciled;” however, the rule for “the rest (unequally yoked)” is quite different. Instead of remaining unmarried or be reconciled like “the married,” Paul says the believer is, “not under bondage in such cases.”

The question is, what bondage are the believers, in such case that the unbeliever leaves, not under that the other cases are? The bondage that these deserted believers are not under are exclusive to their case alone. No one else has this particular liberty.

Those that hold to a no exception, or to a fornication only exception view of divorce and remarriage, argue that “not under bondage” does not refer to the marriage bond. They argue that what Paul is saying is that they are not obligated to follow them or make them stay, and that they can let the unbeliever go, but they can’t remarry.

Remember now, whatever “not under bondage” refers to is exclusive to “such cases;” no one else would have this liberty. If I can show that no one is under the bondage of merely cohabitating if they are deserted, then I can prove that “not under bondage” do not mean mere cohabitation.

“The married” of verse 10-11 are also “not under bondage” to cohabitate in any way, because they can also depart or be departed from and “remain unmarried.” So what is the bondage that “the rest…in such cases” are not under that “the married” are under? The only possible answer is “the married” are under bondage to “remain unmarried,” if they divorce; however, “the rest…in such cases” are not under that bondage. That can be the only liberty that this particular circumstance has that is unique to “such cases.”

---

[1] Religiously mixed, not racially mixed.

[2] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[3] John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[4] Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

Our Foster Son

My wife and I took in a one month old baby boy this morning around 11:30 am. We have fallen in love with him already and its only 5:23 pm. He has been abused by someone, not sure who or how. He has fractured ribs, and two broken legs. It is amazing how a 1 month old with broken legs can walk into your heart. While we don't know what the outcome of his case will be, so far as adoption is concerned, we feel blessed to have the opportunity to love and nurse him back to health.

We have had three little girls, and still have the first one that was placed with us, but this is our first boy and we are excited about having him. It was especially exciting to have my parents in town when we got him. They are also taken by his story and have fallen in love with him.

He is a chunk. At a month old he is wearing the same size diapers that our 17 month old foster daughter is wearing. At this rate, in a couple weeks or so we will be sharing suits. He has a prophet's name, so maybe if I let him wear my suits I will get a prophet's reward. I don't mind though because he has some really cool pj's that I can't wait to wear!

Victory Over Betrayal

John 13:1-4 ESV

1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,

3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

4 rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist.

Jesus nearing his passion, having loved his own until the end and ready to ascend to the Father, is seated at supper with his disciples. Judas, his betrayer, is also at the table. Jesus knew that the devil had already put it in his heart to betray him, and that Judas would carry out the will of the devil. Jesus response was most incredible. Instead of being distracted by the betrayal of Judas, he pushed forward toward his mission of redemption.

Jesus keeps three things in mind that empowers him to keep a proper perspective on his mission with his betrayer in his midst. Verse 3 says that Jesus knew: The Father had given all things into his hands. He had come from God. He was going back to God.

These three revelations will keep you through betrayal. If you can keep in mind that your betrayer, like Jesus' betrayer, can only betray your trust, but never what the Father has given you, where you have come from or where you are going, you will get victory over betrayal.

John Gill: The Pearl of Great Price

Matthew 13:45-46 ESV

45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls,

46 who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

"This parable may be understood of Christ's seeking, finding, and purchasing his elect: for, certain it is, that he has sought after them; which implies, that they were lost and going astray; expresses his great love to them, value for them, and desire after them; in doing which, he took much pains, and used much diligence: and certain it also is, that he finds them in redemption, and in effectual calling; and that they are to him a pearl of great price; as very precious to God, so highly esteemed of by Christ, as his portion, his inheritance, and his jewels. He has also parted with all he had for the sake of these persons; he became poor, emptied himself of everything, even gave himself a ransom for them, and so made a purchase of them, with the price of his own blood:"

This post was inspired by a sermon my father preaches called, "God's Jewels." (See: www.acfw.org)