Sunday, December 28, 2008

Till Death Do Us Apart... A Vow To Cherish

Excerpt from the movie "A Vow To Cherish" with a very important message.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Adultery in the Church

Adultery in the Church

By Steve Flinchum

Published by:

Landmark Archiving and Multimedia Publishing Co.

P.O. Box 121 Annville, KY 40402


PREFACE


Desiring the maximum effectiveness and readability for these pages I feel the need for a few lines here for definition and clarity. First of all, in the title I use the term "the church." I do not refer to any kind of universal church, neither visible nor invisible. A New Testament church is always a local and visible body of born-again and baptized believers with Christ as her head and the Bible as her guide. As we might speak of "the husband" or "the wife" in a generic sense without any allusion to any kind of universal invisible husband or wife, I use the term "the church" in the generic sense in the title.

The picture of a building is employed on the cover as a readily recognizable symbol. Let us remember that the Bible never uses the word "church" to refer to a building but to the congregation.

Given the nature of the subject and title, the use of the scarlet letter "A" in the steeple and windows was irresistible. The use of the steeple in the illustration is not intended as an endorsement of their presence on Baptist meeting-houses. The best we can determine is that the use of steeples or spires on houses of worship originated with their use as objects to attract and please the sex goddesses. If that is so, perhaps it is all the more fitting that it be used as it is in the illustration.

The regard of people for marriage is shaped by their beliefs as to the primary purpose of it. Some have regarded its primary purpose as that of procreation. Many recognize its value to the maintenance of order in society as the primary importance. Others hold the pleasure or security they may be beneficiary of in the highest esteem. In our present day of a pleasure seeking, thrill seeking, throw-away, blame it on someone else society when we are constantly appealed to with "get the cash you deserve now," "return it if you don’t like it," and "tell them you mean business" solicitations, respect for the concept of life-long marriage seems to be at an all-time low. It is only when a right biblical understanding of God’s purpose and intention for marriage is held that marriage can be appreciated with the esteem it is due. God instituted marriage with the intention of using it to teach truths with typology about His chosen nation, about His New Testament churches, about the bride of Christ, and even about salvation. It is hoped that God will use the following pages for the edification of the reader.

Continue Reading Full Article:

http://members.prtcnet.org/flinchum/adultery

Critique Of Divorce And Remarriage

Leslie McFall
27 December, 2006


David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003)

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS NEW TEACHING

There are a number of serious problems, conjectures, and imaginative leaps, behind the pages of this work, resulting in a new doctrine. These will need to be addressed before a single church leader would even begin to countenance its conclusion as a serious understanding of Jesus’ teaching, let alone a proficient understanding of the rabbinic material itself.

The reviewer is coming from a completely different interpretation of Jesus’ clear teaching on divorce and marriage. Jesus ruled out any divorce for any reason for a lawfully married couple, be they both non-Christians or both Christians. Both Mark and Luke teach this without any qualification.

The reviewer’s translation of Matthew 19:9 is, “Now I say to you that, who, say, may have put away his wife—not [he may put away] for fornication—and may marry another becomes adulterous [against her].” The clause between the m-dashes is the so-called exceptive clause, which has been traditionally understood by the Reformation Churches, but not by the Catholic Church, to grant a divorce in the case of fornication. It does the opposite. It specifically rules out divorce for fornication.

Under the Mosaic law the punishment for fornication was death, not divorce. Jesus’ statement supports the death penalty for those living ‘under the Law’. This puts tremendous pressure on all Jews who continue to live under the Law. They have no alternative but to kill their adulterous wives, but they dare not do this if they themselves are living adulterous lives. So it is a two-way deterent on either partner to have sex outside the God-ordained marriage context. The Law has locked all husbands into a penalty they cannot go through with without condemning themselves. Jesus does not say, “Let him who is without sin in the area of sexual faithfulness, cast the first stone,” but rather, “Let him who is without sin—any sin—cast the first stone.” This ruling made it impossible for them to stone any wife for adultery. However, Jesus’ death freed all men from keeping the Mosaic Law. We are not under Law but under grace. All sins are to be forgiven, including adultery and fornication. Excommunication from His Body, the Church, is the only sanction open to the Church in the case of unrepentant ‘Christian’ adulterers.

OBJECTIONS TO THE NEW TEACHING ON DIVORCE

First, there is no engagement in this book with Jesus’ own statements in which He refuses to allow divorce on any grounds in His new Kingdom of God. When Jesus was asked the question about permitting divorce in Matthew 19:3, He replied by asking a question in return. Jesus’ question conveys His surprise that they have not read what His Father had said in Genesis 2:24. They ought to have read it, is his implied rebuke. Instead, they had focused on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Following His rebuke for not concentrating on Genesis 2:24, He then quotes it. But it is His deduction from this text that really surprised them. The lesson Jesus drew from this proof text was that it was illegal for any man to divorce his wife. That they understood Jesus correctly comes out in their second question: “(If you are right) Why, therefore, did Moses command to give a bill of departure and to divorce her?” They evidently saw a clear contradiction between what Moses commanded and what Jesus commanded. Jesus had overridden Moses and sidelined his teaching as obsolete and irrelevant for His followers. Jesus then undercuts their own position by pointing out that the law on divorce did not come from His Father, but from Moses, or rather, from themselves. They demanded it. They pressed Moses to give it to them. They refused to forgive their wives. They hardened their hearts. Moses simply gave in to their demand. So the origin for the law of divorce sprang from the unregenerate heart of man, and not from God. It originates from sin, not from God.

The author claims to have read the passages on divorce through the eyes of contemporary Jews, but he has failed to read Jesus’ teaching through the eyes of His contemporaries. They clearly recognised that Jesus had abolished divorce for any reason, and this astonished them so greatly that they were impelled to ask, “Why, therefore, did Moses permit . . . ?”

Second, the author makes a bold claim, which he cannot substantiate with any evidence, that the phrase ‘any cause’ in Matthew 19:9 is a ‘highly specialised legal term’, and refers to a particular kind of divorce created by Rabbi Hillel prior to the birth of Jesus. This is pure conjecture.

Third, the author overlooked the important word “all” in the Greek in Matthew 19:9. He has mistranslated it as “any”, with the consequent error of identifying Matthew’s “every cause” with Hillel’s so-called ‘Any Cause’. The author has created the fiction of a legal divorce procedure called the ‘Any Cause’ divorce. Nowhere in rabbinic literature is Hillel’s difference of exegesis with Shammai over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1, captured in a slogan or catch-word phrase. The author, himself, has created the fiction of a legal divorce called ‘Any Cause’.

Fourth, throughout his work the author refers to ‘Any Cause’ as if it was known by every Jew living in Jesus’ day. Indeed, the author claims that so well-known was the legal term that Mark felt he could omit it without confusing his readers. This conjecture and claim comes out of the imagination of the author. There is no evidence for such a claim.

Fifth, another claim without any evidence is that the Hillel interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 was universally accepted by all Jews everywhere, and that all divorces from the second-century onwards were based on Hillel’s interpretation. We simply have no evidence for this. This, too, emanates from the imagination of the author.

Sixth, Hillel argued that the Hebrew term dãbãr in Deuteronomy 24:1 meant ‘a thing’, which is correct. The author, however, has subtly altered this to mean ‘any thing’, and from there he created the legal fiction of an ‘Any Cause’ style of divorce. If he had kept to what Hillel had said, he should have conjectured that Hillel created ‘A Matter’ divorce. So that if someone wanted to use some fault he found in his wife, he could call it a ‘Matter’, a dãbãr, and he could obtain his separation under this single word term. But the author was drawn to the translation of ‘any cause’ in the English translations, and assumed that it might refer to Hillel’s ‘Matter’ divorce.

Seventh, the above instance of following English translations of the primary material, led the author to make two more similar errors. He noticed that Josephus was translated as: “for whatsoever cause (kaq∆ aJsdhpotou'n aijtiva").” The similarly with Matthew 19:9 is obvious in the English, but not in the Greek. The author clearly did not consult the Greek. The same methodological error was repeated when he noticed that Philo was translated as: “for any cause whatever [kaq∆ h}n].” (See §13.1 in the detailed analysis.)

Eighth, the similarity in the English translations, led the author to make a fundamental error. He made the following false steps. First, he took Hillel’s ‘matter’ and added ‘any’ to it, to give ‘any matter’. Why? because he wanted to connect it with ‘every cause’ in Matthew 19:9. He then converted his newly created ‘any matter’ into a legal phrase with initial capital letters. Why? because the question in Mark asked if it was lawful to divorce, which was a stupid question to ask (he thought), given that Moses authorised divorces. By altering ‘every cause’ in the parallel in Matthew 19:9 to ‘Any Cause’, he could then claim that he had found a connection between Hillel’s legal term and the assumed popular ‘Any Cause’ divorce which Hillel introduced into Judean life. From this conjecture he then needed to explain why ‘every cause’ (which he misread as ‘any cause’) was omitted in Mark, so he needed ‘evidence’ that everyone was so familiar with the term that it could be left out. The ‘evidence’ he needed, he found in the English translations of Josephus and Philo.

It is clear from this catalogue of errors and from the fact that they are all connected through English translations, that the author is either slap-dash in his approach[1] or he is unable to work with the primary material itself. This work is based totally on English translations, and this has proved its downfall.

Ninth, the author has a low view of the integrity, inspiration, and infallibility of Scripture, when it suits his argument. This comes out clearly in Chapter 12 with his imaginative scenario of a series of ‘barriers’ through which Jesus’ teaching had to pass to reach us. These were no barriers to the Church because Greek was the universal language. But the author needed ‘barriers’ in order to explain why his new discovery could have got lost.

If one has to lessen the integrity of Scripture, and the integrity of the Apostles and the leaders who followed them, in order to facilitate the acceptance of a new doctrine, this is a weakness in itself. It has the appearance of being contrived for the purpose of raising its chances of being accepted.

Tenth, one marvels at the extent to which a writer will go to distort in order to gain a place for his view. The author makes the surprising assertion that: “In the context of this emphasis against sex, it was natural that the 2nd-century Church would assume that Jesus taught remarriage was equivalent to sexual immorality and would not be surprised when he [Jesus] appeared to identify remarriage with ‘adultery’” (p. 145). He also states, “The stand which the 2nd-century church took against sexual immorality made their new emphasis against remarriage (a misinterpretation of Jesus’ teaching) seem normal. Once this new interpretation had become church doctrine it was difficult for the church to come to terms with the fact that a misunderstanding had taken place” (p.154).

This illustrates compartmental thinking. No regard is taken of a full century of abiding by Jesus’ teaching on ‘no divorce, and no remarriage’. Instead, the author begins the second-century as if the Church had no past history, and no deeply entrenched, universal tradition, and no sharp memory of what Jesus taught. The author conjures up a scenario in which the Church was faced with promiscuous sex all around and it reacted so strongly against this free sex that it assumed that Jesus taught that remarriage was equivalent to sexual immorality or adultery. Even if the Church took a stand against sexual immorality, how did it get from its once clear opposition to all divorce and remarriage to condemning all remarriages as adulterous relationships? The assumption must be that from Jesus’ day the Church already regarded all unlawful remarriages as adulterous unions. They never changed His teaching. As early as the first Council of Jerusalem, the Church took its stand against sexual immorality (Acts 15:29, ‘to abstain from fornication’), and this was before AD 70! The second-century was no different from the first-century in this regard.

Eleventh, there is the assumption throughout the book that the rabbis, particularly Shammai and Hillel, permitted divorce for adultery, and that in Jesus’ day the death penalty was no longer applied.

First, Jesus said, ‘And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, except for adultery, and may marry another, commits adultery; and he who did marry her that has been put away, commits adultery.’ (Here I have retained the incorrect Erasmian translation of all major English translations.) If Jesus is making provision for divorce for adultery (as these versions translate Him), then He is in direct conflict with the Law of God.

Second, even the Mishnah upheld the death penalty for adultery (Mish. Sanh. 7.3, 9; B. Sanh. 52b, 55b, 66b). The tractate Sota provided the interpretation of the Num 5 passage, stating that the bitter water test ceased when adultery became common (Mish. Sota 9.9). The spirit of adultery (Sota 4b) and lust were censured (Yoma 29a, Nid. 13b), which Jesus took from His own theology.

We simply have no evidence at all that the Jews up to the time of the codification of their laws in the Mishnah and the Talmuds ever permitted divorce for adultery. It was against the Law to divorce for adultery. It is unlikely that Jesus was the first rabbi to change the Torah Law and substitute divorce for the death penalty for adultery. Indeed, the most natural translation of Matthew 19:9 shows that Jesus reinforced the Law that divorce could not be had for fornication. , ‘And I say to you that who, say, may put away his wife—not [he may put away] for fornication—and may marry another, commits adultery.’

That Jesus did not condemn the penalty of stoning the adulterer (cf. NIDNTT 2:582–84) can be explained on a number of levels. (1) He did not come to judge the world or individual adulterers. He was an ordinary citizen of the Jewish nation. He had no position of authority within the leadership of His nation. (2) Two witnesses were required to put anyone to death (Dt 17:6). These would need to be examined by judges, not by an ordinary citizen who was shunned by the religious establishment. (3) According to the Law (Dt 22:22), the man who committed adultery with the woman had also to be stoned. If she was caught in the ‘every act’ then the man should have been too. Why was he not brought before Jesus? (4) Jesus stood between the two Covenants, fulfilling the Old and introducing the New. He gave priority to the New, while fulfilling the Old in His lifestyle. He lived ‘under the Law’ to redeem those under the Law. (5) God would judge those outside the Church who committed adultery, while Christ would judge those inside the Church, who made up His Body (1 Cor 6), the new Israel of God. All capital offences in the Old Covenant were commuted to excommunication from His Body by being ‘handed over to Satan,’ resulting in a spiritual death penalty if repentance did not follow. In this higher, and deeper, sense Jesus affirmed the death penalty for adultery. (See the preamble to this critique above for another, telling reason.)

Twelfth, A surprising methodological defect is the complete absence of a detailed study of the divorce texts themselves.

Thirteenth, another surprising defect about this book is that the author is so intent on reading the text through the eyes of Jesus’ contemporaries that he failed to notice that even if Matthew 19:3 was a direct reference to Hillel’s teaching on divorce, and that Matthew 5:32 was a direct reference to Shammai’s teaching on divorce, the references are irrelevant to Jesus’ new teaching on divorce. Jesus dismissed in one sentence all Pharisaic teaching on the subject because they bypassed the teaching in Genesis 2:24 and settled for something less than His Father expected from all human beings. This teaching, He intimated, preceded Moses’ teaching, therefore they should go back to the first thing God taught about marriage and focus on Genesis 2:24 and forget about Deuteronomy 24:1-4 completely as a sub-standard, debased and degrading level of existence, which was introduced by men for men. No wonder Jesus threw the lot out as vigorously as He threw out the money-changers in the Temple.

By abolishing divorce altogether, Jesus made it clear that a power outside man—the Holy Spirit—was needed to come in and lift man out of the sordid, hard-hearted world into which all men are born, and enable them to rise to a level of spirituality that could forgive seventy times seven. This power is what distinguishes Jesus’ followers from all other religions of the world. And Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce distinguishes His true followers from all other religions. No other religion can rise above the fleshly level of the Mosaic divorce law, for all, without exception, practice divorce with hard, unregenerate hearts. They all share in a theology of accommodation and compromise from the spiritual law written in Genesis 2:24. The religion of the Lord Jesus Christ stands head and shoulders above all other religions, because it alone makes no allowance for hard-hearted and unforgiving individuals. Many attempts have been made to bring Christ down to the level of Moses, and this book, sadly, is in this category.

END
27 December, 2006
DR. LESLIE McFALL
E-mail: lmf12@talk21.com
__________________________

A Song Of Hope

Rascal Flatts To Make Her Love Me Lyrics
Songwriters: De Marcus, Jay; Mobley, Wendell Lee; Thrasher, Neil;



"To Make Her Love Me"

You waved your hand and it was done
So let it be and there it was
A mountain, so high, it broke through, the sky
A canyon, so deep, it'll bring a man to his knees

[Chorus]
I've seen what you can do
I've seen you make miracles and hopeless dreams come true
You've made the heavens and the stars
Everything, come on how hard
Could it be, To make her love me?

I've said some things I shouldn't have
Tried everything to win her back
I'm human, I messed up, Is she gone?, Are we done?
Forgiveness, another chance, that's all I want, it's in your hands

[chorus]
I've seen what you can do
I've seen you make miracles and hopeless dreams come true
You've made the heavens and the stars
Everything, come on how hard
Could it be, To make her love me?

[Chorus]

To make her love me
To make her love me (oooo)


Sunday, December 14, 2008

What Does God Say About Marriage?

Marriage is not an invention of man. God instituted marriage. According to God's plan, man and woman together form the unit of humanity. A man or a woman alone is only part of an entirety. 
"And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'" (Gen. 2:18).

"Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:

'This is now bone of my bone
And flesh of my flesh; 
She shall be called Woman, 
Because she was taken out of Man.' 
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:22-24)
This text contains several beautiful statements.

Adam received his wife as a gift from God. In a sense it is still true that a man receives his wife from God. Solomon says: 

"Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers, 
But a prudent wife is from the Lord" (Proverbs 19:14).
We also see that marriage is good. Solomon says in another place: 
"He who finds a wife finds a good thing,
And obtains favour from the Lord" (Proverbs 18:22).

We also see how strong the marriage bond is, so strong that they are no longer two but are melted together as one flesh.

This bond is so strong that it is broken only by death. As long as they live they are one together. They may not separate. Jesus quoted this passage when He was asked about marriage:

"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?' And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.' They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' 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. 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'" (Mat. 19:3-9).

In this passage in Genesis we also see how dependent man and woman are on each other. They need each other. Paul says:

"Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as the woman was from the man, even so the man also is through the woman; but all things are from God" (1 Cor. 11:11,12).

Marriage is an institution of God and is a continuation of His work of creation. Sexual desires are God-given. We should view our manliness or womanliness as a gift from God which we receive with thankfulness and strive to keep holy and pure in accordance with His instructions.

To preserve the sanctity of marriage and the well-being of man, God has established certain laws regarding sexual activities. Before we discuss these we must be sure we understand how a marriage comes into being.

First we will discuss some wrong definitions of marriage. Then we will give the definition we find in the Bible.

Marriage is not a sacrament, as is taught in some churches. In the Scriptures, marriage is an institution in society that is of divine origin. It is governed by the laws of God and by the regulations of the society in which one lives to the extent that they do not conflict with the laws of God. A marriage may take place in a church building, and it is certainly in order for Christians to pray and ask God's blessing on a marriage. But a marriage is not in and of itself a religious ceremony.

Nor is marriage a private agreement between a man and a women. This idea is often used as an excuse for unchastity before marriage. The argument is made: "Although we have not been officially married, we have agreed between ourselves to be married, so actually we are already married." This idea is contrary to the Scriptures. In the Bible a marriage always takes place according to certain norms of society and always involves other people who serve as witnesses. A marriage is an occurrence before God and before man. A Christian is obligated to abide by the laws of the society in which he lives to the extent that they do not conflict with the laws of God. Paul says: 

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves" (Rom. 13:1,2).

The laws of God and of society are for the purpose of protecting the parties involved and society in general. Thus a marriage is more than a private agreement between a man and a woman.

What constitutes a marriage? In the Scriptures we find various forms of marriages at different times and in different societies, but certain elements are always present.

Examples of marriage formalities: In early times, for example, the groom went to the house of the parents of his bride. There was a marriage feast. Then he took his bride home with him. In the time of Christ the marriage formalities were very complicated. First, the man had to pay a certain sum of money to the parents of the girl. Then there was a period of one year's betrothal. During that year the two were already bound to one another by legal contract but they were not allowed to live as man and wife until the actual marriage ceremony. It consisted of a great feast that sometimes lasted several days.

Whatever the form, however, the marriage was always a formal occurence at a certain time involving a contract between a man and a woman with other people as witnesses. Only after the requirements were fulfilled were they married.

What is required, according to Scriptures, to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

First, men and women are to remain virgin until marriage. All sexual relations outside of marriage are forbidden by God and are referred to as fornication, a sin which had the death penalty under the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant one can be forgiven and purified by the blood of Christ. It is a sin, however, which is extremely damaging to those concerned, to society and to marriage as an institution.

After marriage one is to have sexual relations only with the marriage partner. Sexual relations with any other is adultery, which also earned the death penalty under the Old Covenant. We read in Hebrews 13:4 that God wants marriage to be preserved from the damage caused by these two sins:

"Marriage is honourable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb. 13:4).

From this text we see once more that marriage is pure and holy. Fornication and adultery damage marriage, however, and God will hold those who engage in such practices responsible on the day of judgement.

The marriage contract includes sexual responsibilities. Paul says: 

"Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7:3-5).

The wife is to submit to the authority of her husband and the husband is to love his wife as his own body:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph. 5:22-33).

This does not mean that a man may misuse his authority, because if he loves his wife he will sacrifice for her as Christ did for the church. It does mean, however, that he is the head of the family. As head he also bears the first responsibility. He can provide the needed leadership only if his wife respects and submits to his authority.

God's regulations relative to marriage are strict. This is because He values marriage highly for the well-being of man. God's laws and regulations have no other purpose than the ultimate happiness of man. Let us follow the word of God in this matter. Marriage is a gift of God. He will help us to have a good marriage if we obey His word and if we pray for His blessings, help and guidance in our lives.

Article By Roy Davison



The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers. Permission for reference use has been granted.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Why I Repented Of A Marriage That God Called Adulterous!

To the friends & family of Cheryl Chrisman

I’m writing to let you know why I have left my husband (Name Deleted).

It’s not that I don’t love him, and it’s not that he has wronged me. I don’t know what you may have already heard through the grapevine – probably that I have done something weird, crazy, inexplicable, stupid (take your pick.) And I’m sure that to most people it seems that way. So I’m writing to explain, to set the record straight, and to let you know how I feel and what I think – though after reading this most of you will probably still think I’m crazy, or whatever…

After much prayer and stress on my soul I have concluded that I must write this. I wish with all of my heart that I didn’t have to - that the church would teach the biblical truth in this matter, as the early church once taught, and as most churches taught up to about half a century ago. The plain fact of the matter is that the Christian church of yesteryear taught that remarriage while a previous spouse was living is adultery. And that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

However, today there are hardly any churches or pastors left who teach this. Why? There are many reasons, but perhaps the main one is that pastors are afraid of having people leave their congregation. For if they teach this truth today, many people will be offended and leave. So they teach something else, and over many decades they have come to believe themselves that what they teach is the truth. They do not actually lie, since they don’t know the truth, but what they teach is a lie, and it causes enormous grief and destruction in society and in the church – to the point where it must be asked whether most churches in America still deserve to be called Christian, or whether they have become something else.

Yes, I know these are fighting words, and many will be hurt by them, but they need to be said. I don’t mean to hurt anyone, nor cause anyone grief, but I can’t keep quiet while this truth is being suppressed everywhere.
I know that this is a very lengthy letter, but I hope you will read it all. To make it more accessible I have divided it into three parts:

- What happened
- Why I did it
- Who convinced me
- and at the end there are a few words in conclusion.

So – part one: What happened:

I married a divorced man with previous spouses living. On November 16, 2004, after three years of marriage, while studying the Bible and many other sources about this subject, the Holy Spirit convicted me of being in a state of adultery. I felt as if I had been struck by lightning.

I did not want to make a quick or rash decision about the matter – I wanted to make sure that this was of the Lord. But the more I searched, the more I found that I had not misunderstood – that this was indeed the truth. And as I wept and prayed before the Lord, asking him to forgive me of not obeying him, He brought to my attention that before I married, He had tried to show me in his Word that marrying a divorced person was wrong. But I chose to listen to the popular belief of the modern church and most modern pastors that remarriage was allowed under certain circumstances – such as adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. I went into this marriage believing that you could be remarried because of the so-called “fornication clause” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 19:9 and because of the supposed unbelieving spouse abandonment clause that Paul stated in Corinthians.

I have since repented of my adulterous marriage. I have left (Name Deleted). It hurt very much to do so, but I could not stay in a state of adultery. To civil society and to current law what I have done is divorce, but the way I see it – and the way Christians throughout the ages have seen it – I have stopped living in adultery. The adulterous relationship was not (name deleted)’s fault, he didn’t know about this any more than I did. Though I should have known, and would have known if I had listened to the Lord three years ago.

So why can’t I repent of the remarriage and go on with my marriage to (Name Deleted)? The Holy Spirit showed me that you cannot get forgiveness until you forsake the sin. Which simply means to stop doing it – or at the very least try to stop doing it, for there are sins into which we fall and stumble, which aren’t so easy to stop doing. But marriage is not something you stumble into. When you wake up in the morning, in the cold light of day, you are still married. The only way to forsake the sin of remarriage is to stop being married. I challenge you find in the Bible where you can ask Christ to forgive you and at the same time deliberately continue in the sin.
Many falsely believe that you are allowed to remarry if your previous spouse committed adultery. I believed this too, but after careful study of the Scriptures I discovered that this simply is not so. As I struggled with this issue, some tried to comfort me by saying that I was forgiven. But I had no peace with this. The conviction of the Holy Spirit was upon me until I repented. Some told me that I was adding works to salvation. Where in the Holy Scripture is repentance and turning from a sin a work? Scripture tells us that if we don’t repent and forsake the sin we will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

While working through this, I have found some other Christian couples who have fallen under the same conviction of the Holy Spirit – and also have repented of their adulterous remarriages. I have received emails with their testimonies. I thought I was all alone in this repentance, but now I see that God is beginning to wake up not only me but perhaps many Christians in America and throughout the world. Waking us up to the plight of this culture of divorce remarriage which He hates.

I have even found instances where pastors have repented of what they used to teach, and are now boldly preaching the truth about divorce and remarriage. One pastor said the he had been compromising in this area all of his life, and that he spent a full night on his knees repenting to God. These repentant pastors are risking it all – their career, their paycheck, their reputation, their friends – to stand and preach the truth on this issue. Praise God!

Part two – why I did what I did:

Of course, I have said some of this already. What I believe about remarriage – that it is adultery – is clear from what I have written above. But there is more to be said – about why I changed my mind, why I no longer believe as I used to. I don’t expect anyone to be convinced by what I write simply because I say so, but I hope that this may serve as an introduction to the issue, and a starting point from where to read more. For there is more, much more.

There is no way that I can cover all scriptures and arguments in this letter, but here are a few: In Romans 7 Paul gives no exceptions – only death breaks the covenant of marriage: Romans 7:2,3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Almost all modern day preachers think that because of the “fornication” clause in Matthew you can remarry because of adultery: And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication (or uncleaness porneia), and marries another woman commits adultery (moikeia). Notice that the Greek word for fornication is “porneia” and the Greek word for adultery is “moikea.” Also, please note that this “except for fornication” clause is not found in Mark or Luke. This is because Matthew was writing to Jews. The Jews had a betrothal period before marriage. This was somewhat like our engagement period today, but more legally binding.

I'm sure you know the story how Mary was found to be with child before they were married, and Joseph was going to put her away until the angel of the Lord intervened. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, he assumed she had been fornicating because he knew that he was not responsible for Mary’s pregnancy. Therefore he could have ‘put away’ his fiancée because of fornication. Notice that the Bible refers to Mary as Joseph’s wife before they were married:

Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, Matt. 1:20 ... Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife... The Jewish betrothal was begun with a proposal and a commitment made in the presence of witnesses. It was beyond the private promise made in modern engagements, and was considered legally binding. Furthermore, espoused partners were referred to as husband and wife (see Matthew 1:19 and 20 – “Joseph her husband” and “Mary thy wife.”) Therefore to break an espousal in Jewish society required a legal separation – a writing of divorcement equivalent to that required of married couples. Jesus’ exception, quoted only in Matthew, was aimed at this Jewish situation. He was saying that divorce is wrong, except when putting away an espoused partner who has been unfaithful before marriage.

However, Mark and Luke were written to the Gentiles. That’s us. We have no betrothal period, so the “fornication clause” does not apply. Here are the texts from Mark and Luke. Notice that they have no such “fornication clause”: Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

It doesn’t take an education at a seminary or a degree in Greek to understand what the Bible plainly says about divorce and remarriage while the previous spouse still lives. The Bible says nothing about killing an unborn baby, but no Christian would argue that it is wrong. There aren’t many places in the New Testament which speak of homosexuality, but we plead with the homosexual to repent of his sinful relationship. But the Bible, and especially the New Testament, contains many passages concerning marriage and divorce, yet the church is so confused about the issue.

There are many objections. One is, “God didn't consider my former marriage valid since my partner and I weren't Christians.” Where does Scripture teach this? It is simply not taught anywhere. There are many places in scripture where God recognized sinners’ marriages. Dr. Webb lists some of these scriptures in his sermon on the enclosed CD.

Another common objection is that God would not want a happy marriage to end. Really? God will justify sin if it makes us happy? Where in Scripture does God want happiness instead of holiness? I’m not saying that God doesn’t want us happy, but he wants us happy on his terms. He is able to provide us with all the happiness we need. Our happiness is his concern. As Americans we have the right to “the pursuit of happiness,” but as Christians we must pursue holiness. If we pursue holiness, God will provide our happiness.

Christ was acquainted with many sorrows. The disciples and the apostles suffered greatly for Christ’s sake. The Happiness & Feel Good doctrine preached throughout modern churchianity is not Christianity. Jesus never promised that the Christian walk would always be easy. He demands our complete obedience even when it flies in the face of the modern church, society and our own happiness! Christ did not die to make us happy, he died to make us holy. He died to cleanse us from our sins, not apply a band-aid of grace so we could continue in them.

I could certainly have found some kind of scriptural excuse to stay in my marriage. Does anyone think that I wanted to leave a man I loved with all my heart? But I had chosen to enter into a doubtful marriage, not listening to God telling me through his Holy Spirit and his Word that it was wrong. So I had to repent, I had to leave. I was definitely not happy about it, but happiness was not the issue. Obedience was the issue, and still is. Above all, I want to do the will of God. And I want to spend eternity with him in heaven. The Bible clearly says that no adulterer will enter the kingdom of heaven. And that remarriage while a former spouse still lives is adultery – adultery that must be repented of and forsaken.

Now to part three – who convinced me:

Of course, I believe that God was the one who convinced me. The Holy Spirit would not let me go until I saw the truth. But as he always does, he used human helpers.
I am sure that most truly born again remarried Christians with their previous spouses still living have doubted at some point about the spiritual validity of their remarriage because they have heard enough from Scripture to put just little doubt into their hearts. Those who take this doubt seriously, as I finally did, will want to review the same material I have. This material is not easy to find, as opposed to the multitude of sermons, articles and books trying to explain away the truth, which can be found more or less everywhere. Therefore I have included extracts from several sources I have found, along with the internet links where this material can be found in full.

First of all: I have enclosed two CDs with a sermon by Dr. Joseph Webb and a radio talk broadcast with Rev. Stephen Wilcox. I wish with all my heart that some pastor or preacher could have preached Dr. Webb’s sermon to me before I married. He refutes the reasons and excuses pastors and preachers give to allow divorced people to remarry. He put to rest any remaining doubts I had about the remarriage of divorced persons in the light of Holy Scripture. Had I heard this before marriage, it would have saved me much heartache and despair. I guarantee that you’ve never heard a preacher in your local church preach what Dr. Webb preaches. If you listen to these CDs, I hope the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the many falsehoods being preached about divorce and remarriage in the modern churches.

What is on these CDs, and many more resources for finding the truth, are available atwww.marriagedivorce.com, the website of Rev. Stephen Wilcox. Wilcox has written an article which covers the complete history of the early church views on this matter, along with historical facts and information about when and where the lies or remarriage crept into the church. Another article, “What Jesus Said About Divorce & Remarriage” by Bishop Arne Rudvin, is specifically about the words of Jesus on this subject, especially about the “porneia exception” which so many have misunderstood. And there is much else as well. If you don't have internet access I will gladly provide printed copies of these articles for you.

At www.lornematthews.com you can find the music and marriage ministry of Lorne and Ruth Matthews, who also teach the truth about divorce and remarriage. At www.hardtruth.net there is a website discussion forum where I am currently involved in a discussion about this issue. Anyone can join the discussion. And if you visit my own website www.cadz.net/mdr.html I have links to the articles mentioned above, and others as well, covering all Scripture on the issue, both New and Old Testament, and many of the various objections.

As you can see, I have also enclosed the essay “Do You Have Any Doubts About Remarriage?” by Rick Frederick, and also four chapter excerpts from “Holy Matrimony” by Dirk Evenhuis. The whole book is available from www.holymatrimony.org. It is rather lengthy, but if you are really a lover of the truth you will read it. It really was an eye opener to me and I hope it will be an eye opener to you as well. Here is a small excerpt from the book’s chapter 11: “Let us now examine Christ's words to Israel through Matthew. “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” (Matthew 5:31-32). Recent translators have displayed their ignorance of Jewish life and taken license to substitute the words `marital unfaithfulness' for the clearly understood word fornication. They have argued from the Greek, their right to such license However we would make this fact perfectly clear. Never once does our Lord say fornication when He means adultery, and never once does He say adultery when He means fornication. In Matthew, and Matthew only, Christ deals with the exceptive clause of fornication for the Jews for they understood perfectly what He was saying. Nowhere in all scripture has adultery ever had any dissolving or annulling effect upon the marriage bond. Christ clearly resisted Moses' concession to the hard hearted and introduces absolutely no such grounds as `marital unfaithfulness' for the dissolving of a marriage covenant.”
“Does not 2 Corinthians 5:17 allow remarriage because it says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come”?”
Some men and women feel that they can remarry another even if they are guilty of divorcing their first spouse. They appeal to 2 Corinthians 5:17 and interpret it to mean “the old things (sin of divorce) are passed away... all things are become new (forgiveness means I can marry again in 'the Lord,' now).” No one is doubting that the Lord can forgive the sin of divorcing a spouse, but this does not mean that remarriage to a new partner, even though he or she may be a “Christian”, would not then be considered adultery by our Lord.
If someone unlawfully divorced his wife, and repents, then he is forgiven for that sin, yes. But the Law still says if he marries another he would be committing adultery. For example, scripture does NOT say, at Luke 16:18, “Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery: But if he repents of divorcing his wife, then he is free to remarry.” It does not even imply that. Just because we are forgiven for one sin (divorce), does not allow us to ignore the law in another area (remarriage). That law is still binding.

To give an example from scripture, when a thief stole under the Old Testament, he was to shed the blood of a goat, and then he would have to pay restitution. He would be forgiven for that sin by the goat's blood, but he would still be bound to pay restitution. There are still consequences to his forgiven sin. And under the New Testament, if a thief stole something, and repented and believed in the blood of Jesus Christ, that thief would still have to pay restitution to those he stole from. Just because he was forgiven by God for his sin of stealing, it does not mean he is free to ignore the law of restitution to people. That law is still binding upon him.
Likewise, just because God forgives a man for his sin of divorce, it does not mean he is free to ignore the law of re-marriage to people. Even though the thief was forgiven, there are still consequences...paying restitution for his theft. And even though the man who divorced was forgiven, there are still consequences...he cannot re-marry once divorced. That law is still binding upon him. Forgiveness in one area does not permit disobedience in another.

Before I finish I would like to include a quote from activist, Elroy McKinley: (McKinley's Full Article Here)

A divorced man who remarries is entering into an adulterous relationship. And it's not just a relationship; it's an adulterous lifestyle because the remarried man chooses to continue living in the adulterous relationship for the rest of his life (or until he divorces and remarries again). However, if you ask this adulterous man if he is still a Christian, he will say something like, “I believe God has forgiven me and I'm now living under his grace.” And ask him if he's willing to leave his current wife in order to “turn from his adulterous lifestyle,” and he will refuse because “God's grace has already saved him.” But this is the same man who earlier claimed that the homosexual must turn from his “sinful” lifestyle as a condition of receiving God's grace.
. . .
The Religious Right is nearly half-full with people living in continuous adulterous lifestyles, and those who are not remarried fully accept their remarried brothers and sisters without question. They even perform their adulterous marriage ceremonies in their churches. Yet they have the gall to preach from their pulpits or shout through the airwaves that God wants us to stop the world from accepting homosexuals the same way they have been accepted by God. Jesus warned us not to be like the servant who was forgiven his debt by the grace of his lord but then used the legal system to throw a fellow slave in jail. The Religious Right, however, claim God's grace for their own lifestyle sins but then turn around and give tremendous amounts of time and money to use the legal system against homosexuals.

It is a double standard. It is a mockery. If Christ took their sins to the cross, and became an adulterer through propitiation before burying that sin in the ground, then Christ also took the gay person's sin to the cross and became a homosexual before burying that sin in the ground. The Religious Right, and everyone else, should either accept that God's grace covers all of us, including those living in sinful lifestyles, or that none of us are covered. They should either condemn their remarried members or shut up about those among us who are gay.

But they don't. And we are left to wonder why. Why do they pick on one “sinful” lifestyle but not their own? Why homosexuality and not adultery? They say it's because homosexuality is damaging our families and hurting our children. But which is really worse? Over 50% of American parents get divorced. Most of those remarry. Over 50% of our children have their families torn apart and then merged with the families of strangers (causing a lot of sexual abuse on children by step-parents). But less than 5% of the population is homosexual. Even if they had twice as many relationships as heterosexuals do, they could not possibly cause the kind of damage that heterosexual divorce and remarriage does.
The former vice-president of Focus on the Family, a leading Religious Right organization, stated in his book, “James Dobson's War on America” (Dobson is the founder and president) that when their donations went down, they could simply broadcast a scary special about the gay agenda (or the evil women's movement or the even more evil abortion rights groups – but never remarried people since that would drive away nearly half of their listeners) and their revenues would increase substantially.

There are some very eye opening truths in Mr. McKinley’s article. Homosexuals understand what the Bible says about remarriage – but so few Christians know, or should I say “want to know.” It’s pretty sad when a homosexual can see the hypocrisy of the modern church and most Christians cannot.

Mr. McKinley is not alone in this observation – other homosexuals as well have challenged us to prove that marriage is worth keeping. They are basically saying – and they are quite right, as shocking as it may be – that a homosexual “marriage” by two people who love each other and are committed to each other, is every bit as valid and every bit a biblical as remarriage while your first spouse is still living. Basically, these homosexuals are stuffing our feet in our own mouths as evangelical Christians, leaving us with no moral authority to make the argument against homosexual marriages. Few Christian leaders, pastors and preachers purporting to want to rebuild our families will even touch on this sin of divorce and remarital adultery lying under the skirts of the church. The homosexual activists are using this against us, and doing a very efficient job.

This should shock the church back to it senses, to look at this subject in light of God’s word. But is this happening? On any given Sunday morning a large portion of the people sitting in the churches of America – including their pastors – are either adulterers or fornicators according to biblical standards. They are in violation of God’s holy Word, and are unwittingly taking the lead in tearing down and desecrating the American family. In fact, so bad is this situation, that the divorce rate in the church is 4% higher than the nation as a whole – and in the “Bible belt” with the greatest concentration of so-called evangelical churches, the divorce rate is 50% higher than in the nation as a whole! With such a situation, how can we ever be capable of winning any culture wars? This is basically the pot calling the kettle black.

I don’t know of a single prominent ministry in this country, especially those that purport to be rebuilding the family, which will focus on their own constituency and address them on the issue of divorce and remarriage. They will not do it. So now we the church have set ourselves up for absolute defeat. We have absolutely no moral authority to speak against the homosexuals who insist on their “right” to “marriage.” We don’t have righteousness in this nation, we don’t even have righteousness in the church. In our nation pastors have a divorce rate that is the second highest in this country! If this sounds unbelievable, check the statistics for yourself! Visit www.saveus.org for the statistics. George Barna, pollster to the church, has spent the last ten years gathering statistics on this and many other issues involving the church.

Until the church from pulpit to pew repents of this matter, the church is and will continue to be powerless in winning the lost. Racked with its own adultery and fornication, it has the nerve to hypocritically point the finger at homosexuals and their lifestyle – while preachers and pastors remain silent on divorce and remarriage. Homosexuals make up about 5% of the population but have more of an impact on society than the church does.

Christ is returning for a spotless bride. Will he find it in the American churches? Why would a homosexual want to enter our church gates if all he sees is hypocrisy on our part? I can’t blame the homosexuals; I no longer want to attend many of the so-called Christian churches of our day either. Since the religious leaders of our day remain silent, it is we the “rocks” who cry out against the unrighteousness within the church walls. If someone doesn’t speak against this, the church will spiral more toward the apostate church predicted by Christ in the end times. I cringe now when I hear a pastor speak of the sin of homosexuals, while not willing to speak of the sin of remarital adultery! Just because our denominations have changed their interpretations of the scriptures in the last 50 years does not mean that the word of God has changed.

Finally – in conclusion:

On Nov. 16, 2004 the Holy Spirit convicted me of being in adultery. Since then I have diligently searched the Scriptures to make sure this is so. When various pastors tried to comfort me, encourage me and pray for me I found no peace until I repented of the adulterous relationship. I believe that the Holy Spirit is trying to open not only my eyes, but the eyes of many remarried adulterers – however, the preachers and pastors just explain away the scriptures. And the convicted souls accept this, finally quenching the conviction of the Spirit. They will then feel a false peace – a “peace” which is not peace, merely the absence of conviction.
So what must we do? We must be like the Bereans in Acts, searching the scriptures ourselves to see whether the pastor or preacher says is so. Our souls must not rest on the opinions of men, but on “what saith the Lord thy God.” “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

Many denominations have reinterpreted what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage, and now we are reaping the evil fruits of these misinterpretations. The divorce rate among Christians is higher than in the rest of the nation! Everyone is doing what is right in his or her own eyes. Preachers will tell you whatever you want to hear. Most of it is a blend of psychology, popular Bible quotes and American culture and good feelings. That’s basically how our theology on marriage has been reworked in the last 30 to 40 years.

What’s going on? Whatever happened to the authority of scripture? There was once a time in this country where our thoughts on divorce marriage and remarriage was almost unanimous. Even unbelievers knew what the Bible had to say. But today only one out of every 4 or 5 “born again” adults believes that divorce is sin (according to George Barna Research.) This tells us that our pastors are not teaching the truth, they are only feeding the people religious feel-good philosophy to build up the congregations and get the money flowing in.

I have not only searched the scriptures on divorce and remarriage, I have also read church denominational papers and beliefs on this issue, from the Assemblies of God to the Baptists. I have found that most have changed, dramatically, their stance on remarriage from where the church of yesteryear once stood. This has been done to please men rather than God. These church leaders think that just because they have redefined their doctrines to allow for a sinful behavior, God somehow approves! But God had not changed.

These church leaders like to take the passages of Scripture which are somewhat more vague and harder to understand, and use them to explain away the plain teaching of Scripture. This helps them justify our own selfish behaviors. Charles Finney, the great revivalist of the last century, once said that “selfishness is the whole of moral depravity,” and isn’t selfishness the whole of the current acceptance of divorce and remarriage? Why else change everything, other than to allow for the selfish desires and needs of men? This is exactly the opposite of the high calling of every Christian: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

Another thing often seen in churches today, is pastors who do preach the truth, but don’t preach the whole truth. They like to skirt around the hard issues found in the Bible. But that doesn’t make those hard issues go away. They are still right there, waiting for the day when pastors again will fear God as much as they fear the opinions of their congregations. On that day we will see a revival like never before. When preachers get that kind of fear of God, we will have a revival that would make John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Dwight Moody, Charles Finney and Billy Sunday look on with awe. When I go back and read of Wesley, Edwards, and Finney’s revivals in the past centuries, I see nothing in the church of today that even remotely resembles this. This is not because there are no sinners outside the church needing salvation – it is because of the professing “born again” sinners within the church. It’s because of pastors who do not have the boldness to preach on hard issues, the boldness that can lead to true repentance, as it did in years past.

There are many churches today where the Bible is loved, preached and believed, but we almost always find that the pastors focus on only the positive side of Christianity. They will never preach on hell, they will never preach on specific sins, they will always talk about what Jesus can do for you, how he can help you to be better, how he can help you overcome this and overcome that – as if all these other things, the negative and serious things that are hard to hear are not in the Bible, when in point of fact they are.

We are so deceived. And we want to be deceived, because it is easier to be deceived than to know the truth. And there is no place where we want to be deceived more than in the realm of sexuality. People tell themselves lies until they believe those lies. That is why a pastor of a church of approximately 10,000 in southern California divorced his wife after five years. And one week after the divorce was final, he lined up seven prominent pastors across the front of his congregation to bless his remarriage! When Jack Heyford called him to task for this, he said, “God didn’t call me to marriage. He called me to ministry.” And this sort of thing is going on all over the country.

The core of the problem is that we don’t preach repentance anymore. We just don’t believe in it anymore, because to have repentance you have to hear the hard truth of the Word – the truth that gives God the Holy Spirit something to work with to bring conviction to our hearts. True repentance is what it’s going to take to turn this thing around. Instead of pointing our fingers at others – mostly at homosexuals – we must confess and repent of our own rebellion!

There is some good news. There are some who are standing up to the rot and sin of the church and the deafening silence of the pulpit. Like attorney/pastor Charles Crismier and his national radio broadcast,Viewpoint, who will speak openly and truthfully about this issue. Like pastors Steven Key, Stephen Wilcox andJoseph Webb who will not stand by and let Satan walk all over God’s precious institution of marriage. And regular ole church folk like me and many others I have corresponded with, who are standing up and no longer willing to be silent. If the pulpit wants to remain silent, let it. God is waking up people in the pews instead. God’s truth will not return to him void. The “rocks” are starting to cry out.

I wish the Lord hadn’t led me to an issue that was so controversial. But we, mankind, have made it controversial so that we may do our own will and not that of the Father. I cannot step away from this issue in fear. As I read about the Roman Empire in its last stages decay, the one thing that was so typical of those last days of decay was the prevalence of divorce, remarriage and homosexuality. The church will address homosexuality with great fervor, but will not touch divorce and remarriage. We seem to be reliving the last days of the Roman Empire .
If we don’t repent of divorce and remarriage, in 20 to 40 years we the church will be facing the same problem with homosexual couples in the church. Pastors who are fearful of preaching a repentance message to the remarried adulterers in their pews, will become just as fearful of preaching repentance to the homosexual couples who will be sitting in those same pews. Just as the church has become accustomed to remarital adultery in the last fifty years, it will become accustomed to homosexuality.

I was one of the many remarried adulteresses sitting in the pew on Sunday mornings. If I had waited for the pulpits to preach repentance and truth on this issue, I would still be in my adultery. But praise the Lord – one Saturday night the Holy Spirit and his Word convicted me. I fell and wept before the Lord and by his grace repented. And praise God, now I see many others around America waking up and repenting also!

Yours in Christ,
Cheryl Chrisman


Monday, December 1, 2008

God Makes The Man And Woman One

By Myron Horst

Marriage is more than a marriage certificate from the civil government. In marriage, God makes the man and the woman one. God says about the being made one aspect in Malachi 2:15: "And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

Jesus also stated that it is God who joins a man and woman together as one flesh in marriage: "And he answered and said unto them, 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. 19:4-6

Divorce is a legal action that the civil government (not God) has established. A couple may go to the church to get married, but they have to go to the civil government to get a divorce. The Church cannot grant a legal divorce. Although divorce can end the legal aspect of a marriage, it cannot end the "one" aspect of the marriage which God has joined together. Once divorce occurs, a person is not single again in God's judgment, and therefore not free to marry another person even if their first spouse has remarried. The "one" union with their spouse can only be ended by the death of one of the marriage partners. According to Jesus, a marriage cannot be ended by the legal proceedings of the court.

In the same passage in Malachi 2 where God states that he makes the man and woman one, God also clearly states that after divorce the marriage is still binding "yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." (Malachi 2:14) Divorce does not end the "one" aspect of the marriage that God joined together when they were married.

God also says, "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." Romans 7:3.

Copyright © 2003-2008 by Biblical Research Reports. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Until Death To Us Part: Is Remarriage Biblically Sanctioned After Divorce?

By Finny Kuruvilla
November 6, 2006 (last revised October 29, 2008)


Divorce is perhaps the most painful wound a family can experience. After the initial trauma, its scars run deep and wide. Most of us know several people close to us who have gone through a divorce, even while in their twenties or thirties. The question for examination at present is whether remarriage to another person is biblically permissible after divorce, while the former spouse is living. After surveying the question from historical and biblical perspectives, pastoral implications will be explored.

Historical perspectives

In most of today's churches, the question of "Can remarriage be biblically allowed after divorce?" is met with an overwhelming answer of "Yes." In fact, few have heard or considered the alternative view that remarriage is biblically prohibited after divorce while the former spouse lives.

Because of the dominance of this view today, the historic views of the church surprise most who have not studied this subject. Wenham and Heth in their book Jesus and Divorce offer a helpful survey of the early patristic writings on divorce and remarriage. They note that in the first five centuries of church history, there was essential unanimity of the Greek (Eastern) and Latin (Western) church fathers in viewing remarriage as adultery. Such writers include early Greek fathers such as Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen and later Greek writers such as Basil, Gregory, Nazianzus, Appollinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom. The early Greek writers should be heavily weighed since they knew Koine Greek as their mother tongue and thus understood the nuances of the New Testament language better than anyone could today. Of the early church writers who wrote in Latin, a similar picture exists: Tertullian, Ambrose, Innocent, Jerome, and Augustine concurred that remarriage after divorce is biblically forbidden. Only one writer, Ambrosiaster, who wrote in the late fourth century, disagreed. It has been noted, however, that Ambrosiaster permitted remarriage for innocent men but not women. He also appears to be strongly influenced by Roman law which was quite permissive about remarriage. Yet the overall picture is very clear about the beliefs of the early church, "In all, twenty-five individual writers and two early councils forbid remarriage after divorce" (Wenham and Heth, p. 38).

The contrast in views on remarriage between the early church and most modern churches is therefore stark. Anytime there is a clear disagreement between the modern and early church view, we should pause and proceed with great caution. Ultimately the biblical witness stands as the final arbiter of truth. Yet we must be conscious that we often read the bible through the lens of our own era. One writer notes about Protestants who claim sola scriptura:

For their interpretation is, for the most part, unconsciously, conditioned to a large extent by the Christian education and environment from which they come -- that is, by the tradition (here used in the customary meaning of the word) of their particular denomination. A great part of the differences in exegesis among them is to be explained by different doctrinal presuppositions. 1 Such an insight motivates a careful reading of the church fathers, outside of our own time and culture, lest we be blinded in self-deception. Martin Bucer, one of the leaders of the Reformation in Southern Germany, wrote, "Nothing should be hastily repudiated that is commended to us by holy antiquity or by the public consensus of the faithful during so many centuries." He also wrote, "I judge that those most holy ancient Fathers should be regarded with the highest esteem and singular reverence paid to the doctrines that they taught and the customs that they observed..."2 Lastly, James Dunn offers a valuable hermeneutic principle, "If those closer to the thought world of Paul and closer to the issue... show no inkling of the current interpretation, that interpretation is probably wrong."3 With this contrast between the early and modern views fixed in the background, an examination of the biblical texts is now in order.
Relevant biblical texts

Most of the verses contained in the New Testament appear to be quite plainly opposed to remarriage after divorce. These passages merit careful reading:

And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12)

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18)

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2-3)
Looking at these passages in turn, Mark records a saying of Jesus that is perfectly symmetric: if either the husband or wife divorce and remarry, he or she is guilty of adultery. It should be noted that there is no qualification about the reason for divorce. Luke records a saying with the same first half as Mark, but the saying goes on to note that whoever marries the divorced woman is also guilty of adultery. Luke's additional recording (16:18b) implies that neither spouse may remarry after divorce, neither the "guilty" nor "innocent" party. The gospels of Mark and Luke were written for a predominantly Gentile audience that would have been familiar with Greco-Roman laws. Such laws were quite permissive about divorce: either the husband or wife could initiate divorce for any reason, including sexual immorality. The words against divorce and remarriage from either gospel thus would have been heard as profoundly counter-cultural.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, notes that neither the wife nor husband should initiate divorce or separation. If it had already occurred, the Christian should remain "unmarried or else be reconciled." This is entirely consistent with Mark and Luke, in that all three passages forbid remarriage to another person. The fourth passage in Romans teaches that unless a spouse dies, the marital bond persists.

The gospel of Matthew records Jesus' teachings on this issue in two separate locations:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)
Scholars nearly unanimously acknowledge Matthew's gospel to be primarily for a Jewish audience, unlike the gospels of Mark and Luke. Its internal structure, vocabulary, and contextual assumptions presume a reader with a Jewish background and sensibilities. The first text in Matthew given above comes from the Sermon on the Mount, and is similar to the saying that Luke records. The verse is preceded by Jesus' statement that a man who looks at a woman lustfully is considered guilty of adultery. It is remarkable that throughout this section Jesus puts the focus of blame onto the man, especially considering that in the Old Testament, the focus of blame was usually on the woman. In Matthew 5:32a, a new aspect of Jesus' teaching is presented: if the man divorces his wife, then this makes her commit adultery. While not initially obvious why this would be true, this statement almost certainly flows from the assumption that social and economic pressures would force the woman to be remarried. In this case, the man is culpable for the woman's sin by practically forcing her into this adulterous situation. Matthew 5:32b does not qualify the reason for the woman's divorce but simply notes that whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery. The entire passage (Matthew 5:27-32) thus progresses through a crescendo of events: lust in the mind, looking lustfully, sinning with the hands, divorce, adultery by proxy, and finally actual adultery.

Why does Matthew have the phrase, "except for sexual immorality," that Mark and Luke lack? A critical detail of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 revolves around the exception clause containing the Greek word porneia, an umbrella term for sexual immorality and rarely used for adultery.4 The specific term for adultery, moicheia, was not chosen. Two plausible explanations exist for this word choice of porneia (sexual immorality) instead of moicheia (adultery). Both relate to Matthew's Jewish audience:

Explanation 1 - The betrothal view

At the beginning of his gospel Matthew notes that while Joseph and Mary were engaged and Mary was found to be pregnant, Joseph, "being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly" (Matthew 1:19). Because engagement in the biblical period was nearly as profound a commitment as actual marriage, it would have required a divorce for Joseph to break his promise of engagement and not marry. Matthew selected a saying of Jesus with the exception clause which reflects the view that what Joseph pondered doing as a betrothed man would have been lawful. Joseph thought that the unmarried Mary did not commit adultery (moicheia) but immorality (porneia), and hence his decision to divorce would have been acceptable. Proponents of this view believe that Matthew is addressing a situation like the one Joseph thought he was in: premarital sex during the betrothal period. John Piper, a prominent Christian author and teacher, while preaching through the Gospel of Luke, courageously changed his mind from the modern permissive view of remarriage to the view of the early church. Espousing the betrothal view understanding of Matthew's gospel, Piper's sermons on the subject are worthy reading: Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery (January 1, 1986) and A Statement on Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper (July 21, 1986).

Explanation 2 - The rabbinic view (also called the unlawful marriage view or the consanginous marriage view) 

The practice of consanginous or unlawful marriages was banned in the Old Testament (see Leviticus 18:6-18). Tertullian puts the context of Jesus' teaching on divorce with John the Baptist's denunciation of Herod's marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip's wife (Matthew 14:3-4). It is possible that the confrontation that the Pharisees instigated in Matthew 19 was over this very issue (also see Wenham and Heth, p. 157). This usage of the word porneia also perfectly fits Paul's usage of the word in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where a man is described to be sleeping with his father's wife. In this view, the marriage itself was unlawful from the beginning and can be dissolved. Similarly to how John the Baptist urged Herod to not continue to be married to Herodias, proponents of this view state that Jesus was allowing for an unlawful marriage to be terminated.

It is difficult to decide precisely which of the two options to take, as both have clear merits, but either option nicely harmonize with the wider context of Matthew, and with the specifically Jewish character of his audience. It may be that Matthew has both situations in mind. However, in neither case is remarriage ever sanctioned, as the second part of both verses clearly attest. In fact, even if one rejects both explanations, remarriage is still not permitted from the second part of both verses. The qualification "except in the case of sexual immorality" is applied to the first verb (divorce), and not to the entire clause (divorce and marries another).

The second text in Matthew where Jesus addresses this subject (quoted above) comes from a more extended passage on marriage and divorce:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." (Matthew 19:3-12)
Consistent with Matthew's Jewish focus, many commentators view this passage as the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus by forcing him to adjudicate between the views of Hillel and Shammai, two prominent rabbis. Hillel thought that a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all, including for unsatisfactory cooking. Shammai, in contrast, thought that the only reason for divorce was adultery. While this may have been the Pharisees' motivation, Jesus appears to undercut the question altogether by arguing that divorce goes against something far more fundamental, the one flesh union that God himself has forged (19:5-6).

The disciple's astonishment at Jesus' reply bolsters the case for taking the teachings in Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and Romans 7:2-3 at face value: Jesus is teaching that divorce should never be initiated by his followers and that marriage is binding for life. The disciples incredulous reply of "it is better not to marry" makes perfect sense with this context: Jesus was teaching that a person's marital status irrevocably depended on the other spouse's behavior, a seemingly precarious situation. Jesus thus does not side with one Pharasaic school versus another, but stands outside the debate altogether. Matthew includes the same "exception clause" as before in 5:32, which, as above, is best explained by either the betrothal view or the rabbinic (consanginous) view.

There is one last passage that must be addressed before claiming complete coherence amongst texts in the New Testament: the so-called "Pauline privilege" text:

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15)
Several translations such as the NASB, ESV, KJV here translate the negated verb (ou dedoulotai) accurately as "not enslaved" or "not under bondage." Other translations such as the HCSB, NIV, or NRSV use "not bound," which misses the main force of the verb as conveying bondage and slavery. The exact meaning of this word is debated, so it is probably best for neither side to lean on the text too heavily. However, in the context, it appears that Paul is saying that a believer is not held captive to the demands of the nonbeliever after abandonment. Earlier in the chapter Paul argued that normally in marriage, the body of either spouse belonged to the other (1 Corinthians 7:4), language very similar to mutual "slavery." 1 Cor 7:15 thus implies that when the unbelieving spouse leaves, he or she forfeits conjugal rights or any other claim over the abandoned spouse. The abandoned spouse is simply no longer expected to submit to the departed spouse. In contrast, while married, the believing spouse is supposed to submit, precisely as a means to win him to the Lord (see 1 Peter 3:1-2). But after abandonment, a believer should not endure conflict and subjugation but rather live in "peace." The verb douloo (from which dedoulotai comes) is never used in the New Testament to describe a marriage bond, so it is exegetically unwarranted to claim that by being "not enslaved" Paul is now saying that the person is now free to remarry. Paul would have surely used another word in that case, or explicitly stated the freedom to remarry. Especially in the light of verses 10 and 11 where Paul requires either celibacy or reconciliation, this view makes the best sense of the passage. Thus this verse should be taken as a comfort to those who have been abandoned, not to despair but to realize that they are no longer "under bondage."
Putting all the pieces together, we have tight coherence with all the New Testament texts. To summarize thus far:

Marriage is a covenantal relationship that is binding until the death of one of the marriage partners (Romans 7:2-3).
Remarriage after divorce is tantamount to adultery for either spouse (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18).
Given the context, Matthew's exception clause probably refers to either immorality during betrothal, unlawful marriages, or both (Matthew 1:19, 5:32, 14:3-4, 19:9).
Christians are commanded to not separate or divorce; if it has already occurred they should remain celibate or be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). If a nonbelieving spouse leaves, the Christian is not obligated to submit again to the departing spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15).
These truths are neatly woven together in most Christian wedding vows, where each spouse promises fidelity until death, a fact that we should not quickly pass over, no matter what the actions of the other person. When I was married, like most, I took a vow that I would stay committed to my wife "as long as we both shall live" and "until death do us part." We should not treat this language as flighty romantic language (few who utter those words at the time do anyway), but as a covenantal, weighty language. Those who have taken this vow before God and before man and do well to honor their word.

Critique of the modern view

The prevailing view that remarriage is biblically permitted if adultery has occurred originated near the time of the Renaissance and is sometimes called the Erasmian view, since Erasmus was the first major writer to advocate the view. Erasmus was responding to excesses in the Catholic understanding of marriage, and many figures of the Reformation rapidly adopted this understanding. This view has percolated down to many modern churches (see Wenham and Heth, chapters 3 and 4, for a historical summary).

The modern view, however, is fraught with problems and inconsistencies. The first major problem is that "he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18b) and "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32b) say, at a bare minimum, that remarriage for at least some people is wrong. This is typically handled by saying that the "guilty" party can never remarry, but that the "innocent" party can. (Sometimes the distinction between guilty and innocent is blurry or disputed, but this remains another issue.) Allowing the innocent party to remarry contradicts the overwhelming evidence in Matthew 5:27-32 that the man is the guilty party and not the "divorced woman." However, even allowing for this error, another major inconsistency arises. If the guilty party cannot remarry without being adulterous because he or she is still united to the former spouse (the only way to plausibly interpret the word "adultery"), then the former spouse must also still be connected to the guilty spouse. If the innocent spouse is free to remarry, then he or she becomes a bigamist after remarriage, because of the persistent bond with the guilty party.

In the New Testament, we learn that that the "two becoming one flesh" is a mystery but actually represents Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-33). The husband, like Christ, represents the head, and the wife, like the church, represents the body. Husbands are called to "love their wives as their own bodies" (Eph 5:28) and wives are called to regard their husband as "head" (Eph 5:22). The bond between husband and wife may be dissolved legally (as Moses permitted), but not in essence. The husband who abuses or cheats on his wife is sinning precisely because the martial bond persists. If adultery dissolved the marital bond, then it could not be called adultery since adultery implies violation of an existing marital relationship. The true marital bond can be dissolved as easily as the head can be removed from the body. Can the head find a new body or the body a new head? The marital union is humanly unbreakable -- only God can sovereignly break it by death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:2-3). This was precisely why Jesus answered the question of the Pharisees in the manner that he did; they entirely misunderstood what they were asking about. Those who teach and practice that the marital bond can be humanly broken contradict the witness of Christ's love for his church, the ultimate unbreakable union: Christ in the church, and the church in Christ.

Thus we are left with the typical modern interpretation of these passages as being slippery, illogical, and out of step with individual verses as well as larger themes of the bible. Only the interpretation of the early church of these verses appears viable: remarriage for either spouse is biblically prohibited. A few modern expositors courageously agree with this interpretation: John Piper, Gordon Wenham, Charles Ryrie, and John Stott are a few well known and respected figures who similarly believe that remarriage is biblically prohibited while the former spouse is still alive. The "no remarriage" position is also the historic and present view of the Catholic Church.

Pastoral application

Based on the biblical witness, those who have experienced a divorce should be counseled to remain single or be reconciled with their former spouse, assuming that the former spouse is still unmarried. This counsel merely follows 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Should reconciliation fail (or be unadvisable as in the case of persistent abuse or the case of the former spouse being remarried), lifelong singleness may seem like a bitter pill, but when wedded to the Lord, it should be an fruitful and joyful time to be in undivided ministry. Andrew Cornes' book on this subject (see the references at the end) is outstanding reading for any in the position of being divorced and now single.

Now we come to the thorny question of how to counsel a person who is already in a second marriage. Many modern advocates of the "no remarriage" view advocate expressing sorrow for the remarriage but then to remain in the marriage that a person now finds himself or herself in. This view is certainly pastorally more palatable than the alternative counsel to view the second marriage as adulterous. However, others state that such an application betrays the very heart of the argument for not remarrying. If the first marriage is binding while both spouses live, then are not any subsequent sexual unions or marriages adulterous against that original marriage? Some reject this application because it seems too extreme and too hard to ask any family to face.

But we should not reject a potential principle of God's word because of its harsh implications, particularly when devout people across diverse traditions throughout church history have practiced those very implications. (For examples from the Reformed as well as Anabaptist traditions, see the references at the end.)

My own heart breaks at writing this section, but I do so out of a genuine concern for those who claim Christ as their Savior and Lord, but may be living in sin. I tremble when contemplating what Paul wrote,

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
My wife recently met at a local church a woman who was married to a man who had been previously married and divorced. After feeling convicted by the Scriptures, and despite many attendant troubles, this woman left her marriage and now lives a single and celibate life. My wife and I were stunned at hearing about this, and I first dismissed it as ludicrous by saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

However, on further reflection, her decision was sensible given this permanent view of marriage argued for above. An analogy illustrates the fallacy of the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument in this setting: Imagine the situation of a gang member. He has pledged loyalty to the gang, which involves sinful acts that he does not initially understand. Sometime later he questions his initial pledge. Is he permitted to leave?

Nearly all would agree that the gang member should break his pledge and leave. In this case, keeping his word would spawn further sinful actions. We are bound to fulfill our promises insofar as our promises are not sinful. Similarly with marriage, uniting with another person while the first spouse lives is a violation of another promise and another union. This would imply that it should be dissolved.

This principle was apparent to Ezra, the great scribe who reformed the Jewish community who returned to Jerusalem after exile. "For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel" (Ezra 7:10). In Ezra chapters 9-10, he takes part in dissolving the marriages of those Jews who had married with non-Jews. Wenham and Heth write (p. 163):

The situation described in Ezra 9 and 10 is often set forth as the classic example of one in which the lesser of two evils had to be chosen: divorce is a lesser evil than the destruction of the Jewish people. This can only be said, however, if Ezra looked upon these connections as real marriages. All the evidence indicates that he did not. As early as 1890, George Rawlinson observed:
It is quite clear that [Ezra] read the Law as absolutely prohibitive of mixed marriages (Ezra ix. 10-14) -- i.e., as not only forbidding their inception, but their continuance. Strictly speaking, he probably looked upon them as unreal marriages, and so as no better than ordinary illicit connections. For the evils which flow from such unions, those who make them, and not those who break them, are responsible.

In Ezra's eyes this was not a question of breaking up legitimate marriages but of nullifying those which were contrary to the law. This is further suggested by the two Hebrew words Ezra chose to describe these 'marriages' (nasa and yasab) and the 'divorce' terminology he employs. Ezra 'was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6). He studied, practiced, and taught it in Israel (v. 10). Yet he employs out-of-the-ordinary terminology to describe the 'marrying' ('taking') and the 'divorcing' ('sending away') of these women. Furthermore, how could these Israelites have made a covenant with God (Ezra 10:3) to put away their legal 'wives' if it is true that Scripture portrays marriage as a covenant made between husband and wife in the presence of God? Ezra's prayer seems to indicate further that 'intermarriage' had not yet actually taken place (cf. Ezra 9:2 with 9:14).

The scene in Ezra 10 breaks hearts as families are divided. Yet Ezra led the people of God into a repentance that was more than mere words. He saw this as necessary to restore the Jewish people into right standing with God (see his prayer in Ezra 9:6-15). David Engelsma, professor at Protestant Reformed Seminary, writes about repentance that bears fruit:

There is, to be sure, forgiveness for those who have committed adultery, wickedly divorced, and remarried. But there is forgiveness only in the way of repentance. And true repentance never goes on happily in the sin repented of (e.g. sleeping with another man's wife) but rather breaks with the sin, whatever the cost...

Grace calls and empowers the forgiven sinner to walk in holiness of life. The divorced man may not remarry. Grace will enable him to live a single life. Grace calls those who are already remarried to stop living in that state that Jesus describes in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 as continual adultery. Grace will enable the repentant, pardoned adulterer and adulteress to do this. It is the very nature of the grace of repentance itself that the sinners breaks with the sin that he sorrows over and confesses. The penitent brings forth works worthy of repentance. Only this repentance is genuine. Only this repentance finds forgiveness with God, regardless of what the churches may say. 5 From my perspective, the application of this teaching may be the single most difficult expression of repentance in the entire bible. The following passage surely bears on this application:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37-38) God has lovingly given a special grace to those who have been through a divorce. Matthew notes this grace in the portion of a text examined above:

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. (Matthew 19:12) 

Jesus notes that some "have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," probably in reference to those who had experienced divorce (verse 10) and then choose to remain celibate. God can be a husband to the lonely woman, and the source of consolation to the lonely man. I am aware of the children that are implicated in such a situation, and thinking of them may present the greatest temptation to abandon this position of no remarriage. But I also believe that God provides the grace to meet any situation in which we sacrifice in order to obey his word. If done with God's grace, then could this not give children a deeper understanding of the binding nature of marital commitment and of God's love for his church? Moreover, in Christian community and service, the advantages of being single can come to fruition, expressed in a life wedded to the Lord. Ultimately all earthly marriage is transitory (Matthew 22:30), and only the marriage of Christ to his bride endures. May we conduct ourselves in this world in light of that enduring union.

References and additional reading:

On the general subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, one can find a "scholarly" book that supports virtually any position one desires. (I wrote this essay while reading several dissenting views by prominent scholars.) My plea to those impacted by this subject is not to necessarily believe status quo in the church today. It was prophesied in the New Testament that savage wolves would come into the flock, and speak "twisted things" to draw people after themselves (Acts 20:29-30). Very few have studied the Greek and historical context to critically evaluate the nuanced readings that various writers have advanced which favor the more permissive stances. But despite the confusion on this issue, God can lead the one who is truly contrite in heart who says, "not my will but yours be done." I hope that any who go against the views of this essay will carefully read the references below (especially the first two) with an open mind. These references stand against the mainstream, but I strongly believe represent the pure teachings of Christ.

Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage: (free online reading; editorials from the Standard Bearer) An impassioned defense from a Reformed perspective of the no remarriage view, by Professor David Engelsma of Protestant Reformed Seminary. Engelsma has also written a book called Marriage: The Mystery of Christ and the Church (Reformed Free Pub. Association, 1998) which details Scriptural reasons for viewing marriage as "unbreakable" and how grace may empower holy living. Reading his essay would be an excellent next step in delving deeper. Engelsma concurs that dissolution of subsequent marriages is the the only cogent biblical expression of repentance of adultery. He is a member of a denomination (Presbyterian Reformed Churches) founded by Herman Hoeksema, who called Reformed churches everywhere to return to the "unbreakable" marriage view he saw taught in Scripture and by the early church fathers.
Much of this work is based on Jesus and divorce by Wenham and Heth, Paternoster press (2002). It is the most detailed defense of the no remarriage view that I have found; I strongly recommend it. This book thoroughly refutes the work of Craig Keener, David Instone-Brewer, and others who allow divorce and remarriage. My essay was also influenced by Wenham's piece in Remarriage and Divorce in Today's Church (2006).
A woman's testimony The online testimony of a woman who repented of a second marriage, why she did so, what she did, and what convinced her to do something so dramatic.
http://www.rodstaff.com/ This website for an Anabaptist publisher has a number of pamphlets and booklets on the subject of divorce and remarriage. The publications argue for the view of no remarriage, with a great deal of practical application. (Conservative Anabaptist churches have preserved the strict "no remarriage" view of the early church in their current practice. They also advocate dissolving subsequent marriages, and believe that this is a salvation issue.)
Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice by Andrew Cornes (1993). Recommended by John Stott as "indispensable reading for everybody who is anxious to develop a Christian mind on these topics," the author is an Anglican vicar who makes a strong case that marriage is indissoluble and that all remarriage is adultery while the former spouse is living. (Cornes therefore calls on the Church of England to change its current practice.) He points out how remarriage is a poor substitute for the singleness God intends for the divorced person. Indeed, singleness can be a state that draws a person closer to God as the person becomes wedded to God. This book has particularly strong pastoral merits.
Footnotes:
E. Flesseman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Van Gorcum's Theologische Bibliotheek 26; Assen, Neth.: Van Gorcum, 1954) 9. Quoted in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 19
D.F. Wright, ed., Common Places of Martin Bucer (Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 4; Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay, 1972) 40-1. Quoted in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 21
James Dunn The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Eerdmans (1998), p. 704 quoted in David Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Academic (2003), p. 395.
The word porneia is translated "sexual immorality" (ESV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB), unchastity (RSV, NRSV), or fornication (KJV). Of these, "sexual immorality" is closest to the accepted lexical range of the word. "Unchastity" and "fornication" are not far off the mark, but are a bit unclear. The NIV, however, translates porneia as "marital unfaithfulness," a bold and somewhat misleading interpretation. This has been corrected in the TNIV to be "sexual immorality." As a related point, for any study on marriage it is best not to use the NIV but instead use the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NET or HCSB due to some faulty translation decisions that the NIV committee made. The NIV makes at least two other important translation errors in New Testament marriage texts. First, it translates "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:12) as "others have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." This interprets the Greek in a sense that seems to address remaining celibate for life, while the actual sentence is about becoming celibate after not being celibate. Second, it translates, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Cor 7:1, NASB) as "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." "Touch a woman" represents a euphemism for sexual relations (cf the ESV), and thus the NIV wrongly translates this as involving marriage. This mistranslation leads to misinterpretation of Paul's argument in the early part of the chapter.
David Engelsma, Marriage: The Mystery of Christ and the Church. Reformed Free Publishing Association: Grandville, MI (1998), p. 206 and 228.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.