Part 33
It is of interest to me how the apostle Paul operated. Some of the apostles were active in the local church at Jerusalem while others according to tradition went out evangelizing as Paul did. Acts 13 mentions there were prophets and teachers that were active in a local assembly. One of those men was Saul, or Paul as we know him. He was either a prophet or teacher and I would guess that he was one of the teachers, because there is no indication in the NT that he was a prophet.
Now, why did Paul never settle down in a church? The only reason that I can think of is that he realized that he was a teacher and that the Lord wanted him out teaching. He did not practice the gift of pastor in the NT as far as I can find. He knew his gift and he practiced his gift where he could. He did not stuff himself into a pastoring position because he knew he was not gifted in that area.
I trust that as we continue on through life that we will seek to find ways of allowing the gifted to practice their gifts instead of placing them where they do not belong.
A teacher is a teacher and a pastor is a pastor. If a men is both then he should do both. If a man is a teacher, he should be a teacher and if a man is a pastor, he should be a pastor.
May we make some observations:
1. There are five gifts listed in the text. This may have application in three areas: a. This could mean that you will have one man with two gifts, that of pastoring and teaching. b. This could mean that you have one man that is a shepherd and one man that is a teacher if you have a plurality of leadership. If you have only one leader then the man should have both gifts. c. This could mean that a teacher should not be the soul leader of a church. If that is all you have then you should look around until you find the man that is gifted to be a shepherd. Use a "teacher only" if that is all you have, but I believe there will be a shepherd if there is a need.
2. Shepherd is a gift separate from the gift of teaching.
3. In Ephesians 4 we see that these men are there for the training of the believers. We must assume that the shepherd is involved in training as well as the teacher. Let's think about how the two might be able to train believers.
The Shepherd: Leads to proper food, corrects, protects from falsehood, guides, motivates to move, and gathers.
The Teacher: Teaches proper principles of living, interpreting etc., teaches the Word, warns from the Word.
There seems to be a difference of ministry between the two. We must realize that one cannot do the other, and they are a complmentary pair of gifts. Indeed, the evangelist can train the believer in areas that the shepherd and teacher cannot.
The teacher can teach principles of evangelism, however it is the evangelist that can take the believer out and show them how it is done.
All three gifts work to train the believer, yet the three cannot operate alone and be effective.
(Some feel that the gift of prophet is current today but that it is functioning in a different way than in the sign gift days. They feel that the prophet is the preacher. This does not detract from what we have stated thus far.)
4. THE APPLICATION OF THE GIFT
The importance of all this is seen in the fact that we may have a man that is a pastor and a teacher at the same time, but it is also true that we may have a man that is a pastor and a man that is a teacher and that we could function well as a local assembly with either situation.
I include this study in the hope that we will change our concept of "pastor" to one that is Biblical and not traditional. I have met many men that would love to preach and teach from a pulpit in churches, but they do not feel they are able to handle the other parts of "pastoring" which the church has laid upon the man in the pulpit.
On the other hand I suspect that we have many men that can shepherd that would never be capable of entering into a preaching or teaching situation that are not functioning in the local church because the pastor does those things.
If we had a proper understanding of the term pastor, we could operate a church with a teacher in the pulpit, in the class room or in the Bible study and a pastor in the sick room, or in the counceling room, or in the visiting room.
CONCLUSION
Christ gave gifts to all believers. Some of these gifts are for training the sheep.
As we move into a new century for the world and the church might we look into the scripture for our forms and organization, rather than into the traditions that we have inherited from past generations.
May we seek to minister to one another as Christ has gifted us.
May we determine that we are not going to cram a teacher into a pastoring positions or a pastor into a teaching position.
I might mention there are churches that have realized these things and have allowed their teachers to teach and their pastors to pastor. These churches have a plurality of leadership and function quite nicely with these principles. I am told that A.W. Tozer was a teaching elder in his church and that others did the shepherding.
APPENDIX NINE
BODY BUILDERS OR SOCIAL CLIMBERS?
I would like to consider whether we, as local assemblies, are bodies as the Scripture states we are to be, or are we societies.
Forgive me for the length of this quote. Society according to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is: "1: companionship or association with one's fellows: friendly or intimate intercourse: COMPANY 2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; esp: an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession 3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests 4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity ... b: a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners 5 a: a natural group of plants usu. of a single species or habit within an association b: the progeny of a pair of insects when constituting a social unit (as a hive of bees); broadly: an interdependent system of organisms or biological units" P 1119 (By permission. From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1991 by Merriam-Webster Inc., publisher of the MerriamWebster (registered) Dictionaries.)
Let's list the aspects of "society" from this definition:
1. Society is companionship with others.
2. Society is association with others.
3. Society contains friendly conversation.
4. Society contains intimate conversation.
5. Society is being with others toward a common end.
6. Society is being with others because of interests.
7. Society is being with others because of common beliefs.
8. Society is being with others because of a common profession.
9. Society is an organized group of people with traditions.
10. Society is an organized group of people with institutions.
11. Society is an organized group of people with collective activities.
12. Society is an organized group of people with collective interests.
13. Society is a recognizable community because of their aims.
14. Society is a recognizable community because of their standards of living.
15. Society is a recognizable community because of their living or conduct.
16. Society is a group of people that stand out because of their identity.
17. Society is a group of people that set themselves as a standard of fashion or manners.
To begin with I see little difference between the above list and the church in America today. I took a class in college on sociology that required us to read a book that held to the teaching that society was based on groups of people that are playing games. The doctors play the doctor game and do what doctors do, the lawyers play the lawyer game and do what lawyers do, and the laborers play the laborer game and do what laborers do. The author's thought was that the doctors did things that doctors do because that's what doctors do, etc. Naturally the Christians would be playing the Christian game and would be doing what Christians do.
I am beginning to believe that some Christians and churches are playing the Christian game. We talk a good talk, we work a good work, we do what is expected of us because we are Christians playing the Christian game.
SO, what is the difference between the Christians in our day and the idea of society? Is the church a society within the general lost society of our
world today? Is the church a mini-society that operates among the other mini societies in the world?
The church is told that it is a body. Just what did the Lord mean by that? How can we relate that concept to the church? Can we be a body and also fit the thought of a society? Because we have already stated that the church seems to be a society, is there something that we should be doing that would automatically change us from the status of being a society to the status of being a body?
Body Vs Society: Let's consider the ideas of body and society for a moment.
1. A body is living while a society is organized. Even though the church may be loosely organized, the primary emphasis is supposed to be on the living.
2. A body is made up of interdependent parts that must draw life from the common physical bond, while a society is made up of people that are drawn together because of a common mental or ideological bond.
3. A body part cannot exist apart from the whole, while a part of society can exist and thrive apart from the whole.
4. A body is directed by one source, the head, while a society is led by the dictates of the whole.
5. A body is in the business of survival of the whole, while a society is open to destruction of the parts and/or the whole for the survival of the other.
Illustration: The communist block was a whole that is now in the process of destruction for the survival of the parts. The church body must and will survive because we have the Head, Jesus Christ, directing toward that end.
6. The body exists to grow and develop, while an organization may or may not desire to grow and develop.
7. In the body, growth and development is automatic because it is living, while an organization must plan and labor to grow and develop.
8. A body is sensible, or it can sense the world outside of itself in all respects, such as emotional, mental, and physical, while a society may or may not sense the world around them.
Are these differences important? I suspect that the differences are the keys to why many of us originally felt that the church fit into the definition of society. The differences, if realized and maintained in the church then should move a local assembly from the place of being a society to the place of being a body.
Let's list these differences in a short thought that would help us work on being sure that our churches are bodies and not societies.
1. A Body Grows Naturally: A living body is growing naturally because of individual parts reproducing themselves (cells). In the broader thought, the head is teaching the limbs and parts to work together for the common good.
A body is an organism not an organization. An organism lives, while an organization is given life by its participants.
2. A Body's Parts Are Interdependent: Every part is interdependent, thus every part is of supreme importance as a part. A part missing is a part that is not supplying something to others in the body.
3. The Part Cannot Survive Alone: A believer apart from a local assembly faulters spiritually, thus when a part absents itself the whole Ought to be concerned rather than being critical or allowing them to go their own way.
4. The Head Directs The Whole: When the parts begin to direct the whole rather than the head, the group cannot be a body.
5. The Body Will Survive: This would have application in the area of problems that we allow to develop into church splits. A body cannot split and survive, so why do we feel that a church can?
6. The Body Exists To Grow: The Church should exist to grow and develop. This eliminates the purpose of growth for any other reason than this. Growth is not to provide for building of personal kingdoms, of buildings, budgets etc.
7. The Body Is Living: How much energy is spent in the church organizing growth campaigns, and contests to produce what should happen naturally?
8. The Body Senses Its Surroundings: Are we as a body of believers really sensitive to the hurt and destiny of the world? Are we really sensing the impending danger of hell for those around us? Are we open to helping a hurting person?
Body has been described as a mass of matter. Some indicate it is a mass that is different from other masses. Now, to call the church a mass is not too appropriate, however the idea of a mass that is distinct from other masses Should Be descriptive of the church. We should be distinct from the rest of the world. We should be, shall I say, easily distinguishable from the world.
So why do we dress, act, spend, live, invest etc. like the world?
Another item that is important for us to consider is the attraction of those outside the church to the church. Is that attraction because they desire to be a part of a living, thriving, growing body or are they attracted to what the society can do for them. I fear that many in our churches are socially attracted rather than spiritually attracted.
I trust that you will consider the differences between the body that we are supposed to be and the society that we seem to have become. I trust that you will commit yourself in your local church to work toward being a body rather than a society.
THE LORD'S TABLE —
WHO WHAT WERE?
Question: Is it correct for an institution or organization aside from the local church to offer and/or celebrate the Lord's table?
DEFINITIONS
1. Local Church: An organized body of believers gathering for the purpose of edification of the saved, and the evangelization of the lost.
The term organized would refer to the fact that they have a pastor and/or elders and deacons functioning for the leadership of the body of believers.
2. Ordinance: Theissen, "We may define an ordinance as an outward rite appointed by Christ to be administered in the Church as a visible sign of the saving truth of the Christian faith."
Bancroft in Elemental Theology p 310 mentions, "The word ordinance comes from two Latin words which in their final meaning signify 'that which is ordered or commanded.'" (Taken from the book, Elemental Theology by Emery H. Bancroft. Copyright 1977 by Baptist Bible College. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.)
Ryrie in A Survey Of Bible Doctrine p 149 mentions, "an outward rite prescribed by Christ to be performed by His church."
OBSERVATIONS
1. The Church is the church and organizations or institutions are not the church.
The Church has a specific organization, purpose and function.
Any organization that is not a church will have a different organization, purpose and function.
Example: A Bible Institute declares it's purpose to be, "_______________ is a highly specialized institution raised up by the Lord for intensive and
comprehensive training in God's Word. It exists to prepare men and women to serve the Lord as pastors, evangelists, missionaries, youth leaders and Christian education workers."
The only organizations that function with a leadership of pastor and/or elders, and deacons are churches. No other organization or institution that this author knows of has this type of organization nor terminology.
2. No organization other than a church claims to be a church.
3. Most doctrinal statements, if they mention the ordinances list them as "ordinances of the Local Church."
The above Bible Institute's doctrinal statement mentions,
"5. We believe that there are two ordinances given to the local church:
a. "Water baptism...."
b. "The Lord's Supper, which is to be observed only by believers as a memorial to the death and coming again of our Lord Jesus."
Note should be taken of the phrase, "given to the local church"
This, in essence, would indicate that no other organization or institution has the right to practice the ordinances.
4. Since para-church organizations are a relatively new movement there are no Scriptural references which may be quoted to support their use of the Lord's table. By the same token the church fathers and their writings would not have reference to our question.
5. The text usually presented to show the institution of the ordinance is usually one of the Gospel accounts of the Lord celebrating the passover. He used the elements that were present on the dinner table. He mentioned that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until He came in His Father's Kingdom. (Matt.) Luke in 22:19 records, "This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me." Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20.
6. 1 Corinthians 11 is the other text which relates to the question at hand. Verse 2 mentions, "...keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
Paul himself had given them the information they needed for the observance. Items to observe from this text. a. It is an ordinance. (v 2) b. It is for the church. Paul is speaking to the church in Corinth and he also mentions the "church of God" in verse 22. 1 Corinthians 10:16ff shows that the church at Corinth had been taught of the Lord's table prior to this letter.
7. Matthew records in 18:20, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." There is no mention of the church in this text. Indeed the church did not exist. The context of this verse is prayer. There cannot easily be an organized local church with three members.
8. The early church might be suggested as an example of the Lord's table.
Acts 2 is where most place the beginning of the Church. It might be of interest to note that the apostles did not observe the Lord's table prior to Pentecost. The day of Pentecost was 50 days after the passover (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia p 2318) and Acts 1:3 mentions that the Lord assended about 40 days after the passover. This would indicate several days (8 to 10) between the ascension and the day of Pentecost — surely enough time to have the Lord's table if they thought it important. (Indeed one must wonder if they were waiting for the Lord's quick return to have it with Him.)
Indeed it is difficult to show from the Scriptures that the apostles participated in the Lord's table after the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2:42 mentions for the first time the "breaking of bread" which most hold as being the Lord's table. Verse 46 states, "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their food with gladness and singleness of heart." Might one suggest that these phrases may well indicate sharing of meals and not the Lord's table. The next text relating to food is in chapter six where they were eating as a group. Again there is nothing specific about the Lord's table.
One further text uses the term "breaking bread" but again the way it is stated to read into it more than eating is just that reading into it. "When he,
therefore, was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." Acts 20:11
One is left to wonder if the early church indeed did practice the Lord's table prior to the teaching of Paul. It could easily be suggested that the Revelation to Paul from the Lord may have been the first and official institution of the Lord's table.
c. Christ revealed this information to Paul personally. It is not meant to be a quote from the Gospels, but it is meant to be the exact information that the Lord gave to him.
1. The Lord has so designated the Church as His body and His organization to work in and through. It is this writer's opinion that one must assume heavily to even suggest that there is any other organization that is qualified to initiate or perform either of the ordinances, be it Baptism or the Lord's Table.
2. Is it wrong then, for other organizations to perform these functions? Let this be answered by another question. By what authority might they presume to function? There is no authority given in Scripture to any group other than the Local Church.
3. In specific relation to Colleges, Seminaries and Bible Institutes one must take into consideration several items:
a. Do the schools feel that they are an extension of the Local Church. Most schools make no such claim nor do they seek to become an extension of the church.
b. Does any Local Church have any control over the schools? The answer to this is no unless they are denominational schools.
c. Is there any organizational or intended connection between schools and local churches other than by speaking, attendance, or membership of individuals from the school? Again the answer is no.
d. At most, the schools could possibly be classified as an arm of the Local Church, however this is not indicated by most schools. This is
not to say that they are the local church nor is it to say that they have any authority as does the local church.
They have authority only over their own people and students. That authority that does exist comes from their own organization and the individuals submission to it, not from Scripture? The school has no authority in the area of church discipline nor ordinances.
4. Many conservative pastors and teachers feel that the Lord's table may be held anyplace and under most circumstances IF the service is under the authority of the Local Church.
Bancroft in his Elemental Theology p 312 mentions, "There are a number of questions which may be asked in relation to the two ordinances, such as these: What is the proper method of observing baptism and the Lord's supper? Who is qualified to administer them? Who are fit subjects or recipients of them? And to whom does the responsibility for their proper observance or administration belong? Suffice it for us to say in general that these are church ordinances and are therefore not to be administered or observed in promiscuous assemblies, or by individuals, but by the church in the regular local assembly, and according to the pattern furnished by the Lord Jesus Christ." He follows this statement with his doctrinal summation on ordinances. "The church is the custodian of the two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper, and is responsible for their administration." (Taken from the book, Elemental Theology by Emery H. Bancroft. Copyright 1977 by Baptist Bible College. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.)
DIVORCE/REMARRIAGE
PRESUPPOSITIONS
1. This is not to condemn anyone in any relationship.
2. This is to present the Scripture involved, and draw conclusions.
3. This is to reprimand the Church for its steady decline and slide toward the world in relation to this subject. The Churches divorce rate if about that of the world's.
4. This is to confront people in this situation with a head on look at what God says concerning the subject. Many today have accepted the norm for themselves, and have never looked into the Word to see what God has to say.
5. Malachi 2:15b, 16 States, "Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously."
Note: God hates the putting away of the wife of your youth. If you do, you deal treacherously against her. This is the context that this study must be done in. All else that the Scripture states must be understood in light of the fact that God hates divorce, and that the person that does go ahead and divorce, is dealing treacherously with their spouse.
6. This is also a call to the church to commit itself to two items:
a. Begin to properly teach the principles of marriage.
b. That it begin to minister to those already in the divorce/remarried situation.
First I would like to present some of the views held today on the topic.
1. NO DIVORCE NO REMARRIAGE
2. DIV. OK IN SOME CASES
NO REMARRIAGE
3. DIVORCE OK REM. OK IN CASE OF
FORNICATION
4. DIVORCE OK REM. IN CASE OF FORNICATION AND
DESERTION
5. DIVORCE OK REM. OK IN ALL CASES
One, three and four are held in conservative circles, although four is not widely held. Three is the past favorite. Two is fairly new and not to much is being done with it. One is very conservative but I believe that it is growing rapidly due to the rethinking of the old position of number three.
Most view death as grounds for remarriage though Paul indicates that staying single may be best (1 Corinthians 7). Paul hints that young widows probably ought to remarry in one of his epistles if they can't handle the life of a single. (Which is hard for most young people that have lost a spouse via death. 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 mentions it is better to marry than burn, however that is specifically in the context of single persons considering not marrying for the first time and widows. It has nothing to do with the divorcees situation.)
Let us begin with a text that God set forth through Moses long before any of the texts that we will consider, were given.
Genesis 2:23-24,
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh."
May I add a New Testament passage also?
Matthew 19:4-8,
"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. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Most agree to this. Marriage is between two, and in the beginning, was for life.
"Leave" is imperative to a good marriage. The cleave is indicative of holding to one another and no one else, as in parents or friends (This is not the idea of moving away from parents, for the Old Testament concept was the family staying together. The one flesh is indicative of the unity of the marriage.
How can you divide one flesh? This is the dilemma that faces those that see divorce as an option. They just don't deal with it.
I might add immediately that a legal separation may be very wise and in some states divorce. This will provide legal protection in some cases for the person. It Should Never Be Seen As A Division In The Marriage For The Law Cannot Divide Flesh. Death Is The Only Divisor Of The One Flesh Of A Marriage.
Let us look at the passages that seem to relate to the problem.
Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The clear command of God in one of His ten big ones. He says that you shalt not do it.
Leviticus 18:16 mentions that it is not right for a brother to uncover the nakedness of his brother's wife. This would be in the case of a brother with his presently married brother's wife I would assume.
Leviticus 18:20 mentions that adultery defiles the man.
Leviticus 20:10
"And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
This passage is clear that death was the laws answer to the adulterus activities of the Israelites. Christ, living under that law, obeying that law and fulfilling that law would naturally have known of this passage. He would have had to be thinking of this when He announced the so called exception for fornication. He knew that under the law, death was the answer to fornication, and there were no other cases whereby adultery was acceptable. It is not acceptable in the case of fornication, but is cause for death.
Let us look at the relationship of Christ to the law.
1. Christ was made of a woman under the law: Galatians 4:4
2. Christ came to redeem those under the law: Galatians 4:5
3. Christ came to fulfill the law: Matthew 5:17-20
4. Christ would have to keep the law to fulfill it: Matthew 4:13-17 ("fulfill all righteousness")
5. Christ taught the keeping of the law: Matthew 19:16-19
6. Christ did not come to destroy the law, nor to set it aside: Matthew 5:17
In light of this it seems doubtful that the Lord was giving an exception for divorce, but rather He was stating there was no reason for divorce. Indeed, the reaction of the disciples indicates that they viewed marriage for life and not something that could be dissolved.
If Christ had such strong feelings about divorce/remarriage, why shouldn't the minister of God, why shouldn't the woman of God, why shouldn't the man of God abhor divorce/remarriage within the family of God?
Deuteronomy 5:18 "Neither shalt thou commit adultery." This is a repeat of the commandment.
Deuteronomy 24:1 We need to understand this text in light of the Malachi passage concerning God's hate for divorce, and realize that the New Testament mentions this was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. (Matthew 19:8)
1. "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2. "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3. "And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4. "Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
Some brief information on the words used: v 1 some = 1697 (from 1696) = "dabar (daw-baw) = twot 399a; relates to saying, speech, word, or business. uncleanness = 6172 (from 6168) = "ervah" (er-vaw) = twot 1692b; relates to nakedness and shame, or exposed. bill of divorcement = 3748 = "keriythuwth" (ker-ee-thooth) = twot 1048; means divorce or dismissal. v 4 defiled = 2930 = "tame" (taw-may') = twot 809; This tern relates to being unclean or impure. It can be sexually, ceremonially, or religiously.
The use of the word "dabar" would indicate that this uncleanness may be related to the spoken word. It could be cursing, or more to the point probably, would be the confession of some uncleanness. However, when
you put this word with the word "ervah" you have a double term indicating other than the thought of uncleanness, but rather the thought of some spoken nakedness or exposure. This could relate to most any exposure of information that causes the man to decide he does not want this woman for a wife.
Many believe that this passage relates to the engagement period, before the actual marriage. It is something that the man finds out before the actual marriage ceremony and consummation of the marriage.
The term married = 1166 = "baal (bah'-al) = twot 262; Strong: "...to be master; hence...to marry:-have dominion (over), be husband, marry...." twot "possess, own, rule over, marry." Neither mention the thought of engagement period. This would indicate that they were indeed, married, however, since marriage is for life and the penalty for adultery is death, it seems right to assume that the text may well be speaking of the engagement period rather than an actual completed marriage.
Barne's Notes has a good comment which needs to be considered. (Cook, F.C., editor; "The Bible Commentary"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; no copy, pp 315-316) The author mentions that these four verses are actually one sentence. "Moses neither institutes nor enjoins divorce. The exact spirit of the passage is given in our lord's words to the Jews;, 'Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives' (Matthew 19:8). Not only does the original institution of marriage as recorded by Moses (Genesis 2:24) set forth the perpetuity of the bond, but the verses before us plainly intimate that divorce, whilst tolerated for the time, contravenes the order of nature and of God." He goes on to state, "Moses could not absolutely put an end to a practice which was traditional, and common to the Jews with other Oriental nations. His aim is therefore to regulate and thus to mitigate an evil which he could not extripate."
Since this is a text that we can't really nail down as to meaning, it should be subjected to a proper level under the institution of marriage in Genesis and the thought that God hates divorce. The most you might conclude from this text would be there is something revealed that causes the problem. You should not assume that this is basis for the divorce rate we see today.
A New Testament illustration of this would be Matthew 1:19 when Joseph considered putting Mary away before they had consummated and completed the marriage.
In an informal paper from Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in Portland, OR, the faculty were trying to work through the issue of divorce/remarriage. They state of the Deuteronomy 24 passage, "Divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was allowed but not ordered. What was commanded is this: if there were a divorce, the person being divorced must be given a bill of divorcement...." They go on to emphasize that the divorce was due to the hardness of their hearts.
It seems that the emphasis is not on allowing divorce, but that if you are going to be hard hearted enough to divorce then give a bill of divorcement.
The term defiled in v 4 is "become unclean" according to the Theogical Wordbook of the Old Testament. It is used in the following texts: Leviticus 18:20 defiling a neighbor's wife; Ezekiel 18:6 defiling a neighbor's wife; Numbers 5:133,14,20,29; This is strong number 2930.
The first husband caused his wife trouble evidently because she went out and remarried.
NOTE: The 2nd divorce or idea that she is defiled to the point she is not able to be married without adding problems to the situation indicates that the defilement is permanent. Marriage is for life.
Divorce is only recognized in this text, and is not commanded. Divorce is not even condoned in this text. Divorce is only recognized as being in existence in this text.
The first husband and I would assume all others are not to marry this woman. She is defiled for life. The text does not state it but the second marriage is what defiled her. She is not to remarry.
If the husband divorces he is to do the paperwork that is involved. This is all that this text is getting at.
The standard of the woman for marriage was: Being a virgin Deuteronomy 22:13ff, Matthew 1:18ff; or a widow — Ruth and Boaz produced a child in the line of Christ.
The defilement of this woman was life long. Barne's Notes backs this line of thinking as well.
This woman defiled herself when she married the second time.
This woman had caused problems in the marriage.
This woman would defile any one that she married.
Thus the divorcee that remarries is defiled or unmarriable for life. The second and succeeding spouses are defiled because of the marriage to the divorcee.
The defilement in the case of the divorcee is for life, while we aren't told of the second spouse. The indication of Leviticus 22:7 is that the priest would be defiled. If there was a possibility of him removing that defilement the Bible is silent. I would assume that if he were to put her away, then his defilement would end.
Leviticus 21:7
"They shall not take a wife [that is] a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband:
for he [is] holy unto his God." (v 14 also)
The priest is not to marry a divorced woman because he is holy. This is very plain and the indications are very clear that the divorced woman would be a defilement to the priest.
An associated passage is Leviticus 22:13. A priests young childless — widowed or divorced daughter may live with the priest, but no strangers are to eat there. Since this text mentions the widowed, I would assume that the danger here is that some unwanted possibilities would exist if a stranger were to drop in for a period of time.
Conclusions from the Leviticus texts might run along this line. If a man marries a divorced woman he will become defiled or unholy.
It should be pointed out that 22:13 tells us that associating with the divorcee is not defiling. The divorcee needs to be ministered to and that is a
real problem for the church. We have many divorcees going to churches that are inadequate doctrinally because they find acceptance there and they don't in our fundamental churches.
A word of warning: I think that a close relationship to a divorcee could well damage a good marriage, so there is a real danger in this. The divorcee can affect in a negative manner a happily married person to the point of damaging the marriage.
Some suggest many things from Deuteronomy 22:13-21. There is a lot built on this text that is not really there. If you see comments on it be sure that you look very carefully. The context is a woman that is claiming to be a virgin and is trying to publicly get away with her lie. Note: If she is virgin the marriage bond is for life. Divorce in vs. 19 is literally "send her away". This is a problem that arises before the marriage is consummated. (virgin)
It is of interest that Joseph (Mary's husband) knew this ruling. If he thought that Mary was a non-virgin He may have been showing a great love for her by trying to divorce her quietly. He didn't want to chance any harm for her and her baby.
Deuteronomy 22:22 Remember for awhile, the fact that verse 22 mentions death as the punishment for adultery. Divorce is not in view here.
Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 is of interest while we are in the vicinity. It speaks of a single man and single woman that have relations. The point of the passage is marriage and payment of money to the father. The passage ends with a command, "...and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. This idea is in v 19 as well. It seems Moses wanted to emphasis the point. Unless I am seriously wrong, this is a command that a marriage is for life. It would not seem logical to penalize these particular situations for life, so we should see it as general principle — marriage is for life. If there is divorce, the person is defiled when remarried.
Ezra 10:3,19
"Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel
of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and [being] guilty, [they offered] a ram of the flock for their trespass."
Chapter nine and Nehemiah 13:23-31 are also background for this text.
This speaks of putting foreign wives away, however there is no mention of divorce or bills of divorcement which Deuteronomy required.
The most you can draw from this is that the Jews were allowed to separate themselves from foreign wives — not divorce. The term used here "put away" is "yasa" which means to go out from. (This is Strong's 3318 and twot's 893) This is not related to the terms for divorce in the Old Testament. This was a step to keep the Messianic line pure, and I have not found any that speak of this being for today.
Proverbs 6:32
"[But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding he [that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul."
There are two things mentioned here. The adulterer lacketh understanding, and he destroyeth his own soul.
Just what the last item means is another thing. It would probably be readily accepted that this is not talking about eternal things. It would seem that it speaks of the man's earthly life. The soul is the center of our world consciousness, thus the thought should relate to how the man relates to his world. Adultery certainly has been observed to seriously affect the mental and emotional side of people involved, and these two often can cause problems within the physical realm as well.
Thus the destruction probably relates to the life, or quality of life of the people involved. I once was told by an older woman of a part of her life. Her account relates to this point. She had divorced her first husband and had remarried. She began to look at the Bible and realized that she should not be married. She mentioned that she went through many years of guilt feelings because of her situation. She said that she was very relieved when her first husband died. She felt that she had been freed.
Jeremiah 3:1
"They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD."
God views the put away wife that remarries as an harlot, or as we've seen — defiled.
Jeremiah 3:8,9
"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also." And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks."
The whole tenor of the text should set the person contemplating adultery at odds with their straying desires.
Several things to note:
Israel committed adultery and was put away: This might indicate that the exception of the New Testament for fornication had Old Testament basis. This is God that did this.
It could better be said that it is an understandable picture that God gave to the Jews, and that He did not really give them a divorce — He just put them away for their spiritual adultery.
The thought of Israel being His wife is merely a picture, thus so would be a divorce from her. If you make the mistake of making this a real divorce then you have him married to Israel and divorcing her, while he is married to Judah. You might tack on the fact that Christ will marry the church one day. Bigamy on the part of God — not a tolerable teaching.
God gave a bill of divorce: Again this does not indicate an Old testament basis for the exception of the New Testament. Even if this is a true event of divorce on the part of God, it was for the fear factor in others. He did it to salvage a relationship with Judah. Application of this might run along
the line that any divorce in this age should be an example and a case to cause fear in other peoples relationships. It is of interest, that if this is true, then the people of our day have done as Judah — feared not and played the harlot.
Conclusions from this text:
1. The thought of the text is that God was trying to set an example and salvage another relationship.
Those today that do not take the example of others divorcing are not fearing God and the party that is unfaithful is an HARLOT.
2. This text should be taken within the context of all prior Old Testament information on divorce, and putting away. The Jewish mind would have understood this terminology because of their background.
The thought that God actually issued a bill of divorcement should not be taken as a literal writing and delivering, nor should it be taken as an okay for man to do so.
I personally feel that it was a picture for Judah and that it was an illustration. As were the anthropormorphisms of the Psalmist. They picture an attribute or act of God. He merely saw their adultery and put them away because of it.
Verse one "they say" may refer to Deuteronomy 24:1-4
The most you might come up with here is that the wife that plays the harlot, and continues in it for many years — not a one time act of adultery, may be put away. Remarriage is never an option here. However to view this as a basis for putting away, I believe that it would be stretching the text. Indeed, reconciliation is the thought of all that God does in the book of Jerimiah. He is always calling his people back to Himself. If you see divorce for adultery in this text, then you must also see no thought of remarriage to another, as well as the key thought of reconciliation. Note should be made that this adultery was over many years and even generations and God still wanted them to return to Him.
Some information on the words used: "committed" and "adultery" are one word: 5003 na'aph {naw-af'} a primitive root; TWOT — 1273; It seems
to mean to commit adultery. It is used of men/women/figuratively of idolatry. "her a bill": 5612 cepher {say'-fer} or (feminine) ciphrah (Psalm 56:8 [9]) {sif-raw'} from 5608; TWOT — 1540a,1540b; it has the idea of a book, document or legal document. "of divorce": 3748 k@riythuwth {ker-ee-thooth'} from 3772; TWOT — 1048a; simply refers to dismissal or divorce. "harlot": 2181 zanah {zaw-naw'} a primitive root [highly-fed and therefore wanton]; TWOT — 563; relates to commission of fornication, adultery, or harlotry.
Jeremiah 5:7
"How shall I pardon thee for this? Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by [them that are] no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses."
The spiritual adultery of Israel should let us know how God feels about it in the physical realm. Words like these should move the believer to refrain from the act, to abhor the act, and to teach against the act.
Jeremiah 7:9
"Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;"
This use of adultery is speaking of physical and not spiritual adultery. Adultery is related to stealing, murder, lying, and idolatry. Are these things that a believer wants to involve themselves in? I fear in our "gray area" Christian society, believers feel free to be involved in these areas with no thought.
Jeremiah 23:14
"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah."
Again, how can the believer desire to have anything to do with adultery if God feels this way about it? Indeed, there may be a harsh message to the pastors and leaders of our day that give the idea that divorce/remarriage are
correct methods of operation. Pastors have now, in some cases, decided it is acceptable for them to be divorced/remarried.
Jeremiah 29:23
"Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and [am] a witness, saith the LORD."
This passage would call the erring believer to realize that God is witness of what they do in the dark. He is also their judge, the judge with the perfect, truthful, and unfailing witness — Himself.
Ezekiel 16:32 "[But as] a wife that committeth adultery, [which] taketh strangers instead of her husband." A bold, concise, and clear statement of what adultery is.
Ezekiel 23:37
"That they have committed adultery, and blood [is] in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through [the fire], to devour [them]."
This passage should wake some up to the effect their life style has on their children. God states that the adultery of the father may well be passed on to the family. Indeed, this is easily observed within the fabric of our society today.
Ezekiel 44:2
"Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before."
Hosea 2:2; Hosea 4:2; Hosea 4:13, 14.
Matthew 5:27
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Christ related the wondering minds eye to the wondering physical eye. If you are involved mentally with one that is not your spouse, you are involved in adultery. Christ relates this new truth to the commandment that we have already seen in our study.
One might ask the question, if a person involved in pornography comes to know the Lord does that person need to remove his mind from the pornography? I think that the overwhelming answer would be YES. If the one involved in mental adultery needs to come out of their sin when they are saved, why shouldn't we teach that the physical adulterer should set aside their adultery when they become believers?
Matthew 5:32
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
It is of interest to me that Christ assumes that the person will remarry. This is related to the society they were operating in. The woman would have no way of living without a husband, so would naturally look for another husband.
The statement is clear — If a man puts away his wife, he causes her to commit adultery. Further, if one marries her he also commits adultery. "committeth adultery" is a present tense verb which indicates that this is an ongoing adultery, not just a one time act.
Q. What is this adultery that is committed? Is remarriage equal to one act of adultery, or is remarriage equal to moving into a relationship of ongoing adultery? It seems logical that it is ongoing rather than a one time event. There is no logical basis to relate the act of marriage to the sin of adultery. Getting married does not make you an adulterer, the intimacy of marriage to one not your spouse makes you an adulterer.
Some might suggest that remarriage = adultery = one time = this is what Christ was saying = leaving the spouse. If this is true then the application of that concept is that any man stepping out on his wife the first time
commits adultery — one time act, and then following occurrences of infidelity are not adultery. The adultery was the original leaving. Believing that the adultery is a one time sin that is forgiven once, is not a logical conclusion.
Context: The Jews and no one else. This is a group of instructions given to the Jews to prepare them for life in the Kingdom. This is a Jew talking to Jews, in a Jewish setting, in Jewish times, in a Jewish law discussion, in Jewish land, with Jewish leaders about a future Jewish age, under a Jewish ruler.
Most use this verse to show that divorce is okay in the case of fornication. Most relate fornication to the sin of adultery. By the way none I've read mentions in this context that the Old Testament penalty for adultery was death.
The contrast of "some say" and "I say" is of interest as well. Christ is not teaching on what "some say", but on what He says. This whole section seems to be His expansion and explanation of some of the Old Testament concepts, that indeed had been misinterpreted by the Jews of His day.
You might easily view this verse as stating that in the case of fornication the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:24) is to be carried out and there is no remarriage in that case for the person is dead. This was Christ, the one that lived the law perfectly, that is speaking, and this would certainly be His interpretation I would think. It is also to be noted that Christ is speaking of the Kingdom in which He will reign with a rod of iron and judgment of wrong will be immediate. This would mean the adulterous parties will not be around long enough to remarry.
In the case of divorce for any other reason the resulting remarriage is sin.
The term fornication is discussed at times but usually is related to adultery. Some miscellaneous information on some possibilities that have been presented. beastiality: the result was to be death, Leviticus 20:16; Exodus 22:19; Homosexuality: Death, Leviticus 20:13; These were sins of the people that God destroyed at the hand of Israel as they entered the land, Lev 18:22-24
There is a study of the term "fornication" at the end of this paper. Basically the term is any sexual activity that is incorrect. In these cases it refers to adultery.
Some would suggest that the death for adultery was not being practiced in this time. The method of death was stoning. Stoning was yet present in Stephen's and Paul's time. John R.W. Stott in "DIVORCE" mentions that stoning continued until 40 AD.
Matthew 14:3-14; Mark 6:14ff (Herod)
John The Baptist had told Herod that it was unlawful for him to have his brothers wife. Why? It would seem that his brother was still alive and he along with his wife were breaking the law. What law? The law of God that states that the man and woman are one flesh until death. Unger in his Bible Dictionary mentions that the Herod and Herodias eloped while both were still married.
John The Baptist was confident enough in His God to accuse even the king, of adultery, yet when a pastor suggests church discipline for the same thing in this generation, he is held up to ridicule.
Matthew 19:3-12 We have here some questions and answers in this text. Question: v 3 "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Christ answers, Haven't you read: Christ refers to the Genesis 2 text.
Question: v 7 Why then did Moses "command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" This Is A Misrepresentation Of Moses. Christ corrects the comment, and tells them that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses Permitted, not commanded it. But, This was not so from the beginning. Would Christ return to the beginning if He thought there were any basis for divorce or putting away? Not logical.
The term hardness of heart is used normally of unsaved and non believing. (Pharaoh; Mark 16:14; 3:5; Romans 2:5.) This may indicate that divorce is allowed in the unsaved world due to their unbelief and hardness, though I'm not sure you can even build that case.
Christ then goes to the thought of adultery for those involved in a second marriage after a divorce. No man in the text would include a husband. No man should cause separation.
The reaction of the disciples was of interest. They decided it would be better not to get married. (Matthew 19:10, "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." The discussion that follows makes it clear that they were talking about not getting married. Their reaction can only give evidence that they felt marriage was for life and that there was no way out.
Matthew 19:18
"He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,"
The Lord repeated all of the commandments except the sabbath, thus telling us they are still valid for today. Clear and concise — no adultery.
So, how can a believer be involved in divorce/remarriage? If they are they are openly before all that know, breaking one of God's commandments in an ongoing manner.
Q. How involved can someone in this position be in the local church? A good question. Today we have men pastoring in this situation. Would we have an active murderer teaching our youth group? Would we have an active thief teaching our beginners class? Probably not, so why do we have divorced/remarried people involved in these ministries?
I once spoke to a man that had recently divorced his first wife. They had both remarried and all four were singing in the church choir — an evangelical church — there was constant division because he felt that she and her husband shouldn't be involved in the choir. What A Testimony For Christ.
Mark 10:2-12 This is similar to Matthew 19, except for one very curious exception. The exception clause of fornication is not mentioned. Now if the book of Mark was written for the edification of Gentiles it would seem that the exception clause would be explained for them, rather than not mentioned, if indeed there is an exception. Is Mark just applying the
thought that death is the result of fornication and there are no exceptions? It would seem entirely possible. Christ is asked by the disciples again in private and Christ states clearly there is adultery in the case of ANY divorce — remarriage situation.
Some would submit that the reader would assume the exception clause due to their knowledge of the Matthew text. This is foolishness for the reader of Mark probably did not have the Matthew text to read. Mark was writing to specific people. Indeed, since this is true, the exception clause should have been present, if there was any case for remarriage without adultery being involved.
Some suggest that his leaving it out was to emphasize the concept of no divorce that the Scriptures set forth as the best. The fact that Matthew mentions the exception is because the Lord wanted to be in keeping with the letter of Deuteronomy 24. Mark just eliminated it to emphasize the importance of lasting marriages. This to me seems to leave Mark in the position of being somewhat dishonest with his readers.
Some thoughts: Mark is probably the first Gospel written. He was presenting the message to a gentile audience that probably would never see Matthew. If he left out the exception, then he was dishonest and misled the readers. On the other hand, if he viewed Christ's "exception" as this paper indicates, as not really an exception but death to the adulterer, then we have Mark setting forth a proper and complete picture of what Christ said.
This text is even clearer that the divorce/remarriage is a sin based on the breaking of the original marriage. "committeth adultery against her", is clearly stating that his new marriage is against the original spouse — it is adultery against her. Can we ever delegate this to a one time act? I don't know how.
The divorce is not the adultery, nor is the remarriage. It is the divorce/remarriage that leaves a person in an adulterous relationship.
Can one that is divorced/remarried before salvation receive forgiveness for their sin when they accept Christ? YES. Does the wrong situation change because of salvation? NO. Does the first marriage suddenly disappear or
become null and void? NO. Does the adulterous situation disappear or become null and void? NO.
The use of tenses in this text backs up the thinking presented here that the adultery is continuing. The verb for putting away is aorist (one time action), the verb marries is aorist (one time action), and the verb commits adultery is present (continuing action).
Verse 12 continues on, "And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Again the married is aorist while the committeth adultery is present — continuing.
This use of the present tense would indicate that the Lord and the three Gospel writers considered the adultery as an ongoing state of affair rather than a one time act. If this is an ongoing condition then the person that is divorced/remarried is living in open ongoing sin with no thought of ceasing from their activity.
Corinthians tells us that open, ongoing, unrepentant sin is cause for the removal of the person from the assembly. Someone asked me once what I would suggest for the divorced/remarried person. He asked if I would recommend divorce. When I said that this would put them closer to the thought of marriage (one for life) and that it would remove them from sin, he stated that he thought if was foolish of me to suggest divorce because it was sin. The man did not think that in God's eyes there is no second marriage, so there is nothing wrong with going through a secular, legal "divorce."
I would suggest a question in answer to this thought of suggesting a second divorce. What would we ask a Mormon with four wives to do if we led him to the Lord? Would we welcome all four wives and the husband into the membership of the church? No, we would teach them the Bible and pray that the Holy Spirit would lead them to do the right thing. Missionaries have faced similar problems on the field over the years and find that the men with multiple wives normally separate from all wives but the first and support all wives and children involved.
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."
Notice that Luke also fails to mention the "exception." He was not writing to Jews either, so would present the complete picture of no divorce. Matthew on the other hand was writing to Jews. He would naturally comment to them from the Jewish background which included the thought of death to the adulterer. Since their question was based on Moses, Christ had to respond to the Old Testament information.
Luke 18:20
"Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother."
It doesn't sound like the Lord appreciated adultery.
John 8:3
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act."
I would like to look at this text for a moment. It might be used as a proof text to show that the Old Testament death penalty was being set aside. Not so. Christ told them, that were without sin, to cast the first stone. None of the men were without the same sin, so none cast a stone. Since Christ was not a witness to the act, nor was he in the position of judge, he would not be involved in carrying out the command to stone. The scribes and Pharisees did not deal with the woman as they should have under their legal system. They should not have taken her to Christ.
Romans 2:22
"Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?"
This passage encourages the one that condemns adultery to be sure that he does not fall into the sin which he condemns. This is a strong
admonishment to the pastors and leaders of our churches. Some leaders are now doing what they have always condemned.
Romans 13:9
"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Again, definitely in the church age, we have a clear statement of "Thou shalt not commit adultery...." We Cannot have church leadership, nor even teachers that are committed to the open breaking of God's clear commandments.
1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 mentions a woman leaving her husband. Some state this allows her to divorce him. Not so. Divorce is not mentioned — only leaving. She is told to remain unmarried.
Galatians 5:19
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these];
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,"
Adultery is mentioned as a work of the flesh. This passage is contrasting the works of the flesh with the works of the Spirit. It might well be pictured as the works of the lost contrasted with the life of the saved. The least we can draw from this text is that the believer should not be involved in the works of the flesh. If they are in an open manner, how can we allow them to minister in the church? We should not. Verse twenty mentions, strife and heresies. These are causes for church discipline and removal from the assembly, so why would we want someone living in open adultery actively ministering in our churches?
One might wonder why the church has left its strong stand of removal of divorced/remarried people from the assembly. The thought that the father that is in adultery, brings danger to his son in the same area, may well relate to why the Church today has the same divorce rate that the lost world has. Because a few divorces were tolerated they became more
acceptable, etc. Some miscellaneous references containing "adultery": James 2:11; 2 Peter 2:14; Revelation 2:22.
Question: When is adultery, adultery? Each intimacy with one not your spouse is adultery. The life style would also be a life, or living in adultery. The key is that the adultery is an ongoing thing as long as there are intimate contacts.
This is illustrated for us in the spiritual adultery of Israel. They could have ceased their adultery at any point by leaving their "other gods" and returning to God. This by the way is also an illustration of the proper remedy for divorce/remarriage adultery in our own day in the physical realm. Leave the one that it not your spouse and return to your original spouse.
Question: Is there any sin whereby it is sin for the lost and not for the saved? Only one that I can think of and that being the rejection of Christ's finished work. All other sin is universally wrong, incorrect, and unacceptable to God.
Thus if adultery is deemed sin in any manner wouldn't it seem that it is sin in all manner? If it is sin for the unsaved, then being saved does not change it to non sin.
One closing thought concerning divorce/remarriage. Spiritual adultery is leaving God for other gods. The remedy is leaving the other gods and returning to God. In marriage adultery is leaving your spouse and going to other women. The only remedy is to leave the other women and returning to your spouse.
Conclusions to the study:
1. The most you can say from Scripture is:
a. Divorce for sexual problems was tolerated for Jews because of the hardness of hearts in the time of Moses.
b. Divorce is not commanded in any circumstance. This leaves the thought of working it out as the option.
c. The Jews are the only people involved in this idea of divorce, even if you hold to the possibility of the adultery clause in the Gospels.
d. If you reject the Matthew text being to the Jews then you must do two things.
1.) Accept that divorce in the case of adultery is allowed — Not Commanded Nor Encouraged.
2.) You must prove that the stoning for adultery was set aside before the time of Christ.
e. You may from 1 Corinthians 7, envision a separation but not remarriage.
f. Remarriage seems to be out even if you hold to an exception clause due to the defilement problem of the Old Testament. If you marry a divorcee then the defilement is transmitted to you as well.