Expert: Joe Norman - 1/6/2011

Question
QUESTION: Joe,

I have led a somewhat complex life when it comes to marriage, divorce and remarriage. I was previously married to a woman with whom I had had a child with. She developed a bad drug habit and she originally left me because I would not support this and tried to help her get away from this lifestyle but she chose the drugs over the family. Before the divorce was finalized she had started seeing someone and moved in with this new man. I felt that this would constitute as marital unfaithfulness and I felt the right to remarry.
A couple of years later I did so and during the course of this marriage my new wife began to withhold sex and claimed that the only reason I have sex is if she allows it. We would only come together intimately about once every month or two if she would let me. I'm not sure if this came from me accusing her of cheating when I found a note from her to another guy stating, "I love you so much and it ticks me off that you are letting another woman come between us." I assumed that there was something more than friendship between her and this guy but she swore that it was nothing more than a friendship. None the less I was not convinced but I stayed with her because I did not want to go through another divorce. However with the lack of intimacy I was caught in a moment of weakness and had a one time affair with another woman. I immediately knew what I did was wrong and did not continue and asked for God to forgive me. My wife found out about a year and a half later about my affair yet she still stayed with me and we had a child together and then moved to Minnesota.
Now, she has let me for another man due to the fact that I worked second shift and was unavailable to her and she had to watch the kids at night. I tried to make her stay and told her I would forgive her but I came home to her and her boyfriend in my basement night after night and I finally realized that it was no use. This went on for several months as I did not kick her out cause she had no where to go and I was hoping she would change her mind and stay. Eventually she did move out and I found myself unable to provide for myself and my two boys. I met a woman who is wonderful and knows my situation and has moved in with me to help keep things going. She sleeps in the spare bedroom and pays me rent and we are not having sex as others would assume. I do love this woman and she is great with my kids and I would love to marry her once my divorce is finalized.
My question is, I understand that I am technically married still and living with another woman in my house is dangerous ground but God knows what goes on here. And what doesn't go on for that matter. My brother claims that I am committing adultery myself and am not free to remarry because of this. Also he says that since I committed adultery first that I am no longer free to remarry. He said God doesn't forgive people who use him and that I was meant to be a eunuch. He claims that since I used the marital unfaithfulness from my first marriage that I can't use the same excuse this time to putaway my current wife and that I am supposed to stay with her or remain unmarried.
He has chosen to no longer speak to me and told the rest of my family that he would do the same to them if they are in support of me remarrying. We are all members of the Church of Christ and I understand where he is coming from but I don't fully agree with his cut and dry beliefs. I want to know if I can remarry and what scriptures and explanations I could use to help my brother understand? I know I made a mess of my life but I am confident that I am free to remarry. I just want to be sure before I drag myself and my new wife (if it comes to that)to hell with me. I

Thank you,

Rob

ANSWER: Hi Rob, I appreciate you choosing to ask me your questions and always strive to give Bible answers to Bible questions. It is your duty, as it is every Christian's duty, to test what is taught to see if it is true.

Now whether or not your brother can be convinced he is incorrect about his views on divorce and remarriage and more specifically his view of your situation is yet to be determined but I am not confident that he will consider anything I present or anyone else for that matter. My understanding of divorce and remarriage was very traditional when I was growing up. I was taught to believe similar to your brother. But by the time I was in Junior High I started seeing conflicts in what I was taught with what I read in I Corinthians chapter 7. Through the years my understanding and views gradually changed. Then I went through my own divorce about 6 years ago. My wife was unfaithful to me.

Now although most in the church who learn the details of my divorce will say I am free to marry someone new without sin, there are some who say I must live celibate the rest of my life. My ex wife always claimed she never physically committed adultery but it was only an "emotional" affair. This fact has caused some to think I am not free to marry someone new.

Now considering your situation I do not condone your decision to live with a woman that you are not married to even IF there is nothing inappropriate happening between you. I am not in any position of authority over you though. I just think it is unwise and it doesn't look good to those not living in the house. They don't know there isn't any sex going on between you two.

I don't have a specific passage to share which specifically covers this situation but do believe it is best not to share a residence with her if you are not married to her. I do understand that your money situation is bleak especially due to the current economy, but there has to be a more wise way to get by financially until you do marry.

Your brother is wrong though in telling you that you are currently committing adultery. Also he is wrong about your initial adultery requiring you to live celibate the rest of your life. It is a fact that not one person in the New Testament was ever told they must live celibate the rest of their lives if they can't reconcile with their original spouse. In fact there wasn't one person told such a thing in the first 400 years A.D. either. These ideas come solely from assumptions made after reading certain passages in the New Testament.

I have thoroughly explained the words of Jesus on divorce and remarriage many times on this site. I have also studied and evaluated the words of Paul too. All that is presented on divorce and remarriage within the New Testament should be considered. Now one mistake most within the church of Christ make is they focus almost entirely on what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage and especially Matthew 19. What they ignore is the proper context of Jesus' words. He was NOT speaking to Christians providing guidance to us. He was being questioned by the Pharisees who were seeking to trap Jesus in teaching contrary to the Law of Moses. Now had Jesus actually taught contrary to the Law of Moses He would have been arrested. He was not arrested. He was correcting the Pharisees who taught the Law of Moses incorrectly. They were not at all concerned with the reason for divorce. But Moses didn't say a man could divorce his wife for any reason. He said that divorce was a last resort if the woman has lost favor in his eyes due to something she did to cause him shame and not just any shame but a serious shameful thing. I am convinced Jesus was saying virtually the same thing Moses said.

Now when Jesus said that if a man divorces his wife and marries anotther he is guilty of adultery, He did not mean this person is in perpetual adultery as long as he remains in the second marriage. How do I know that? It is because the sentence structure bears it out. divorce is a one time act. Marriage is a one time act. Therefore commits adultery MUST also be a one time sin act. Also any other understanding of this causes conflict with very clear words from Paul in I Corinthians 7.

I don't believe you or anyone is ever forbidden to have a marriage so long as that marriage is one man to one woman. Homosexual marriage is always forbidden. My main reason for this is because in I Tim.4:1-3 Paul lists several things he calls doctrines of demons and in verse 3 he mentions "forbidding to marry". Although most believe and teach that this refers to the Catholics and their priests and nuns, there is nothing to indicate such or that it should be limited only to the Catholic priesthood. Paul did encourage celibacy but ONLY because the church was being persecuted at that time and it was always optional and decided by the individual. No one had the authority to forbid anyone to marry.

Bottom line, you can remarry and neither you nor your new wife will be in danger of Hell so long as you remain faithful to each other and are together until death parts you. If you want detailed analysis of specific passages please let me know. I also recommend a book called "When Marriages Bomb, There Is A Balm In Jesus Christ" by Lavelle Layfield. It's not expensive and is in paperback. I think it's an easy book to read and is very good. I don't agree with one thing.I don't think divorce is ALWAYS a sin but Layfield seems to think divorce is always a sin. I do believe one man and one woman should marry once and remain faithful for life. But I also believe fornication and adultery are forgivable sins with no penalty to remain even after forgiven. You were forgiven both by God and by your wife for your initial adultery. She forgave you and even had a child with you. That means you are no longer guilty of adultery.

I am sorry if my answer is not enough for you. I have detailed analysis of most passages on divorce and remarriage on this site. But I recommend you stick to my most recent answers to others on MDR. Again if you want specific study from me on a specific passage I am happy to do so. PLease let me know.

In Christian Love, Joe Norman


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Joe,

Thank you so much for your reply. I have read your other posts and that was specifically why I came to you. I too have struggled with the traditional beliefs on divorce and remarriage but it wasn't until I read your responses until it made sense why. Your explanation seems so clear and correct. I apologize if I caused you to repeat yourself in your answers on my account. And I am sorry to hear of your divorce. I never like to hear of any couple having to go through that. I believe this is why I have a hard time with the traditional way of thinking is sometimes people simply are left without a choice. No matter how faithful one may be, the spouse could always leave them for any reason and therefore leaving that person to live alone because of the way divorce and remarriage is viewed by Christians. You can't force someone to stay married to you. (I tried twice and it doesn't work)
Anyhow, I do have one question that you might help clarify for me.
If a popular passage for the traditional way is to use Matthew 19 as guidance on this topic, yet this was speaking of the old covenant, then why hasn't the church today recognized that these were the laws for the days before Christ was crucified? Wasn't the old covenant for the Israelites specifically and the new covenant established when Christ died for a new and better hope for the entire world? If this is the case then why does the church strongly recommend that people follow the rules of old knowing that they do not particularly pertain to "Christians" of today? (Please correct me if I am wrong on my statements) My brother quoted me on 1 Corinthians as well where it states that it is better to remain unmarried. He spoke as though this was directly applying to me. I don't claim to know a lot about the history of each book but I appreciated your explanation of what Christians were going through at the time and with a little more thorough studying of the verses before and after he happened to leave out quite a bit.
I completely understand why he is feeling so strongly on this and it's because he loves me so and worries. I only pray that he can understand that just because it has been the traditional way of thinking that it doesn't mean it was right. I'd love to have my brother back in my life.
He also quoted 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and this is his reasoning for no longer associating with me. Is there any guidance you can give me for this? I tried to explain that I don't feel that I directly fit into any of these categories and for him to assume that I am is judging me. Is there anything that I can use to help argue my point?
Joe I appreciate you time on this matter on my behalf. I too like to consider myself conservative but if I don't quite get the traditional way of thinking then I can't help but look for a better explanation. You provided this for me.

May God bless you always,

Rob

ANSWER: Hi again Rob,

I am more than happy to help you and you are no bother to me. I am here to help if I can. I also appreciate your kind words regarding my own divorce. Most in the church think I am free to marry someone new so my views are not because I am looking to prove I have a freedom to marry someone new. My personal experience was not my motivation. But I admit my study of MDR greatly increased after my divorce. But I learned the traditional hermeneutics that the most conservative of the Lord's church use. I apply these study techniques and am confident my current understanding of MDR is the most biblically accurate. I also know of many others who have done their own independent study and come to many if not all of the same conclusions I did.

You make an excellent point about the fact you can't force someone to remain married to you. That should be the most solid evidence that the "traditional" teaching on MDR is very flawed. If the husband did everything right in the marriage and was completely faithful to his wife, but she decided one day to divorce him just because she wanted out of the marriage, according to the traditional teaching the husband would be FORCED to live celibate the rest of his life unless one day he reconciles with his original wife. God's grace would never require such an unjust penalty when one did nothing wrong to cause it.

Now the reason Matthew 19 is the main passage those who teach the "traditional" view of MDR use is because they don't believe Jesus' words on divorce and remarriage was limited to Old Covenant. They are convinced His words on divorce and remarriage are eternal and binding in every age...both covenants. The reason they believe this is because they see Jesus initially respond to the Pharisees by quoting a passage in Genesis. They say He went to the garden of Eden first which was prior to the Law of Moses. They think this means His words are eternally binding in both covenants. Let me paste it for you below.

Matt.19:4-6
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,' 5 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'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Now although it is true Jesus quoted from the book of Genesis this doesn't mean the context is changed. Genesis was written by God through Moses and Jesus expected the Pharisees to be familiar with it. I agree God has ALWAYS wanted man to marry only once and for life. When the man and woman join they become one flesh. This is an eternal truth for all mankind from creation until the end of time. God's ideal never changed. God's ideal for man overall was that he never sin too. Yet God knew man would sin if given the freedom to choose. He had a plan even before man was created to save man from themselves. God also knew mankind would sometimes not stay married. He provided guidelines for divorce when it was clearly needed. His guidelines were layed out by Moses in Deut 24:1-3. The purpose was two-fold. God wanted to try to limit the number of divorces by making sure divorce was only for seriously good reasons when it was clear the marriage was over. The other reason was to protect the women. At that time only the man was able to divorce. The whole purpose of the bill of divorcement was to free the woman to marry a different man. Without that bill, she would not be permitted to have a husband and would most likely be homeless and broke with no way to provide for herself.

I reject the belief that since Jesus referred the Pharisees to God's original plan for marriage in the garden of Eden Jesus' words are binding to Christians and non-Christians from that point on until Christ returns. There are valid reasons I reject it. First, Jesus was being tested by Pharisees and they were seeking to show He was teaching contrary to the Law of Moses. Had Jesus actually taught something contrary to the Law of Moses He would have been arrested immediately. Also, after Jesus answered the initial question the Pharisees had asked him, they replied with another question. Jesus first referred them to Genesis. They asked in response, Why then did Moses COMMAND to give a certificate of divorce and put her away?

Matt.19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

Jesus said Moses them to divorce their wives due to the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning this was not so.

Matt.19:8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Verse 8 proves to me this is still Old Covenant. Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of man's hearts. Moses permitted it because God permitted it. Jesus' point wasn't that Moses' instructions are no longer valid. His point was that we should all strive to remain married because that is what God intended. This fact is true in all generations and covenants. The most popular teaching on divorce and remarriage at the time Jesus lived was that a Jewish man can divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus was seeking to correct them and once again limit divorce to only with serious violations of the marriage covenant.

Now we come to verse 9.
Mat 19:9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

I prefer the American Standard Version of this verse because I think it is the most accurate translation of this verse. Now what Jesus said here is easily broken down. Whoever puts away (divorces) his wife and marries another commits adultery. This is true unless the cause of divorce is fornication. Now most who teach the "traditional" view will say "fornication" specifically means adultery. But there are two problems with that belief. The first problem is that fornication (porneia) has a much broader meaning than just adultery. In fact porneia can be literal or physical and also can be metaphorical or symbolic. Also Jesus uses the word that literally means adultery (moichao) at the very end of the verse. Had Jesus meant adultery is the ONLY cause for divorce He would have said moichao instead of saying porneia in what we call "the exception clause".

But another problem is that most ignore what caused the adultery for the husband. Jesus says if a man divorces his wife and marries another woman he commits adultery. Both the divorce and the second marriage cause the adultery. But it's not the sex with the new wife that makes him commit adultery. The word adultery is most often used in the Bible as a reference to unfaithfulness in a relationship. The Jews were committing adultery against God when they would worship idols. A man who divorces his wife when she has done nothing wrong to cause him to want a divorce is quilty of unfaithfulness to her by divorcing her and marrying another woman. Now if she did something that brought shame upon her husband and or their marriage, he could divorce her and marry another woman without committing adultery.

Now any man who marries this woman who did nothing wrong but her husband divorced her anyway commits adultery by marrying her. Why? It is because her husband divorced her without cause had sinned by divorcing her and she really still belonged to him. Jesus wanted men who divorced without serious cause to realize their sin and get their wife back. If the woman married someone new there was no chance for her original spouse to get her back. But my biggest problem with the "traditional" teaching is that there are too many assumptions thown in between the words of Jesus. They assume "commits adultery" is perpetual or continuous. But the action words that cause the adultery are one time actions..."divorces" and "marries". Since those two are one time acts the adultery must also be a one time action.

Also, nowhere does Jesus say anyone is no longer free to have a marriage and must remain celibate. The idea of celibacy being required comes from twisting what Jesus said to His disciples.

Matt.19:10-12
10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry. 11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The disciples were saying if such is the case it's most beneficial if man not to marry at all. Jesus says not all men can live a completely celibate life. Only some have such a gift to endure a celibate life. He speaks of eunuchs that are born, eunuchs made by surgery, and eunuchs who make themselves such for the kingdom of God. Now it's important to note those who become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God MAKE THEMSELVES eunuchs. It is THEIR choice. It is not FORCED upon them by others and especially not a group of Elders. I am convinced verses 10-12 are in complete harmony with Paul's words in I Cor.7:8,9.

You mentioned your brother referred to I Corinthians when he spoke of it being better to remain unmarried. What verses did he use specifically? I would like to cover those verses specifically for you if that would be beneficial to you. I do agree your brother sincerely believes he is correct in his views of divorce and remarriage and he loves you. He is concerned for your soul and believes that cutting himself off from you is a way to shock you into returning to a commitment to live celibate the rest of your life, which is what he believes God wants you to do.

Now let me address I Cor.5:9-13. This passage is regarding church discipline. Paul wrote this to the church in Corinth as guidance for them as a local congregation. Paul was not speaking to individuals and most especially was not speaking to those who are physically family members. My oldest brother and my third oldest brother both have left God. Neither are practicing Christians. But I will still eat with them and be a brother to them because they are physically my family and I love them I want them to return to God but if I chose to cut all contact with them until they return to God, they would still not return to God and I would never see them again. But they don't continue to pretend to be Christians.

Paul is speaking to a local church which had members who continue to worship and be active within the church but also practice certain sins openly. Paul mentions fornicators, idolators, those who covet, revilers, drunkards, and extortioners. What is not mentioned is those divorced. You are not a fornicator. You are not a drunkard. You are not an idolator. You are not one who covets. You are not a reviler. You are not an extortioner. You strive to live a good Christian life. The passage does not refer to you or your situation. It is meant to be a CHURCH disciplinary action to get a Christian who is shaming the name Christian to repent. It is a last resort action too. Family is family and the Christian who has a brother or sister or mom or dad or child that they believe is living in a sinful manner has a much better chance of getting their sinful relative to turn back to God if they always provide a good example to them and offer to study with that relative.

We are supposed to rebuke or correct someone in love. If we don't speak to them with love we have little chance if any to turn them back to God. I do hope that some of my response is helpful to you. Again, I am more than willing to continue to help in any way I can. If you have other verses you wish me to explain please let me know. If you come up with new questions or if your brother tells you something and you aren't sure how to respond to him, please let me know. If you come up with completely new questions I will be happy to answer them too. I am praying for you. I know you are in a difficult situation to be sure.

In Christian Love, Joe Norman











---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Joe,

Thank you again for your responses. They have helped me a great deal in understanding these passages. I have been doing some thorough studying and even discussed this all with my brother. His response was just as you said and how I figured it would be but none the less he finally agreed to study it a little. It's a start.
In the future I will be certain to come to you with further questions. The way you explain the scriptures is so simple and easy to understand and I greatly appreciate that.

Thanks again and may God bless you always,

Rob

Answer
Hi Rob,

I appreciate all your kind words and am happy if I have been of any help to you at all. I have been thinking about something that I would like to share with you as well. I think it might be beneficial to you if I were to explain the passages in I Corinthians that speak on remaining unmarried. Now let's begin with looking at I Corinthians chapter 7 verses 1-5. Paul begins by stating it is good for a man not to touch a woman in verse 1. But he continues in verse 2 by explaining that since there is the temptation to fornicate each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband.

He continues in verse 3 to say that the husband and wife should render what is due each other. He is speaking about not withholding sex from each other. This is made clear by verse 4. He explains that the wife doesn't have authority over her own body but the husband does and the wife has power over her husband's body. In marriage we belong to each other. In verse 5 he says do not withhold sex from each other unless it is by mutual consent for a short period of time so you both can mentally focus on prayer. But he warns that the married couple should join sexually soon so that Satan doesn't tempt either of you to fornicate, cheating on your spouse. Even within a marriage we must be on guard for the temptations to cheat and if we strive daily to fulfill all your spouses needs you will have a strong marriage. Now let's look at verses 6-9.

1 Cor.7:6-9
6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. 7 Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Now in verse 6 Paul is setting up his words of encouragement to remain celibate. He's telling the church in Corinth that remaining celibate is NOT a requirement for anyone. In verse 7 he states he wishes all men were as himself. Now he knew that not all men could be celibate like he was their whole life. But Paul knew that not having the responsibilities of a wife and possibly kids would free men to work more in spreading the gospel and serving God. But he notes that each man has his own "gift from God." I think it should be obvious to any man that very few men can endure a celibate life. But so many who hold to the traditional teaching must not care or they must think that God somehow gives the men who are no longer free to have a marriage some miraculous gift to endure it without sin.

When we get to verse 8 Paul addresses the "unmarried" and the "widows". He encourages them to remain celibate. Now "unmarried" can refer to those never married as well as those divorced. Those who hold to the traditional teaching on MDR will try to limit "unmarried to only those never married because of what Paul says in verse 9. But there is nothing said by Paul to indicate "unmarried" is limited to only those never married and Paul clearly says if a person lacks self control let them marry because it's better to marry than to burn with passion.

Now we come to two of the most misunderstood and twisted verses in the New Testament. Verses 10 and 11.

1 Cor.7:10,11
10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband 11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

The first fact overlooked by those who hold to the traditional teaching on MDR is that Paul is speaking to those who ARE MARRIED (caps for emphasis not yelling). He says the wife should not leave her husband but if she does depart let her remain alone. I am convinced when he says "let her remain unmarried" he means let her remain AS one who is unmarried and that this is not speaking of divorce. First, the word translated as "depart" is not the Greek word that means divorce. "chorizo" is the word used and although it can be one meaning something in the sentence should point us to that meaning. There isn't anything in the sentence that tells us Paul means divorce. In fact there is evidence Paul didn't mean divorce. The biggest evidence is that if there is a divorce, it is impossible to "reconcile" with your spouse. You can only choose to marry once more. Divorce always ends a marriage contrary to those who teach the traditional view of MDR. If divorce were truly what Paul meant in this passage then why do none of the most accurate English translations not use the word "divorce" at all? In verse 11 some translations say the husband is not to divorce his wife but the word used doesn't mean divorce according to Strong's Dictionary.

Paul was addressing a married couple who is separated. If he meant divorce then what Paul says later conflicts greatly. Look at verses 26-28 with me.

1 Cor.7:26-28
26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. 28 But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you.

Verse 26 gives us the reason Paul encourages celibacy at all in this chapter. The church was being persecuted at this time. But Paul clearly states those who are bound to a wife they should not seek to be loosed from that wife. Then he says those loosed from a wife shouldn't seek to be bound to a wife. But in verse 28 he says that if the one loosed (which obviously refers to those who were once bound) does marry, they haven't sinned. Next he specifies that if a virgin marries they do not sin either. These verses are completely ignored by most who teach the traditional view on MDR. If they don't ignore it they most certainly do twist it. But the words of Paul are very clear.

I am hoping my additional input is helpful to you. Please don't hesitate to ask me any new questions or share anything with me that your brother presents to you that you are not sure how to respond to or handle. I will do my best to help you.

In Christian Love, Joe Norman