Expert: Joe Norman - 5/9/2011

Question
QUESTION: Having asked your understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and particularly verse 11, I wanted get your thoughts on Mark 6:17-19. John the Baptist had rebuked Herod for marrying his brother's wife. It would seem logical that the only way for him to truly repent would be to undo this marriage. John's rebuke certainly gives that impression.

I ask because I truly want to get another take on it. Thank you!

ANSWER: Hi Joe,

I deeply appreciate you asking me your question. I am as always honored to be asked questions from anyone who sincerely seeks the truth and is willing to consider what is presented and test it to see if what you are taught is true. We all have the responsibility to test what anyone teaches and study God's Word ourselves without preconceived beliefs guiding us to conclusions.

Now let's evaluate the passage together which you are asking about. It is actually one verse which has your attention. John the baptist rebuked Herod for marrying his brother's wife. He told him "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." Yes according to the Law of Moses it was not lawful for a man to marry his brother's wife.

Lev.20:21  If a man takes his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless.

Obviously it was only wrong and sinful if the brother was still alive though because of this passage below.

Deut.25:5,6
5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

But yes I agree with you. It is logical that the only way for him to repent would be to undo the marriage but what does the Old Testament teach should be done if a man marries his brother's wife when his brother still lives? The most we can learn is from Lev.20:21 which only says they shall be childless. There is no instruction to divorce her or for them to be stoned to death. It only says...because he's uncovered his brother's nakedness, they shall be childless. This whole thing is Old Covenant. I do agree the indication from John the Baptist's rebuke is he's wanting them to end the marriage...but I don't think a "divorce" would be required because it was seen as an "unlawful" marriage...incestuous. He simply needed to "put her away" without a bill of divorce.

In Christianity are there some marriages which are not lawful? I think everyone would say yes. But my list of marriages which would be "unlawful" under the New Covenant is probably shorter than most within the brotherhood. I believe homosexual marriages are "unlawful" today. I also believe incestuous marriages are unlawful today. I do not believe second or third etc marriages are unlawful. I do believe SOME remarriages are sin but not continious sins...just one time sins which can be repented of and forgiven without requiring divorce or living celibate the rest of your life.

If anything I shared has triggered new questions you wish to ask me, please feel free to ask me follow up questions. If you have new questions on anything new please share those as well. I pray my response has been helpful and I only ask that you study and test what I present. If it passes the test accept it and if not, then you at least have been blessed by a more in depth study to understand God's Word better.

In Christian Love, Joe Norman







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

QUESTION: Thank you for your response. I thought that would be where you would go with this and I agree. One other followup, what about the fact that Herod was not a Jew? Of course he subjected himself to Jewish law as I understand it. I've seen this used to show how God's law applies to non-Christians in regards to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Along with the story of the Samaritan women who had 5 husbands. As an aside, it was ironic that this person also used both passages to show that God doesn't recognize some divorces because she was said to have had 5 husbands. Would you say that Herod was still under the old law as a non-Jew or because he subjected himself to God's law he was rebuked accordingly. I have no issue with God's law applying to all humanity, as it clearly does. However, the old law was for the Jews and while God no doubt condemned other nations under the old law I'm not sure to what extent Jewish marriage laws applied "to all."

Answer
Hi again Joe,

I appreciate the follow up questions. But the fact is Herod was a Jew. He is the son of the Herod the Great who was king of the Jews when Jesus was born. So anyone who tries to use Herod and Herodias to support their belief that God's laws apply to those not under a covenant relationship with Him fails.

I am glad you mentioned the Samaritan woman as well. Yes most ignore the fact that Jesus tells her "you have had five husbands" and did not say, "you have had one husband and 4 adulterous marriages." I find no evidence that some marriages are not recognized as marriages by God. Some marriages are seen by God as "unlawful" though. Incestuous marriages are clearly unlawful in any covenant relationship with God. So are homosexual marriages. But I find no evidence to support the idea that a second heterosexual marriage which is not incestuous was seen by God as "unlawful" or an "adulterous marriage".

In a sense God's Law applies to all humanity but Paul does give indication there are some limits to that when a Christian is married to a non-Christian. Let's look at the passages in I Corinthians 7 together.

1 Cor.7:12-16
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Now I must first point out that Paul doesn't mean his words on this matter are just his opinion when he speaks in verse 12. He merely means God has not given instruction on this specific topic until now. In verse 15 Paul does indicate that if the unbelieving wife leaves and wants out of the marriage he must let her go and is not "under bondage" in such cases. Clearly the reason is because the non-believer doesn't see marriage as sacred as the Christian sees it and so the Christian must let their spouse out of the marriage.

So it seems this passage conflicts strongly with what many traditionally teach regarding God's law on marriage and how it applies to non-Christians. But then much of what Paul says in this chapter conflicts with what is traditionally taught about divorce and remarriage within the brotherhood. The many conflicts I saw were what helped me to see the error in what is most widely taught and accepted.

Please feel free to ask more follow up questions or ask a new line of questions if I can be of any help to you. I deeply appreciate your hunger for the truth and openness to consider and test what I present.

In Christian Love, Joe Norman