Church of God Message
Call Us: 8133745451
GOD'S PURPOSE FOR MARRIAGE
Chapter 9
Divorce and Remarriage Law
We have already discussed God’s instructions in Deuteronomy 22:13-14, “13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid [or virgin]:”
This we have understood to be dissolution of marriage because a fraud has been committed. This is not describing divorce, but annulment of a marriage because of sexual fraud, because God had not bound such a marriage. Other kinds of fraud that can be committed would include a person claiming to be in perfect health but has terminal cancer; a drug addict or an alcoholic; someone with a criminal past, a prison record, or has undisclosed children. The defrauded party can end the marriage soon after the fraud is discovered if he or she chooses to. But on discovery of the fraud, if the offended party chooses to continue in the marriage, then that party cannot make a case for fraud 10, 15 or 20 years later to end the marriage.
Now let’s reread and consider what Moses wrote concerning the conditions under which divorce could be allowed:
Deuteronomy 24:1-2 states, “1 When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he has 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.”
In this reading do you find anything that says a man may divorce his wife for any reason? When Moses wrote the words “that she find no favor in his eyes,” he did not end the sentence there. He went on to say that “she find no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her.” So, the only reason a man divorcing his wife could be allowed to stand is because he found some uncleanness in her, as a result of which she no longer finds favor in his eyes. What in this reading of the law lends even an iota of support for Rabbi Hillel’s liberal view that a man may divorce his wife for any reason?
The conservative view of Shammai is closer to the truth according to which divorce could be allowed only for unchastity, meaning adultery, prostitution or some other sexual promiscuity. So, a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexually-related unseemly conduct.
Just as the German masquerader Charles Darwin, originator of the theory of evolution, and a demon-possessed Jew named Karl Marx, originator of communism were able to do so much evil to humanity, Rabbi Hillel either was such a descendant of liberal Jews returned from Babylon, or descendant of a Babylonian masquerader (probably steeped in the Babylonian Mystery religion like Simon the Magician of Acts 8 who sought to buy God’s gift of imparting Holy Spirit to those baptized with money from Peter the apostle) who had found his way into a high position in Judaism and was able to do much evil among the Jews by the time Jesus came into the world, just as Simon the Magician would do later to Christianity. Or Hillel could have become liberalized, influenced by Greek culture who perverted the teaching of Moses to say that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. Read Deuteronomy 24:1-4 again. Moses did not allow divorce for any reason, but only if the man had found some unseemly sexual conduct in his wife prior to marriage.
After a few centuries, the Jews who went into captivity, and even those who returned became liberal because they believed that God had kept His promises to David to have his descendant sit upon the throne of Israel forever. After the Babylonian captivity, the Jews did not have a nation of their own till 1948 when the modern state of Israel was born. They believed that David’s dynasty had ended, without realizing that Jeremiah the prophet had been used by God to uproot David’s throne from the House of Judah and transplant it in Ireland among the House of Israel. Because of this error in interpreting the scriptures, most Jews did not want to retain their religion. Those who settled in other nations adopted the pagan religions of the lands they settled in, just as my Jewish ancestors in India became Hindus, and later some became Sikhs. Many converted to Islam. Even many of those who came back to Jerusalem became liberals doing whatever seemed right in their own eyes.
By the time of Jesus Christ, fables had entered into the Jewish religious literature, some of the books of the Apocrypha being examples. One can read many more similar fables in other Jewish commentaries of those times. Paul the apostle mentions Jewish fables and tells Timothy and Titus to shun such fables in 1 Timothy 1:4, 4:7, 2 Timothy 4:4 and Titus 1:14. The apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:16, while referring to the truth of the coming of Jesus Christ to pay the death penalty for humanity’s sins and His resurrection says: “16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”
Satan uses the device of cunning fables to corrupt history or religious truth. He has used Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Indian myths to corrupt pre-Flood and immediate post-Flood history so that humanity would not learn the lessons that history should have taught us that mixing of races and that following Satan doesn’t work for the welfare of humanity. That is how corruptions in interpretations of God’s law concerning divorce and remarriage like those of Rabbi Hillel entered the Jewish literature.
Getting back to the divorce and remarriage Law, now read verses 3-4 in Deuteronomy 24, “1 When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no FAVOR in his eyes, because he has 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 gives it in her hand, and sends 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 you shall not cause the land to sin, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance.”
These verses are saying that if a man divorces his wife, then he may not remarry her again if her later husband divorces her or dies. God is instructing the Israelites that if because of the hardness of their hearts they are going to divorce anyway without regard to His will and purpose for marriage, then they cannot remarry the wife they had divorced. Moses was not commanding the Israelites to divorce because of something unseemly in the conduct of their wives. In his instructions he was simply allowing it to happen if they wanted it without regard to God’s will and purpose.
The Hebrew word translated FAVOR is Khane, #2580 in Strong’s Concordance of the Hebrew, which can be translated subjectively as graciousness, kindness, favor. Objectively the word relates to favor, grace, pleasant, precious or well-favored as it relates to beauty.
With so many different ways the word can be translated, now we can understand how various translators or commentators could wrest words and provide a wide variety of interpretations of this statement of the Law. Some would say divorce could be allowed for any reason if the wife finds no favor in the man’s eyes, even if she is no longer beautiful.
The word translated UNCLEANNESS is eroah #6172 in Strong’s Concordance which is derived from the root Hebrew word arah, #6168 in Strong’s, which can mean to make bare, hence to empty, pour out, demolish; leave, destitute, discover, make naked, rase or uncover. Therefore, the word eroah translated UNCLEANNESS can also mean nudity, or figuratively disgrace, blemish, nakedness, shame or uncleanness.
An interpreter of this law or a commentator may choose any of these meanings to say that a man may divorce his wife because some information came to light that she had been naked before a man or men before their marriage, or can go to another extreme saying he had found something shameful or disgraceful in her past; so he has the right to divorce her. And what he or she considers shameful or disgraceful in the spouse’s past or present is his or her own subjective opinion. Who decides what a person finds some conduct in another to be disgraceful or shameful? And how many in the world have nothing disgraceful at all in their past?
Jesus Christ illustrated this very well in the real incident of the woman taken in the very act of adultery in John 8:3-11, “3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. 7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
The word translated “BILL OF DIVORCEMENT” is ker-ee-thooth, #3748 in Strong’s means cutting of the matrimonial bond or divorce. The word translated “sends her out” is the Hebrew word Shalach (pronounced Shaw-lakh), #7971 in Strong’s Concordance, which is a root word meaning to send away for, or out, appoint, bring on the way, let depart, push away, cast away or out, conduct, earnestly, or put away. Two different words BILL OF DIVORCEMENT and the SEND AWAY are used.
As already mentioned, these verses began to be interpreted in different ways by the time of Jesus Christ. One interpretation is that this passage does not command divorce, but merely says that if the man is going to divorce anyway without regard to God’s will by giving the wife a bill of divorcement, then he may not take her to be his wife again. So what Moses was writing in the Law is that if the husband has found some uncleanness in his wife before marriage, and he writes her a bill of divorcement and sends her away, then he can never remarry her. He was laying down the law about remarriage, and not commanding that the husband divorce his wife if some uncleanness in her before marriage came to light.
Others such as the Rabbi Hillel School interpret these verses to mean that Moses is allowing the parties to give a bill of divorcement for any or every unseemly reason and end the marriage, such as the wife spoiling the man’s food, or he has found someone more beautiful than her. The Hillel school of thought could justify its position by the different meanings of the Hebrew words for FAVOR and UNCLEANNESS. Still others such as the Rabbi Shammai School differ in their interpretation of the reason for the divorce being allowed. They say divorce is allowed only if “he has found some sexually-related uncleanness in her.” Shammai was more conservative and allowed divorce only for unchastity, meaning adultery, prostitution or some other sexual promiscuity.” Which interpretation is correct?
Because of the wide variety of interpretations of the Law as stated by Moses, Only God who originally gave the Law could clarify what was the correct interpretation. Happily for us, the Pharisees posed this very issue to Jesus Christ, the God who originally gave the Law to Moses, whose answer provides the correct interpretation.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus first clarified what adultery is in the letter of the law as well as its spiritual intent. He said in Matthew 5:31-32, “31 It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you [Jesus is here clarifying Moses, meaning that the Pharisees and the peoples’ interpretation of Moses’ Law is incorrect], that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication [the Greek word here is ‘porneia’], causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.”
The meaning of the Greek word “porneia” and how it is used in this verse will be discussed at greater length later. But bear in mind that divorce was not a command in the Law given by Moses, but something allowed as people demanded it and were doing it anyway. The Law was simply stating that if the husband divorces his wife because of her conduct before marriage, then he may never remarry her.
So we can summarize the divorce and remarriage law as stated in the Law of Moses:
1. A marriage may be annulled or put aside if either party has been deceived by the other prior to marriage. But such fraud or deception should be acted upon when discovered and not decades after the discovery.
2. The second reason Moses’ law allowed divorce to stand is if a man or woman has found something unseemly in the sexually related conduct of the spouse before or after marriage. If under this condition a divorce takes place, then the person may not remarry his or her former spouse.
Some argue that Moses was writing the Immutable Law and cannot be changed. This issue will also be addressed later.
Pharisees Raise the Issue
Now consider Jesus’ response to the Pharisees when they raised this issue with Him concerning the Law in Deuteronomy 24. That conversation is recorded in Matthew 19:3-12, “3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [Here they were stating the Hillel School view of divorce.] 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 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? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
The Greek word translated PUT AWAY is apoluo, #630 in Strong’s Greek Concordance which means to free fully i.e. literally relieve, release, dismiss, or figuratively let die, pardon, or specifically divorce, let depart, let go, loose, send or put away, set at liberty.
The Greek word translated ASUNDER is chorizo (pronounced Kho-rid’-zo), Strong’s #5563 which means to place room between, i.e. part, or to go away, depart, put asunder or separate.
We see that when the Pharisees tried to question Jesus whether He agreed with the Hillel School view of divorce for any reason, He referred them to Genesis 2 when the marriage was instituted, pointing out that marriage is supposed to be permanent, “till death do us part.” But the Pharisees persisted:
“7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”
Here the Pharisees were misquoting Moses’ Law. The Pharisees said, “Why did Moses command.” Moses did not command divorce if the man finds some uncleanness in his wife prior to marriage, but merely allowed it because they were doing it anyway because of the hardness of their hearts, without regard to God’s will for the marriage institution.
Now consider this. If after marriage some gross sexual uncleanness prior to marriage came to light which was not disclosed or discussed prior to marriage, then fraud had been committed. Then the couple could divorce or rather annul the marriage on the grounds of fraud. When we view the law concerning divorce in Deuteronomy 24 in this way it is linked to the law concerning annulment of marriage and remarriage in Deuteronomy 22:13-3.
But let’s return to Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees about “why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?”
“8 He says 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.”
Jesus knew that because of the hardness of the hearts of ancient Israelites, unsoftened by God’s holy spirit, people would not be able to forgive and overlook the past mistakes of others. So, Moses merely allowed the divorce, not commanded as the Pharisees alleged, as they were doing it anyway. But Jesus told them that it is not God’s intention. Referring to Genesis 2 He told the Pharisees that God’s intention is that marriage be permanent. Jesus continued in verse 9:
“9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication [the Greek word here is “porneia”], and shall marry another, commits adultery [a different Greek word “moicheia” which means adultery]: and whoso marries her which is put away commits adultery.”
The Pharisees had basically asked Jesus if He agreed with the Hillel School’s liberal view of divorce or the more conservative view of the Shammai School. In His answer Jesus was even more conservative than the Shammai School’s view. He was allowing annulment of marriage if ‘fornication’ is discovered after marriage, whereas Shammai School believed that divorce could be allowed even for adultery [which obviously takes place after marriage], prostitution or other sexual promiscuity after marriage.
After Jesus had answered the Pharisees, His disciples were shocked and questioned Him further in verse 10:
“10 His disciples say unto him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” This remark illustrates how deeply the liberal thinking had permeated society of those times. The mindset of even the disciples was that when their wife got old and no longer pleased the husband, she could be put away and they could remarry. If she could not be put away, then they were better off not marrying. Such thinking would lead to cohabiting without marriage as happens in America and British Commonwealth nations today. Jesus answered:
“11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”
Jesus here told the disciples that the world at large could not accept His saying because of the hardness of their hearts. But those to whom it is given, meaning His disciples, whose hearts would be softened by God’s holy spirit after conversion, would then be able to receive and accept this saying. They could understand the deep meaning, sanctity and permanence of marriage as a type of the marriage between Jesus Christ and His Church and would accept it.
Jesus continued further: “12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb [those who would be unable to marry because of a birth defect]: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men [meaning castrated as ancient rulers did to those who kept their harems]: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.” These would be men who have chosen not to marry as would have been the case with Paul the apostle, or who cannot marry because he or she is bound to someone else but is separated. In this case remarriage is not allowed. This situation would be covered later.
Jesus concluded with the words: “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” He basically told the disciples that after conversion, members of His Church have to endure the circumstances they find themselves in, including making themselves like eunuchs for the Kingdom of God’s sake if that is necessary because of separation, but still bound in marriage. He told them that marriage is permanent, and they have to patiently make it work. Thus, God’s standard for marriage between members of His Church is even higher than the most conservative view of marriage in the world concerning divorce and remarriage.
Some, including many commentaries state that the Greek word “porneia” has a much broader meaning than mere ‘fornication’ and can include any kind of sexual immorality, including adultery. Here is how other Bible translations translate Matthew 19:9:
NKJV: 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
NIV: 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
CEB: 9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Complete Jewish Bible: 9 Now what I say to you is that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery!"
ASV: 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.
New Century Version: 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery. The only reason for a man to divorce his wife is if his wife has sexual relations with another man."
RSV: 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."
We see that most Bible translations use the broader meaning of “porneia” to translate this verse, allowing divorce on the grounds of any type of sexual immorality, either undiscovered fornication before marriage that has come to light, or adultery or other sexual promiscuity after marriage. Only the KJV and ASV use the word fornication as the only grounds of divorce. The question therefore is, what meaning of the word “porneia” did Jesus actually intend in His answer to the Pharisees.
The conclusion God’s Church had reached before the split into different organizations in the 1990s was that Jesus intended the meaning to be “fornication” as the only grounds for divorce. That is the interpretation of the Law that was followed previously and still adhered to by three of the larger Church of God organizations: The Living Church of God (LCG), The Philadelphia Church of God (PCOG) and The Restored Church of God (RCG). However, the United Church of God (UCG), of which I am a member, in its statement of belief of 1997 on Divorce and Remarriage differed from the position of the other Church of God organizations on the meaning of “porneia” to include sexual immorality after marriage as well and hence grounds for divorce. Which view is correct?
The Churches that hold the view that Jesus meant “porneia” to mean “fornication” offer four reasons for their view.
1) If Jesus Christ intended the meaning to be adultery as grounds for divorce, He would have specifically used the more precise word “moicheia” instead of “porneia”. In fact, in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 both the words are used. So “porneia” is used in a contrasting sense than “moicheia” and hence the intended meaning must be “fornication”.
2) According to the RCG booklet “Understanding Divorce and Remarriage”, “Nowhere in the New Testament is “porneia” used where the meaning in context is adultery. This would be the only place (in Matthew 19:9), if indeed Christ meant adultery.
3) Thirdly, if Jesus Christ intended “adultery” to be the meaning of “porneia”, then Matthew 19:9 would read, “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for adultery [not just fornication] and shall marry another commits adultery and causes her to commit adultery.” Question then is why would there be a concern about adultery resulting from putting away a spouse if adultery was the reason for putting away? It does not make sense.
4) In Matthew 5:27-28 Jesus stated, “27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Jesus here defined adultery to include lusting after another person than one’s own spouse. In such situations if a wife catches her husband watching another woman for too long, she could accuse him of committing adultery of the heart and use that as grounds for divorce. If Jesus meant adultery [which would also mean ‘lust’ or adultery of the heart] as the meaning of ‘porneia’ as a reason for divorce, then Jesus would have destroyed marriage as an institution.
This particular objection is easily met. From the context of Matthew 5, we can see that Jesus was broadening the law to cover the intent of the Law. He was telling humans that we should curb our underlying attitudes that lead to the sins, such as curbing anger that leads to murder and curbing lust that leads to adultery. Therefore, the context in Matthew 5:27-28 is different from the context in Matthew 19:9 in which the term adultery is used. Jesus was not allowing lust as a ground for divorce on the grounds of adultery. He was simply warning us to guard against unbridled lust as it would lead to adultery, just as unbridled anger could lead to murder.
The other objections can be met if we use the broader meaning of “porneia” to include sexual immorality of any kind, which would include fornication, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, incest and other kinds of sexual perversions. All Bible dictionaries and lexicons are in agreement that while the word “moicheia” has the narrow meaning ‘adultery’ the word ‘porneia’ has a broader meaning to include all kinds of sexual immorality, including adultery. While the KJV invariably translates “porneia” as fornication in the NT, when we look at the context, it can have a broader meaning. Indeed, in such verses the broader meaning makes more sense. The KJV is used in the following examples which translates “porneia” as fornication to illustrate that the context can have the broader meaning of all kinds of ‘sexual immorality”:
John 8:41, “41 You do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” Here the meaning adultery or fornication would fit the context.
Acts 15:20, 29, “20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood…29 That you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:” Here again the broader meaning “sexual immorality” would fit the context as well as fornication.
The UCG statement of belief on “Divorce and Remarriage” lists other verses where the broader meaning “sexual Immorality” of all kinds would fit the context. These include:
1 Cor 5:1, “1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication [or sexual immorality] among you, and such fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’] as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.” Here from the context, clearly the translation should be adultery or sexual immorality, rather than fornication.
1 Cor 6:13, 18, “13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’], but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body…18 Flee fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’]. Every sin that a man does is without the body; but he that commits fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’] sins against his own body.”
2 Cor 12:21, “21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’] and lasciviousness which they have committed.”
Gal 5:19, “19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’ or sexual perversion], uncleanness, lasciviousness…”
Eph 5:3, “3 But fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’], and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints…
Col 3:5, “5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’], uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 6 For which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience…” In context, ‘porneia’ here can only mean the broader sexual immorality.
1 Thes 4:3, “3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’]: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:”
Rev 9:21, “21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication [or ‘sexual immorality’], nor of their thefts.”
Thus, we can meet the first objection that “porneia” always means fornication as translated in the KJV. The broader translation ‘sexual immorality’ is more appropriate in most places as other Bible translations actually use.
Next is the objection that if Jesus meant adultery to be the meaning of ‘porneia’ then He could have simply used the more precise word ‘moicheia’ which means adultery. In addition, Matthew 19:9 would translate as “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for adultery [not just fornication] and shall marry another commits adultery and causes her to commit adultery.” The sentence does not make sense. And why would there be a concern about adultery if adultery is the grounds for divorce.
This objection is easily met if we use the broader meaning of ‘porneia’. For example, the sentence would read, “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for sexual immorality [not just fornication] and shall marry another commits adultery and causes her to commit adultery.” Now the sentence makes perfect sense. In fact, the NKJV translates this verse as follows:
Sex between an illegally divorced spouse [on grounds other than ‘porneia’ or ‘sexual immorality’] and remarrying another can only be described precisely as adultery, not fornication or ‘sexual immorality.’ So using the word ‘moicheia’ to mean adultery is the right word to describe the act of an illegal divorce and remarriage after that as a matter of Law. Using ‘porneia’ with its broader meaning as grounds for divorce is also the correct word to use. Therefore using ‘porneia’ and ‘moicheia’ in the same sentence when we use the broader meaning of ‘porneia’ as ‘sexual immorality’ including adultery makes as much sense as translating it as ‘fornication.’ We are not forced to translate ‘porneia’ only as ‘fornication’ for the sentence to make sense.
We thus see that the word ‘porneia’ has a broader meaning than just fornication. But it also includes fornication. However, we are still left to deal with the question of “Which meaning of ‘porneia’ did Jesus intend?” Did He mean to allow just fornication as grounds for a legal divorce, or broader sexual immorality as well? It also leads to further questions. Can one act of sexual immorality constitute grounds for a legal divorce, or a repeat pattern of such immoral acts is required as grounds for divorce? And what role should forgiveness play in all of this?
Example Set by the God of the Old Testament
These questions can be answered when we look at the example Jesus Christ set for us as the God of the Old Testament.
Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament was married to ancient Israel. He married the nation as a virgin as it was formed after the Exodus from Egypt. But history tells us that ancient Israel as a nation was unfaithful to its God and went after other pagan gods, thus committing adultery. And the Bible describes in great detail how the nation repeatedly committed adultery with other gods as a pattern. When the nation committed adultery with other gods and was oppressed by surrounding nations it returned to its God. He forgave the nation for its adultery and delivered her from the hands of its enemies. When the nation had rest, it committed adultery again and was again oppressed by its neighbors. This pattern continued for hundreds of years.
Finally Jesus Christ the God of the Old Testament divorced His wife ancient Israel according to the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1“1 When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her [some translations use the word ‘unseemly’ in place of ‘uncleanness’]: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”
God of the Old Testament divorced ancient Israel for its repeated adulteries and put her out of His house, meaning put her out of His land to be taken out of the land as slaves.
The God of the Old Testament describes the divorce through Jeremiah the prophet in Jeremiah 3:6-15:
6 The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Have you seen that which backsliding Israel has done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there has played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 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. 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks [pagan stone and wood idols].10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, says the Lord. 11 And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel has justified herself more than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, you backsliding Israel, says the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, says the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed against the Lord your God, and have scattered your ways to the strangers under every green tree, and you have not obeyed my voice, says the Lord. 14 Turn, O backsliding children, says the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: 15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.”
We know the result of the warning through the prophets. Ancient House of Israel was given a bill of divorcement and put away from God’s land and has not returned. Ancient Judah was also put away for all its adulteries and sent out of the land as a slave nation. But the Bible does not mention that the House of Judah was given a bill of divorce. Judah was allowed to return to its land after the 70-year captivity. But its marriage ended at the death of Her Husband, Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament. Then Jeremiah mentions bringing back the children one of a city and two of a family to Zion. This is talking about the second Exodus in the future for both the Houses of Israel and Judah.
Thus, we see that Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament set the example for us to follow regarding divorce and remarriage. He as the God of the Old Testament gave the Law to Moses concerning divorce and remarriage and would not have broken His own Law. He divorced ancient Israel for its repeated adulteries. Hence the Law allowed divorce for a repeated pattern for adultery, in addition to other forms of sexual immorality such as fornication, prostitution and other sexual perversions which are included in the broader meaning of the New Testament word ‘porneia’. In Moses law the Hebrew word translated as UNCLEANNESS or UNSEEMLY is eroah which in context relates to sexual uncleanness and is equivalent to the Greek word “porneia” which in context means “sexual immorality.”
So, Moses’ Law given by Jesus Christ as the God of the Old Testament allowed divorce for sexual uncleanness. Jesus Christ also allows divorce for sexual immorality in the New Testament. Thus, there has been no change in the Law concerning divorce and remarriage in the New Testament. In that sense, Moses’ Law stands immutable.
We may thus conclude that the correct translation of the word “porneia” as used in context by Jesus Christ is the broader “sexual immorality” of all kinds rather than the narrower ‘fornication.’ Thus, the UCG statement of belief concerning Divorce and Remarriage is correct on this issue and the other Church of God organizations need to amend their positions.
Divorce was allowed because of the hardness of heart of the ancient Israelites. But Jesus Christ as God of the Old Testament set the example for us in the New Testament in how we as members of His Church should live according to this Law. We are not to divorce unless there is a repeat egregious pattern of sexual immorality. Just as Jesus Christ forgave ancient Israel for its adulteries when she repented, we members of God’s Church in the New Testament follow that example in exercising forgiveness and not divorce for just one or two incidents of sexual immorality.
Jesus Christ Explains How the Law is to be Applied
As already explained, Jesus Christ clarified God’s intent in Moses’ Law concerning divorce in His Church in Matthew 19:11, “11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”
Jesus here told the disciples that the world at large could not accept His saying because of the hardness of their hearts, but after conversion, with their hearts of stone softened by God’s holy spirit, members of His Church have to endure the circumstances they find themselves in, including making themselves like eunuchs for the Kingdom of God’s sake if that is necessary because of separation, but still bound in marriage. He told them that marriage is permanent and they have to patiently make it work. Thus, God’s standard for marriage between members of His Church is even higher than that followed according to even the most conservative view of marriage in the world concerning divorce and remarriage.
This makes it so much more important for young men and women in the Church to properly counsel with ministers about choosing the right mate before entering into marriage, realizing that marriage is till “death do us part” and that divorce is not an option if the marriage does not work out. You will not be allowed to divorce and remarry in God’s Church.
Divorce on Grounds of Fraud
A major issue we need to address is divorce on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation before marriage. This is the area that gives the ministry in God’s Church the most headaches because fraud can be committed or claimed at many different levels of severity, and may be extremely difficult to prove conclusively. For example, there may have been just a small withholding of information before marriage, but the spouse may feel and claim (or may fraudulently claim to increase the chance of divorce being granted) that this was a major misrepresentation constituting major fraud and wants divorce on grounds of fraud. Then the question arises, how much details of his or her past must a person disclose to a potential mate before entering into marriage?
Besides undisclosed fornication before marriage, other kinds of fraud that can be committed could include a person claiming to be in perfect health but has terminal cancer; or is a drug addict or an alcoholic; has a criminal past, prison record, or has other undisclosed children.
We need to stress here that Jesus in His clarification of Moses’ Law made no mention of divorce being allowed for such kinds of fraud. He mentioned divorce being permitted only for the cause of fornication or gross sexual misconduct prior to marriage which was not disclosed at the time of marriage. This issue needs to be addressed.
Jesus Christ wants marriages to be permanent, with two people doing their best to make the marriage work by learning to forgive each other’s sins, because there is no human being who has not sinned. Guidelines on dealing with divorce on the grounds of fraud can only be developed based on actual experience by ordained ministers in dealing with such cases.
The only kind of fraud in marriage that was addressed in the Bible is fornication, or sexual immorality. And the Law always has to be applied on a case by case basis. Probably that’s why all the position papers of the UCG, RCG and LCG are silent on this issue. There should be some guidelines on how the divorce Law is to be applied on grounds of fraud. For example, just as the U.S. Congress writes the Tax code as Law, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has to develop the regulations (or Regs) to provide guidance on how the Tax Law is to be applied in practice. The Bible provides us the divorce Law, but we must use the Bible to provide some guidance and develop regulations on how the Law is to be implemented for allowing divorce on grounds of fraud. This task is best performed by ministers in God’s Church who have dealt extensively with cases of divorce, particularly where parties want to obtain divorce on grounds of fraud.
Again, the only kind of fraud in marriage that was addressed in the Bible is fornication in Deuteronomy 22. So, we must use God’s other commandments, statutes and judgments in the Bible to provide some guidance and develop regulations on how the Law is to be implemented for allowing divorce on grounds of fraud. In this regard, the eighth, ninth and the tenth of the Ten Commandments are of importance.
The purpose of entering into marriage based on fraud is to gain material advantage which one would not obtain otherwise. Such advantage may include marrying a beautiful woman or a handsome man, or marrying someone who is financially well-off, or gaining some other advantage by misrepresenting one’s circumstances by lying or withholding information, which if disclosed would have led the potential mate to not marry the individual.
When a person is marrying by committing fraud due to lying, misrepresenting or withholding information, he or she is violating the ninth commandment on bearing false witness, the tenth commandment on not coveting which results in some form of stealing, thus violating the eighth commandment.
We all know that the gains of stealing or theft should not be allowed to stand. The gains of fraud in marriage should also not be allowed to stand. Judgment requires that the thief restore what he or she stole. That’s why divorce should be allowed on grounds of fraud. A person with a terminal disease, deeply in debt, a serious addiction or undisclosed children is attempting to steal from one’s spouse by deception. Such fraud that constitutes theft, the effects of which will continue possibly throughout the marriage, should not be allowed to stand and divorce should be permitted.
There can be other kinds of fraud committed by not disclosing material information that would have affected the decision of a spouse to marry or not marry the person. The effects of such fraud may or may not be ongoing materially and physically, but it may affect one’s reputation, or present emotional or psychological difficulty in dealing with such knowledge. In this category would be issues such as having a criminal past, a prison record or other withholding of information on past conduct of a less severe nature. Should divorce be permitted in such cases?
There are also other considerations in this issue. How much and of what kind of one’s past should a person lay bare? What if all such sordid events occurred in one’s past before conversion? Then there is also the issue of the defrauded person having much or little tolerance for absorbing such minor or major shocks. Should divorce be permitted for a minor violation that was not disclosed for which the spouse has little tolerance?
In this regard consider Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:7-11, “7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because you go to law one with another. Why do you not rather take wrong? why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded ?8 No, you do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9 Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Many people have come into the Church who have a sordid past. When God opened their eyes to the truth they wanted to get away from that past, repented and put that past behind them. In such cases, the spouse is not being robbed in terms of their time, or life by burdens being added such as in undisclosed debt or past addictions. We all have to be forgiven for our past and must learn to forgive. If a spouse discovers something sordid about his or her spouse’s past that was not disclosed at the time of marriage, but the spouse has put that past behind and is not materially affecting the behavior of the offended spouse, then that spouse needs to consider Paul’s words and work on forgiving their spouse and not end the marriage. Also remember that Jesus in His clarification of Moses’ Law permitted divorce for the cause of sexual immorality. Members of God’s Church with God’s holy spirit need to learn to forgive one another’s sins. If in the divorce Law God wants us to forgive even adultery committed once or twice, how much more sins in a spouse’s past which have been overcome. If, however the attitudes that led to those past sins have not been overcome, then the marriage is probably being materially or psychologically affected in the present. Divorce in such fraud situations should be permitted.
If undisclosed facts are affecting the present marriage, such as a criminal act coming to light for which the spouse is now required to answer before the law, this has the same effect as robbery and divorce should be allowed.
As members of God’s Church, we have to learn to and work at forgiving one another. We need to learn to take some wrong, especially from our spouses as mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:7 and which is implied by Jesus’ clarification of the divorce law. Also remember Jesus’ words in the incident of the sinner woman anointing Jesus’ feet with ointment in Luke 7:47, “47 Wherefore I say unto you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”
It is quite often true that those who have had many grievous past sins forgiven love God much more than those who committed few sins and were forgiven. Such persons have changed much more and become better persons in God’s eyes. Thus, Jesus’ and Paul’s words clearly tell us to learn to put the past behind by forgiving one another. But if the past keeps manifesting itself, then fraud in terms of undisclosed past is affecting the present in marriage and divorce should be permitted.
Again, the facts of each situation should be ascertained to make decisions on divorce and remarriage.
Jesus Christ made it abundantly clear that God’s intention is that marriage be permanent for life, and that God hates divorce. Therefore, divorce is not to be easily granted. We have also seen the prominent role ‘forgiveness’ should play in marriage, including in divorce and remarriage issues. All the position papers of the UCG, RCG and LCG acknowledge this.
So here is how we can summarize this.
1) Marriage is to be permanent and divorce is not to be easily granted. If marital differences and frictions arise, the couple must exercise forgiveness and work on reconciliation. This also means that the couple should be careful and obtain proper counseling before entering into marriage, knowing that marriage is to be permanent.
2) Both spouses should understand that they must disclose as much material facts about their past and present which could affect a potential mate’s decision to enter into marriage or not. Tolerance limits for absorbing such shocks may be different for different people. Disclose as much material information as possible so that it will not affect the future marriage.
3) Undisclosed information can affect the marriage in three different ways.
It is having major material and physical consequences now and ongoing into the future, constituting theft from the affected spouse. In such cases divorce should be granted.
Undisclosed information in the past is not materially or physical affecting the marriage. In other words, it does not constitute material theft. But the affected spouse can have little or much tolerance for absorbing such shocks and dealing with them emotionally. If the affected spouse has enough tolerance for dealing with such shocks, then the couple should not seek divorce. But if a spouse has little ability to absorb such shocks, the only criterion that can be used to determine whether divorce should be allowed or not is whether a reasonable person if confronted with such a situation of fraud would not have entered into the marriage under any circumstances. In other words, the fraud has to be a major type of fraud. But even here we must remember that God hates divorce, wants marriages to be permanent for life, especially among members of His Church who have His Holy Spirit. So, divorce should rarely be allowed, even if a spouse has little tolerance for small shocks. Again, this has to be determined on a case by case basis. Separation for some time, marriage counseling with God’s ministers for reconciliation, exercising God’s holy spirit to forgive and focusing on the positive such as what led the couple to marry one another in the first place should be pursued instead of divorce.
If the couple are still believers, have overcome their past, forgiveness should be exercises, and the couple should not seek divorce. But if the couple are simply unable to get along and one of the spouses by his or her actions is demonstrating that he or she has become an unbeliever or was never converted, only then consideration should be given to whether divorce should be allowed.
Marriage between Believers and Unbelievers
When the New Testament Church came into being on the day of Pentecost in 31 A.D., a new issue arose that had not been faced before: that of marriage between believers and non-believers. Jesus did not address this problem because the Church had not yet come into being. But Paul the apostle was forced to address the problem after some in the Corinthian Church wrote him letters to address the issue. He addressed the following circumstances in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15.
A) Marriage Between Two Believers after Conversion
1 Corinthians 7:10-11: “10 And unto the married [this is a marriage that took place between two people after they became members of God’s Church] I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart [that is she has departed because of marriage difficulties], let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”
Here Paul is stating that in a marriage that took place after conversion, then if the couple separate because of difficulties in marriage, they cannot remarry anyone else. Their only options are to live separately, or be reconciled to one another. They cannot divorce and remarry someone else.
Under such circumstances, if the husband and wife are unable to reconcile and must live separately, they will effectively have been forced to become eunuchs for the sake of attaining the Kingdom of God. If they divorced and remarried they would be committing adultery and also be violating the instruction in Romans 7:1-3, “1 Know you not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman which has a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”
Thus, in a marriage between two converted people that took place after conversion, no divorce or remarriage is allowed. If marriage difficulties develop and they are forced to separate, then their only recourse is to reconcile or continue to live separately. They may not remarry. Effectively they may have to become eunuchs to attain God’s kingdom.
b) Marriage Between a Believer and an Unbeliever
Then Paul addressed the next circumstance in which marriage took place in verse 12 of 1 Corinthians 7.
“12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.”
The question is, when did this marriage between a believing husband but an unbelieving wife took place? 2 Corinthians 6:14 states, “14 Be you not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what concord has Christ with Belial? or what part has he that believes with an infidel?”
Here clearly marriage between a believer and a non-believer after conversion is forbidden. Therefore, the marriage circumstance Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthian 7:12 was that between a believing husband and an unbelieving wife that took place before the husband’s conversion.
Then Paul continues in verse 13: “13 And the woman which has a husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God has called us to peace. 16 For what know you, O wife, whether you shalt save your husband? or how know you, O man, whether you shall save your wife? 17 But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.”
Here Paul was stating that if a marriage had taken place before one of the spouses became a believer, then if the unbelieving spouse is pleased to dwell with the believing spouse, then the believing spouse may not divorce his or her unbelieving spouse. The key phrase here is that unbelieving spouse is “pleased to dwell with the believing spouse.”
If by obvious serious, repetitious or continual conduct the unbelieving spouse demonstrates that he or she is not pleased to dwell with the believing spouse and departs, then a divorce can take place, whether initiated by the unbelieving spouse, or in serious situations the believing spouse may have to initiate it. Then the believing spouse is free to remarry.
But Paul goes on to say that if the unbelieving spouse is pleased to dwell with the believing spouse, then the believing spouse may not divorce the unbelieving spouse and must do his or her best to make the marriage work. The reason is that the children in that marriage are holy to God, and the unbelieving spouse is also sanctified in God’s sight. In addition, Paul stresses that there is the strong possibility that the unbelieving spouse may be converted by the conduct of the believing spouse in the marriage. This has actually happened in God’s Church after patient conduct of the believing spouse. The unbelieving spouses and children in such a marriage are in a special category in God’s sight, neither called by God, nor cut-off from Him. Thus, even divorce between believing and unbelieving spouses should not be taken lightly. Only in very serious circumstances should a believing spouse divorce an unbelieving spouse.
Based on what Moses wrote, what Jesus clarified in the New Testament, and what Paul wrote about divorce and remarriage between believers and unbelievers we can summarize these judgments as follows:
1) Annulment: In a marriage based on fraud in which one of the spouses did not disclose something important such as fornication, or other types of sexual misconduct before marriage, the marriage can be annulled. This is not divorce but an annulment of the marriage. In that case remarriage can take place. Remember Jesus did not specifically address fraud other than fornication or sexual misconduct prior to marriage. Such fraud or deception of sexual nature should be acted upon when discovered and not years later. Jesus clarified Moses’ Law. The only reason divorce was allowed was fornication or other sexual fraud. Jesus did not allow divorce between two believers for adultery, if repented of, which obviously takes place after marriage. The offended spouse should forgive.
2) In a marriage between two believers, if marriage difficulties develop and they are forced to separate, then their only recourse is to reconcile or continue to live separately. They may not remarry. Effectively they may have to become eunuchs to attain God’s kingdom.
3. In a marriage between a believer and unbeliever:
a) If the unbelieving spouse is pleased to dwell with the believing spouse, then the believing spouse may not divorce and remarry. He or she must make the marriage work.
b) However, if the unbelieving spouse is not pleased to dwell with the believing spouse as demonstrated with habitual immoral, criminal conduct or addictive behaviors, abuse, desertion or failure to provide physical support, and departs from the believing spouse, then divorce and remarriage can take place. In this case, the believing spouse may even have to initiate divorce proceedings if necessary.
c) In this category are also marriages in which a believer has become an unbeliever as demonstrated by his or her conduct. This then has become a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever in which the unbelieving spouse is not pleased to dwell with the believing spouse. Divorce and remarriage are permitted. Tares also fall into this category as by their conduct they would have demonstrated that they are unbelievers, and not pleased to dwell with the believing spouse.
4) And finally, individuals who were divorced before they became believers are accepted into the Church in their current marital state, whether divorced and single, or divorced and now remarried, as all their sins were forgiven on conversion and baptism.
Further Issues to Be Addressed
Even though we can understand God’s Law concerning divorce and remarriage from the Bible, its actual implementation in the past 80 years in God’s Church has presented many challenges. Of course, the most trying circumstances for genuine believers and genuine ministers were caused in marriages between believers and tares because the tares were acting under the influence of Satan and the demons. Some difficult cases of divorce and remarriage would also have arisen between genuine members. Some of the issues that can be raised include:
Illegal Divorce and Remarriage
1) Some in the Church have remarried after divorce allowed by credentialed ministers. And some of these credentialed ministers were tares. The divorce may have been illegal. After such a long time how do we decide whether these marriages are allowed by God’s Law under various exceptions or are prohibited?
The guideline in such situations is provided in Matthew 14:3-4 where John the Baptist spoke concerning Herod: “3 For Herod had laid hold of John and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. 4 Because John had said to him, "It is not lawful for you to have her."
If for any reason something unlawful has taken place and is still continuing, it should be put right and corrected. If the remarriage is unlawful, then it should be ended. Though extremely difficult to accept, genuine members who have their minds on God’s Kingdom should be able to receive this decision because they are much more concerned about attaining the Kingdom of God than preventing temporary discomfort for a few years in this physical life.
However, the situation regarding remarriages may not be as clear-cut as this sounds.
2) There are “allowances” exclusions or “escape clauses” in the UCG Divorce and Remarriage doctrinal paper on the basis of which divorce and remarriage was allowed. After such a long time, decades in some cases, it would be difficult to ascertain the exact situation or reasoning behind each divorce and remarriage decision. We may then ask who could or did evaluate those situations and then make the judgment? Were they genuine ministers or tares among us in high positions? Now after such a long time, would it even be possible to accurately ascertain the facts and reach an accurate and honest evaluation in each case?
Then God says through Jeremiah the prophet in Jeremiah 17:9, “9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?” This can apply even to genuine members in God’s Church. Some may dissimulate or color the truth to make their position look more favorable. How does the Church decide whether the remarriage is lawful in God’s eyes or not?
3) Ascertaining whether fraud was involved in a marriage on the basis of which it could be annulled also presents similar challenges? Who knows the truth and who decides? People do color the truth to make their position appear more favorable.
In this regard we members should bear in mind what God said in Jeremiah 17:10, just after saying “the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?’ He said, “10 I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.”
Yes! God is literally testing our hearts and minds. Those who try to color the truth put themselves in danger of losing their eternal life. Ministers can only make decisions based on the “facts” as they discover them or are presented to them. Of course, it goes without saying they are required to ascertain such facts and make judgments in a prayerful attitude to be guided by God. As human beings we do the best we can to ascertain facts with God’s help and make judgments and decisions.
All of us should remember that God has committed all judgment in the hands of Jesus Christ as stated in John 5:21-22, “21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son.” Yes! Literally our eternal life is in Jesus Christ’s hands. We must present the truth to God’s ministers when they have to make judgments about our life in God’s Church so that we will be judged to be worthy of eternal life by Jesus Christ.
Another issue that can be raised concerning fraud in a marriage is if allegations of fraud, specifically fornication or sexual misconduct of a grievous nature, were raised against a man or woman resulting in divorce, can they remarry in the Church. That is an easy one to answer. Fraud applied to the previous marriage. But in a subsequent marriage, the facts are known. If someone chooses to marry that man or woman despite knowing the past circumstances it is not fraud. That man or woman who had the allegation of fraud proved against him or her should be allowed to remarry. The previous marriage was annulled because it was not bound in God’s sight. But the past sin has been forgiven by God in His mercy and remarriage should be permitted.
How the Divorce and Remarriage Laws Are to be Implemented
The following situations can also arise in God’s Church, which need to be addressed.
1) Problems of adultery or other sexual sins in marriage.
2) Problem of a believer becoming an unbeliever.
3) Problems in a marriage between a believer and a tare.
Problem of Adultery in Marriage
First let’s consider the problem when adultery occurs in a marriage between two believing mates. Jesus’ teaching is that divorce is allowed on the grounds of fornication [which occurs prior to marriage] on the basis of fraud. Thus, Jesus taught that adultery or other sexual sin does not automatically end a marriage. The marriage remains bound in God’s eyes. The offended spouse must work on forgiving and both spouses must work on reconciliation in the marriage. So, adultery committed once is a sign of weakness and not a major character flaw. The offending spouse, however, must be repentant and committed to never ever indulging in that sin again.
If the spouses choose to live separately, they may not divorce and remarry. They must work on forgiveness and reconciliation.
However, if adultery or other sexual sins are repeatedly committed and have become a habit, that is a deep character flaw. If the offender refuses to repent in words or deeds, then that spouse by his or her actions is demonstrating that he or she has become an unbeliever. Such a marriage can end in divorce. In addition, such an offender should also be disfellowshipped as an unbeliever so as not to leaven the whole congregation. This is in keeping with Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 5 in a case involving a man committing adultery with his father’s wife.
Problem of a Believer becoming an Unbeliever
The second problem is the situation in a marriage where a believer falls away from the faith, loses God’s holy spirit and degenerates into horribly wrong conduct such as repeated adultery (with the threat of contracting sexually transmissible diseases), or other grievous sins or addictions, leaves the Church, becomes hostile to the Church and spouse, or makes life miserable for the spouse. Such a spouse has become an unbeliever and is not pleased to dwell with the spouse. Then divorce can be permitted, and remarriage can take place. A believer does not have to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever who by his or her conduct would have demonstrated that he or she is not pleased to dwell with the believer. Such an unbeliever is also a candidate for being disfellowshipped from the Church.
Problem of Marriage between a Believer and a Tare
Next is the situation in a marriage between a Satan-led tare and a believing spouse. The problem here is that it may be difficult to know for sure if the spouse is a tare or not. They will use all of Satan’s cunning craftiness to deceive the genuine member and the ministry. The purpose of the tare is to make the life of the believer miserable so that he or she becomes offended, blames God and leaves God’s Church, thus being deprived of his or her chance for eternal life. But if the tare by his or her conduct in making the life of their spouse miserable has demonstrated that he or she is not pleased to dwell with the spouse and also demonstrates views contrary to God’s teaching, thus demonstrating that he or she is actually an unbeliever, and this can be conclusively demonstrated, then divorce and remarriage can be permitted.
God’s instructions in the parable of the tares are to let the tares continue to remain members of the Church. But if by his or her conduct the tare is causing divisions in Church or in his or her marriage, that would be cause for putting the tare out of the Church, similar to the case of a believer who has become an unbeliever.
Other Issues
Certain other issues arise such as the New Testament distinction between “putting away” meaning a de facto divorce without a divorce decree and divorce with a “bill of divorce” in Matthew 19:3-9. What happens in such “putting away” cases when no formal divorce has taken place and the spouse in order to cause pain or suffering on the other spouse acts as if they are divorced but does not formalize it?
In this regard Malachi 2:16 is important. The KJV translates this verse: “16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that he hates putting away:”
NIV: “16 "I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel…”
NKJV, “Malachi 2:16 (NKJV) "For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce…”
The Hebrew word used is Shalach (Shaw-lakh) (#7971 in Strong’s Concordance) which means putting away. So, does this verse mean that God hates putting away without a divorce, but does not hate divorce, or does it simply mean that God hates divorce?
Here are the other verses in the Old Testament that use “Put Away” in the context of marriage besides Malachi 2:16:
Jeremiah 3:1, 8, “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, says the Lord…”
In this verse putting away a wife implies divorce. If the wife was merely put away temporarily without divorce and her husband had returned to her again it was no sin. But here the context clearly shows that putting away implies legal divorce which prohibits the husband to return to his wife. So, we see that “putting away” in scripture is used in short form to mean legal divorce, not just putting away without legal divorce.
Then verse 3: 8 “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.”
In this case bill of divorce is mentioned along with “putting away.” But the point from verse 1 is that when scripture uses “put away” it does not strictly mean putting away from one’s house without a legal divorce. It is used in short form to imply legal divorce with a bill of divorce assumed.
Next Isaiah 50:1, “1 Thus says the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have you sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.”
In chapter 49 God is specifically talking about Israel. Israel was driven out of its land because of its iniquities. At that time God had not given Israel a bill of divorce first and then put her away. But later after she was put away, the divorce was finalized with a bill of divorce as mentioned in Jeremiah 3. So, in this verse putting away is distinguished from divorce, but the substance is that it is still describing a divorce with the putting away occurring first, but divorce finalized with a bill of divorce.
The next verses where “Put away” is mentioned is Ezekiel 44:21-22, “21 Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court. 22 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.”
Here a different Hebrew word garash (number 1644 in Strong’s) is used which means to drive out from a possession, especially to expatriate or divorce, cast out, or divorced (speaking of a woman), expel, thrust out. It appears to be a synonym for the Hebrew word shalach used in the previous verses. It appears to have the same meaning. But the context implies ‘divorce.’ Whether a woman is put away by a husband without divorce, or put away after a legal divorce a priest is not allowed to marry her. So here also “put away” is used as a short form to imply a divorced woman.
In the New Testament the Greek word translated “put away” is apoluo (# 630 in Strong’s) which means to free fully i.e. literally relieve, release, dismiss, or figuratively let die, pardon, or specifically divorce, let depart, let go, loose, send or put away, set at liberty. It is used in Matthew 19:3-12 where the Pharisees discussed the issue of putting away and writing a bill of divorce with Jesus Christ.
The parallel account in Mark 10:2-12 reads, “2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
When you read the account in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 here, it does not appear that the Pharisees or Jesus were at all trying to make a distinction between putting away without a bill of divorce or putting away with a bill of divorce. Both were discussing a divorce in substance. The issue was putting away a wife permanently.
Then Jesus addressed the issue privately with His disciples in Mark 10:10, “10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he says unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.”
Here again by using ‘putting away’ Jesus was in no way trying to make a distinction between ‘putting away’ without a bill of divorce, or ‘putting away’ with a bill of divorce. The phrase ‘put away’ is used as just a short form to imply divorce.
But we know that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” as Jeremiah 17:9 says. Wicked people, or even people in God’s Church who have God’s holy spirit may do wicked things to inflict pain and suffering on their spouses. They may put away their spouses without going through a formal divorce, keeping them hanging in limbo to inflict as much pain and suffering as they can. This way the domestic conflict cannot get settled. Kids and property and moving on with a new life hang in the balance. How should God’s Church and society deal with such evil?
The answer simply is to look at the substance of what has happened in the marriage. If one spouse has put away the other spouse but is not filing a formal divorce, then the other spouse can file for divorce. Look at Mark 10:12 again. “12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.” This verse acknowledges that a woman may divorce her husband also. So, the courts and God’s Church should look at the substance of the marriage. If there are grounds for a legal divorce, any spouse may file for divorce. Thus, in the scriptures there is no distinction made between putting away without a formal divorce or putting away with a formal divorce as far as practical action to be taken. Just look at the substance of the marriage and either spouse can ask for a divorce.
Should Government or only the Church Adjudicate Divorce?
That then brings us to another question: Should both Church and government adjudicate divorces?
Each of us lives under man’s government. Government has the right to adjudicate marriages. So, the short answer is yes! But we in God’s Church should not seek government adjudication. The Bible is very clear on this issue. Paul addressed it in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7, “1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because you go to law one with another. Why do you not rather take wrong? why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?”
Believers should let their divorce and remarriage issues be addressed by the Church and not seek the intervention of the government. But if someone takes the matter before the courts, the government cannot be stopped from intervening. The Church then needs to evaluate the conduct of the member who takes the matter before the courts. That member is a serious candidate for being disfellowshipped.
However, the Church cannot enforce its judgments if a member refuses to accept and obey the judgment. The only power it has is to disfellowship those who refuse to accept its judgments. It cannot enforce its judgments regarding custody and support of children and division of assets and even income where appropriate. The issue of putting away a spouse without formal divorce to avoid one’s obligations for children and division of property also has to be dealt with. Government intervention is required to enforce such judgments.
The Church has to implement God’s Law within its membership. So, the Church has to intervene in divorce and remarriage cases. But when the members are refusing to obey its rulings and one of the spouses will be hurt, Government’s help must be sought to do justice in such cases of divorce. If government has to step in, then it must be able to enact its laws and enforce them. So, both Church and government have to adjudicate divorces.
There may be cases involving a member of God’s Church who is married to a spouse belonging to another Church. The spouse may refuse to obey the judgment of ministers in God’s Church. Clearly government needs to step in in such cases.
What Should a Divorce Decree Contain?
Another question is: What should be contained in a divorce decree? I have no experience in dealing with divorce cases, and I simply have not studied the issue at all. But ministers with sufficient case experience should be able to develop guidelines on this issue.
Substance of God’s Law on Marriage and Divorce
Finally, we see a difference in the statements of belief concerning divorce and remarriage between the RCG, PCG, LCG and the UCG. The only differences relate to the meaning of the Greek word “porneia” used in Matthew 19:9. UCG statements accept “porneia” to mean the broader sexual immorality of all kinds including fornication and adultery after marriage whereas the position of the other Church of God organizations is the traditional view that divorce should be allowed only for undisclosed fornication before marriage.
All Church of God organizations agree that divorce should be permitted for fraud, extrapolating the principle of allowing divorce for undisclosed fornication. However, in implementation of the Law concerning divorce and remarriage there has been no real difference. Even Church of God organizations that believe divorce should be allowed only for fornication, allow divorce for repeated adultery and other sexual sins. The reasoning is that 1) Such repeated sexual sins pose a danger to the health of the other spouse; 2) A person engaging in repeated sexual sins is a tare or has become an unbeliever. If a spouse has become an unbeliever and is exhibiting by his or her conduct that he or she is not pleased to dwell with the other spouse, then divorce and remarriage are permitted; and 3) A spouse exhibiting such gross violation of God’s Law is a serious candidate for being disfellowshipped and put out of the Church so as not to leaven the whole lump.
Thus, we see that in the substance and implementation of God’s Law on divorce and remarriage there are no real differences between the positions of various true Church of God organizations that adhere to what Mr. Armstrong taught, through whom God founded the modern era of His Church.
Copyright © Church of God Message. All rights reserved.