Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / June 2008

Part III: If a Person Has an Unscriptural Remarriage, What Must He Do
to Become a Christian?

Some people believe that, if a person has divorced (not for
fornication) and remarried, when he becomes a Christian, he may remain
with his present companion. What does the Bible say?
I. The Bible Teaching Requires Such a Person to Leave His/Her
Unscriptural Companion.

This is true regardless of whether the relationship was entered before
or after baptism.
A. God Continues to Hold Such People Obligated to Honor the Commitment
of Their Previous Marriage Covenant. It Follows that Every Sexual
Union in the Present Marriage Is Adultery.

It follows that the only way such a person can be a faithful Christian
is to give up the husband-wife relationship, including sexual
relations, with their present companion.

Malachi 2:14-16 - Marriage is a covenant relation which God witnesses
and holds people accountable to honor. (Note Ecc. 5:4,5).

Hebrews 13:4 (1 Cor. 7:2-5) - The sexual union is lawful only with the
one person with whom we have a valid marriage covenant. In any other
case it is fornication.

Romans 7:2,3 (1 Cor. 7:39) - The marriage covenant commits a person to
his/her companion for life. Anytime our companion is alive, if we have
a marriage relationship (including the sexual union) with someone
else, we are guilty of adultery (even if we are remarried according to
civil law). Note that the first marriage commitment continues as long
as the first companion is alive, not just until baptism.

Matthew 19:3-9 - God joins a man and woman in the marriage covenant,
and man has no right to set it aside. If a man tries to set it aside,
God still holds him to it, so his subsequent marriage is adulterous.

1 Corinthians 7:10,11,2-5 - A person should not divorce his/her
companion. But what should one do if he is already divorced? Only two
choices are available - remain unmarried or else be reconciled to our
true companion.

What if we have already remarried - does that change the teaching? No,
we still have only two choices if we are divorced, making no exception
for the case in which one has remarried. If we can be reconciled with
our lawful companion, fine. If not, we must remain unmarried. To stay
with our unlawful companion would be fornication as shown in v2-5.
B. To Be Forgiven of Sin, a Person Must Repent. Then They Must Bring
Forth Fruits of Repentance.

God is willing to forgive those who have unscripturally divorced and
remarried. However, they must meet conditions of forgiveness, just as
do others who are committing sin.
Repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness of sins whether one is in
or out of the church.

Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized for remission of sins.

Luke 24:47 - Repentance and remission of sins must be preached to all
(cf. Mk. 16:16).

2 Peter 3:9 - God wants all to repent, not perish (cf. Lk. 13:3,5).

Acts 17:30 - God commands all men everywhere to repent.

Acts 8:22 - A child of God who sins must repent of wickedness and pray
for forgiveness.

Matthew 21:28-32 - Repentance involves changing our minds and deciding
to do God's will.

This is true regardless of what our sin may be. We must decide to quit
stealing, lying, killing, etc. If we have been committing adultery in
the form of an unscriptural marriage relationship, we must decide to
quit the relationship, including quitting the sexual union.
Repentance requires us to follow through and change our sinful
conduct.

We must cease the practice of sin and practice righteousness instead.

Matthew 21:28-32 - After repenting, to be approved the son had to do
the will of the father. (cf. Prov. 6:31; 2 Pet. 2:20-22)

Matthew 3:2,8; Luke 3:8-14 - John preached repentance and required men
to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.

Acts 26:20 - Paul also preached men must repent and do works worthy of
repentance. What does this involve?

Romans 6:1-19,23 [read v1,2,11-15] - If by God's grace our sins are
forgiven in baptism, does this mean we can continue to practice sin?
God forbid! The purpose of conversion is so we can be freed from sin
and become righteous. We must then practice righteousness, rather than
letting sin reign in our lives. If we continue to practice sin, the
wages of sin is death.

In particular, we must not continue in the sin described in the very
next few verses in 7:2,3 - living in adultery with someone who is not
the mate we are bound to.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Prior to conversion, the Corinthians practiced
sins including fornication and adultery. But they ceased these
practices when they became washed and justified by Christ.

2 Corinthians 6:17-7:1 - We must not fellowship sin but separate and
cleanse ourselves from it, if we are to be God's children. (This is
also the true meaning of 2 Cor. 5:15,17).

Colossians 3:5-11 - Coming into Christ means we must put off the old
man (cease to practice sin) and put on the new man by practicing
righteousness. One of the sinful practices we must discontinue is
fornication.

To continue in an unscriptural marriage relationship is to continue to
practice adultery every time we have the sexual union. Repentance and
faithfulness to God requires us to cease this practice.
The Bible gives many examples of people who illustrate the meaning of
doing works worthy of repentance.

Ezekiel 33:14-16 - To live and not die, the wicked man must turn from
evil, restore what he took by robbery, and do what is right.

Proverbs 9:17 likens adultery to stealing. If repentance requires one
to return money or property which he has taken but which does not
belong to him, why is he not likewise required to give up a wife he
has stolen but which does not belong to him? (See also Lev. 6:1-7;
Num. 5:5-10; Ex. 22:1-15).

Luke 19:8 - Zaccheus restored four times the things he took
wrongfully. Why must not a man likewise give up a wife taken
wrongfully?

Acts 19:18,19 - When people repented of practicing magical arts, they
burned their books of magic.

Philemon 10-19 - The slave Onesimus ran away from his master Philemon.
When he repented and was converted, he had to return. He and Paul
wanted to stay together, but repentance required him to fulfill his
obligation to his master. Likewise, how can one keep a husband/wife
that is bound to another?

Ezra 9 and 10 - Israelites were not permitted to take wives from
surrounding nations, but many of them had done so. They had entered
marriage relations they had no right to enter (9:1,2). To repent they
had to make a covenant with God to separate from their wives
(10:1-3,10-12), even though some of them had children by these wives
(10:44). Those who would not give up their wives were separated from
the people (10:8).

These things are written for our example and learning (1 Cor. 10:6,11;
Rom. 15:4). If a person under the New Testament marries someone he has
no right to marry, why wouldn't repentance likewise require separating
from the unscriptural companion?

Matthew 14:3,4 - Herod had his brother Philip's wife, so John said it
was not lawful for him to have her. If it was not lawful to have her,
what would he have to do to repent? Quit having her! Give her up!

Note that the verse does not just say Herod was wrong to take her, but
he was wrong to have her - continuing the relationship was wrong.
Today if a person has a companion which it is not lawful for him to
have because of an unscriptural divorce and remarriage, what would he
have to do to be forgiven?

(See also Gen. 20:1-14; 1 Sam. 12:3)
Consider some other examples in which it should be obvious what
repentance would require:

* Suppose a man is living in polygamy and is converted, may he keep
all his wives? He has a valid marriage covenant only with his first
wife. His relationship with the others is adultery. Doesn't repentance
require him to give up all his wives except the first one?

* Suppose a man living in a homosexual marriage is converted, may he
continue the relationship? By whatever reasoning we would use to show
he must leave, by the exact same reasoning we can show one must leave
a companion whom he took as a result of unscriptural divorce and
remarriage.
Note that repentance requires the same thing whether the person
seeking forgiveness is or is not a child of God.

Most Christians can see that, if a Christian unscripturally divorces
and remarries, in order to repent he must leave his second mate. But
repentance and prayer obtains forgiveness for the Christian who sins,
exactly like repentance and baptism brings forgiveness to an alien
sinner. Both cases require repentance. If the non-member can be
forgiven and keep his companion, why can't a member?

The fact is that repentance requires a member living in an
unscriptural marriage to leave that companion. Since repentance means
the same for a non-member as it does for a member, the non-member
would also have to leave.
C. Receiving Forgiveness Does Not Release Us from Obligations and
Covenants Which We Lawfully Entered before Being Forgiven.

We have seen, even for people outside the church, that God recognizes
the original marriage covenant as valid, and He holds people
accountable if they violate it. This is why God considers divorce (not
for fornication) and remarriage to be adultery.

Some people believe that baptism forgives previous sinful divorces and
remarriages so that, after becoming a Christian, a person can remain
with his current companion. Some offer 2 Cor. 5:17 as proof. This
could be valid only if being forgiven invalidates or looses men from
their original marriage contract and sanctifies their current
marriage. Does it?
We have already proved that baptism does not allow people to continue
in sinful acts or relationships.

Consider some other examples of people living in sinful relationships.

Does conversion sanctify these relationships so people can continue in
them?

(1) If a polygamist is converted, are all his multiple marriages
sanctified so he can keep all his wives?

(2) If two men are living in a homosexual marriage, would conversion
sanctify that relationship so they can continue in it? Or would
conversion teach them to quit it?

Romans 7:2,3 says the woman is bound to her husband as long as he
lives, and she is free to remarry only when her husband dies. The
passage does not say she is bound to her husband as long as she is
unconverted, and she is free to be in another marriage when she gets
baptized.

Again, what repentance and baptism does for the person outside the
church, repentance and prayer does the same for the child of God who
sins. If forgiveness frees a non-Christian from his first marriage so
he can continue in a subsequent marriage, why won't repentance and
prayer do the same for a child of God who unscripturally divorces and
remarries.

Consider an unscripturally remarried man. If he is baptized, folks say
the second marriage can continue. But what if SHE is baptized, but he
is not? Surely the same folks would say she may continue in the
marriage. But on what grounds? Her sins are forgiven, but he committed
the unscriptural divorce and remarriage. Does baptizing one person
forgive the sins of another person? He is still living in adultery
with her. How can it be adultery for him, but not for her?
The real effect of the 2 Cor. 5:17 argument is to redefine sin!

We have proved that, unless one divorces for fornication, he continues
bound to his first marriage covenant, so every act of sexual union in
a subsequent marriage is adultery. The effect of the current argument
is to say that, after baptism, the same people can continue in the
same sinful relationship performing the same act that used to be
sinful, but now it is all right! This cannot be since the passages
previously studied show that, instead of allowing us to continue in
sin, baptism teaches us to cease it.

Conversion does not release us from valid obligations we had before
baptism, nor does it sanctify or justify continuing in relationships
that were sinful before baptism. (Consider also Herod in Matt. 1
4:3,4.)
Consider some examples of obligations we have in various relationships
before conversion.

Does conversion release us from these obligations? Does 2 Cor. 5:17
mean all these "old things" are "passed away," so we have no
obligation?

(1) Suppose a man is converted when still in his first marriage, does
conversion dissolve that marriage so he is no longer obligated to his
wife? Why is it that a person's first marriage commitment is dissolved
at baptism only if he has unscripturally divorced and remarried?

(2) If a man owes a financial debt before baptism, does his conversion
mean he is released from the debt so he no longer has to pay it?

(3) If a man is a slave before baptism, is he automatically freed from
his master when he is converted? If so, why did Paul say Onesimus had
to go back? Instead of being freed because he was converted, Onesimus
has to go back because he was converted!

(4) If certain people are my relatives (parents, children, etc.)
before baptism, does conversion relieve me of all my former
obligations to these people?

(5) If I am a citizen of a country before baptism, does conversion
change my citizenship and relieve me of my obligations to pay taxes,
obey the law, etc.?

Clearly conversion does not relieve me from any of these obligations
which I had before conversion because they are the result of
legitimate relationships and obligations I had before baptism. On the
contrary, true conversion would lead me to realize that I must fulfill
these obligations. Why then should conversion release me from my
lawful first marriage obligation in the case where I have
unscripturally divorced and remarried?
2 Cor. 5:17 actually teaches, like Rom. 6, Col. 3, etc., that
conversion changes sin, guilt, and the consequences of sin.

Note the newness vs. oldness discussed in the context:

v15 - Whereas we had been living for ourselves (in sin), now we must
live for Christ (in righteousness).

v18 - Whereas we had been alienated from God, now we are reconciled.

v19 - Whereas we had been guilty, now our trespasses are not reckoned
to us.

The "things" which change from old to new are not the obligations that
we used to have, and surely we are not now free to participate in
practices that were once counted sinful. What changes is that we are
no longer guilty of sin, we are no longer alienated from God, and we
no longer continue to practice sin.
1 Corinthians 7:17-24 expressly teaches that sinful earthly
relationships and circumstances must change at conversion, but
righteous ones continue.

This passage teaches just the opposite of what some are teaching. It
teaches converted people to remain in upright circumstances, not
sinful ones, and the primary relationship being considered in this
context is marriage! (v20,24).

(1) If one is physically circumcised (or uncircumcised), conversion
does not require changing this physical circumstance. Why not? Because
it is not sinful one way or the other (v17-19). Morally upright
circumstances of life are not changed by conversion.

(2) If a slave is converted, his earthly relationship and obligation
continues (though he is free spiritually) (v21-24).

(3) The application in context is to a married person who is
converted. This does not free him so he can leave his marriage
obligation or circumstance (v12-16).

But what does matter is obedience to God. A sinful circumstance must
be changed at conversion as we have seen elsewhere. Hence, if one's
marriage is not sinful, then that marriage continues at conversion.
Baptism does not change it. But if a marriage is sinful, it must cease
at baptism, as also taught in v10,11. (V10-24 discuss the same subject
throughout. V10,11 give the general law, and vv. 12-24 give the
application of it to a specific situation.)
Note the application to one who marries then divorces (no fornication)
then remarries then is baptized:

What does baptism do to the obligations of the first marriage?
Nothing, because it was not sinful but was morally upright. Baptism
does not release proper and moral obligations, and it was the first
marriage that was proper and moral.

What does baptism do to the second marriage? It is sinful, so it is
dissolved, washed away. We must not continue it for it is part of the
"old things" that are passed away and must become new!

Examination of this issue confirms what we previously learned.
Conversion does not justify the continuation of an unscriptural
marriage, but teaches it must cease!
II. Consider the Evidence that People Can Remain in an Unscriptural
Remarriage after Conversion.

We have already answered the following arguments that are sometimes
offered to try to justify a couple staying in an unscriptural
remarriage when they are baptized:

* Non-members are not subject to God's law.

* The sin is the act of divorcing and remarrying, not the relationship
that follows.

* Conversion forgives the divorce and remarriage, so they can continue
in their current marriage.

Consider some other arguments used to reach the same conclusion:
A. The Scriptures Never Mention People Separating Because of an
Unscriptural Divorce and Remarriage.

We are told that such cases must have existed in the first century. If
separation is needed, the Bible would have mentioned it. Since the
Bible does not mention separation, it must not be needed. But note:
The Bible teaches the principles that show separation is necessary.

God expects us to have our senses exercised to properly apply the
principles to the specific case (Heb. 5:14). This is called "necessary
inference."
Many other sins are not specifically mentioned as things people must
cease.

Yet by applying the principles of God's word, we understand that these
people too must cease the practices:

This includes: infant baptism; sprinkling/pouring for baptism;
instrumental music in worship; a human head of the church; centralized
church organizations; dancing, drug abuse, gambling, homosexual
marriages; etc.

Since we have no passage expressly telling people to quit these
practices, does that mean it is wrong for us to tell people they must
quit?
No scripture expressly tells polygamists to give up their plural
wives.

This problem too must have existed in New Testament times. (It existed
among the Jews in the Old Testament, and surely existed among the
Gentiles converted in the New Testament.)

Are we wrong to tell such people they must give up their plural wives?
Suppose you were teaching a Moslem, Mormon, or African tribesman who
had several wives, what would you tell him?
What about a member of the church who unscripturally divorces and
remarries then repents?

May we tell him he must leave his unscripturally companion? If so,
what passage expressly deals with this case and says he must separate?
If we can tell him to separate though we have no express Scripture,
why can't we do the same for a non-member in an unscriptural marriage?
The Bible clearly teaches that there are cases in which a Christian
may have to give up his/her spouse.

We will cite examples below.

God's word does not itemize every case where this may occur. It
teaches that it may be necessary, then it teaches the principles that
show when it is necessary. God expects us to make the proper
application instead of making excuses.
B. 1 Corinthians 7:15 - Some Say This Allows Non-Christians to Remain
in Unscriptural Marriages after Conversion.

Read v12-17. It is argued that Matt. 19:9; 5:32; and 1 Cor. 7:10,11
apply only to Christians. But 1 Cor. 7:12-15 involves a non-Christian
and says that, if a non-Christian leaves, the deserted companion can
remarry. Hence, if a marriage of non-Christians breaks up, they may
remarry and then stay in their remarriage when they are converted.
We previously proved that God's laws of divorce and remarriage do
apply to non-Christians, proving that divorce & remarriage may occur
only for fornication.

We have already proved that Matt. 19:9 applies to all people. Its
teachings are universal because it is based on the original marriage
law and because it is even addressed to non-disciples. 1 Cor. 7:15
does not contradict Matt. 19.

1 Corinthians 7:10,11 says it is addressed to the "married" in
contrast to the "unmarried and widows" (v8). That includes married
people in general, not just Christians. It teaches the same as Matt.
19:9, which we have proved applies to all.

Romans 7:2,3 - What about this passage? Do we set it aside too?

Note: Suppose it is true 1 Cor. 7:12-16 is the only passage that
applies to the marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian (Matt. 19:9;
etc., do not apply). Then suppose a Christian is married to a non-
Christian, the non-Christian commits fornication but does not want to
leave the Christian (he is "content to dwell with her"). Since Matt.
19:9 and 5:32 do not apply, on what basis could the Christian divorce
him? If the non-Christian refuses to leave, the Christian would have
to continue to dwell with him!
1 Cor. 7:12-24 discusses only the case in which an "unbeliever"
divorces a Christian.

Paul is answering a question asked by the Corinthians (vl) in which a
"brother or sister" is married to an "unbeliever." V17-24 shows that
the case involves a married couple one of whom becomes a Christian but
the other does not. Should the believer divorce his companion or not?

He says not to divorce because the relation is not sinful and it may
turn out your companion will later be converted (v12-14,16). But if
the unbeliever chooses to leave, let him go (V15).

Note that V16 says the "unbeliever" is unsaved, in contrast to a
"brother or sister" (a child of God, a member of God's family, a saved
person - Gal. 3:26f; 1 Pet. 1:22; etc.).

It abuses the passage to apply it to any case other than an unbeliever
leaving a member of the church. It cannot be applied to unbelievers
who leave unbelievers (regardless of whether or not they later are
converted). The subject of a marriage of two unbelievers is not even
considered here.

Further, to apply this to cases of desertion in general (as some
people do) would eliminate Matt. 19:9 from ever applying in any case.
It clearly says these are cases where one who is put away may not
remarry.

Note the arguments we are examining are self-contradictory. First, it
is said that an unbeliever may divorce and remarry, be converted, and
then stay in the remarriage, because God forgives them at baptism.
Then they use 1 Cor. 7:15 to justify the second marriage. But the
deserted party in 1 Cor. 7:15 is not guilty of sin at all! Which is
it? Is the remarriage not a sin at all, or is it a sin which has been
forgiven?
"Under bondage" does not refer to marriage.

"Under bondage" in 1 Cor. 7:15 does not mean the same as "bound" in
marriage as in 7:39,27; Rom. 7:2,3; etc. The words sound similar but
the ideas are different both in English and even more so in Greek. Why
don't the translators say simply that a person "is (not) bound...," as
they say in the other passages? Because the meaning is different.

"Under bondage" (Greek DOULOO) refers to being in slavery [note Acts
7:6; 2 Pet. 2:19]. It is never used in any Scripture to refer to
marriage. Marriage is not slavery, and being married does not equal
being "under bondage" (enslaved). [The word is also used for slavery
to sin - Gal. 4:3; Tit. 2:3 - and slavery to God - Rom. 6:18,22 - and
obligation to teach others - 1 Cor. 9:19.]

"Bound" (Greek DEO) is used for marriage (1 Cor. 7:39,27; Rom. 7:2,3)
and refers to the mutual commitment or obligation that results from a
covenant or contract. We are bound by the terms of the covenant which
we chose to enter into. This is not "slavery." (cf. "join" -
SUNZEUGNUMI - Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9).

If Paul meant to refer to marriage in v15, why did he not use the same
word that he used in v27,39 and Rom. 7:2,3? Why use a different word
which no New Testament writer ever used for marriage? Why use a word
which refers to slavery rather than to a covenant relationship? The
only sensible answer is that v15 does not mean the believer is free to
remarry.
Hence, "not under bondage" does not mean the Christian may remarry,
even when a Christian is deserted by an unbeliever.

* To conclude that a child of God may remarry simply because his/her
unbelieving companion departs, would contradict the immediate context
of 7:10,11 and also Matt. 19:9; 5:31f; Rom. 7:2,3; etc. These teach
one can remarry only if his companion is put away for committing
fornication. Otherwise, they must reconcile or remain unmarried.

* If 1 Cor. 7:15 means I can remarry if my unbelieving companion
leaves, but I cannot if my believing companion leaves, then it is to
my advantage to marry an unbeliever! Why should I be allowed to
remarry if my unbelieving companion leaves, but if she is a believer
and leaves then I cannot remarry? Such an idea penalizes one for being
married to a believer!

* God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34,35; Rom. 2:6-11). God
does not have an easy set of laws when an unbeliever is involved and a
hard set of laws when a believer is involved.

* Paul is really saying that this case is not an exception to the rule
of 7:10,11. The Corinthians apparently asked him about the mixed
marriage case, so he began by laying down the general rule: do not
divorce your companion (v10,11). Then he applied the rule to mixed
marriages, saying you should not leave in this case either, just like
he said for the general case. But if your companion leaves, let them
go.

Rather than assuming without proof that one can remarry, we should
apply the rule Paul already stated and conclude you must remain
unmarried or else be reconciled.

"Not under bondage" really simply explains "let him depart" (v15) and
is the opposite of "dwelling with" them (v12,13). Stay with your
companion and fulfill your marital obligations if he/she is satisfied.
But if your mate is so bitter against your service to Christ that he
cannot stand to be around you, God does not require you to cling to
them refusing to let them go. And especially, do not compromise your
service to God to get them to stay. This would be a form of slavery in
which God does not require his people to be enslaved.

Nothing in the context implies the Christian may remarry. The subject
of remarriage is not discussed in v12-24. V10,11 has already settled
the issue of remarriage by forbidding it. We would need clear proof in
order to reach a conclusion that constituted an exception to v10,11.
But in fact the conclusion harmonizes with v10,11 and with Matt. 19:9;
it does not contradict.
C. Requiring A Couple to Separate Is too Hard.

We are told that God would not require the break up of a marriage,
especially if there are children. It isn't fair. In no other area of
service to God are such extreme sacrifices required. God wants His
people to be joyful, but no one could be joyful under such
circumstances, etc.

Note: This argument is the real crux of the issue, though most people
do not admit it. The reason people object to the conclusions we have
taught from God's word is, not that they have found a passage which
disproves it, but that they think it is too hard on them or their
loved ones to do what God says, so they are looking for excuses. The
wish is the parent of the doctrine!
Serving God is often hard and leads to problems in the flesh.

Even innocent people often face severe problems in serving God.

* Jesus, His apostles, Old Testament prophets, and first century
Christians often suffered hardship, even though they were righteous (2
Cor. 11:23ff; Heb. chap. 11; 1 Pet. 2:20ff; etc.). Should they have
reasoned that "It is not fair;" standing for truth was leading to
hardship and God wanted them to have joy, so they should quit standing
for it?

* Suppose a preacher preaches truth and is killed for it. He and his
family suffer greatly as a result. Does this prove we are not required
to stand for the truth if death might result?

* If a man is imprisoned or disabled for life, his family suffers loss
of companionship, financial support, sexual fulfillment, etc. Would
this justify the wife in getting a divorce and remarrying because
staying married (especially caring for a disabled man) is too hard and
she has no joy, etc.?

* Suppose a member of the church leaves his wife, refuses to live with
her and meet her needs, but he never commits fornication. Is it "too
hard" to believe that woman must live without her husband? May she
divorce and remarry?

The person who unscripturally divorces and remarries is not the only
person who suffers greatly in this life. He is not the only person who
must go through life without a spouse.

If a person must leave an unscriptural marriage, in what way is he any
worse off than these cases? And so far we have described people who
suffer though they are innocent of sin; but the person who
unscripturally remarried is guilty of adultery! If faithfulness
requires these innocent people to suffer, then surely separation from
an unscriptural marriage would be no harder a requirement.
Further, people often suffer serious consequences in this life as a
result their sins, even if the sin has been forgiven.

People argue that leaving an unscriptural marriage would be the "only
sin with such terrible consequences." They ask if we think it is the
"unforgivable sin."

* Yet we already showed that even innocent people sometimes suffer
similar consequences. Why should a guilty person suffer less than an
innocent person?

* An escaped slave must return to his master (Book of Philem.).
Suppose the master might punish him for having run away? Would that
justify him in not returning? (cf. 1 Pet. 2:18)

* Suppose a person commits murder and repents, but is imprisoned for
life. He and his family suffer even though God forgave him. Would that
justify him in trying to escape or otherwise disobeying the law?

* Suppose a polygamist or a homosexual couple repents. In some cases
there are even children involved. Can they stay together because
separating would be too hard, it would remove the joy from their
lives, etc.?

* Suppose a church member divorces unscripturally, remarries, has
children, then wants to repent. Must he separate from his mate? Is
this any easier for him than for one not a member? If he must separate
in spite of the hardship, why not a non-member who is converted?

* Suppose a person is guilty of fornication and his mate divorces him
for it. We will see that the Bible teaches he must remain unmarried.
Shall we argue that he too can remarry because being single is too
hard?

None of the above sins are "unforgivable," but all of them have
serious consequences and require sacrifices as great as that of the
person who has unscripturally remarried.

Truly "the way of the transgressor is hard" - Prov. 13:15.
Furthermore, the Bible clearly shows there are cases where God
requires a person to be separated from wife and family.

Ezra 9 and 10 - Israelites had to separate from wives they had no
right to, and in some cases there were children (cf. Herod in Matt.
14:3,4).

1 Corinthians 7:15 - Sometimes an unbelieving companion cannot stand
living with a Christian, so he leaves. The Christian is to let him go,
but must not remarry nor compromise the truth to keep their spouse.
Hence, a person loses his/her companion because he is standing for the
truth.

Luke 14:26 - One must love his wife, children, parents, etc., less
than he does Christ, or he is not worthy of Christ (cf. Matt. 10:37).
We often teach that Christians must be willing to give up our
relations to dear loved ones, if necessary to please God.

But now we come to a specific case where God's word requires this to
be done, and suddenly the passage just can't mean that because it is
too hard! Do we believe the passage, or are we looking for excuses?

Luke 18:28-30 - Those who leave wife, children, parents, etc., if
necessary to please God, will be blessed in this life and will have
eternal life. Yet we are told God would never require such a thing
because it causes too much unhappiness!

The idea that God would never require people to give up spouse and/or
children is simply a lie! If the case we are considering is not such a
case, then what would be such a case? And if this case is "too hard,"
then in what case would it be done?

The joy and peace Christians have is spiritual, being based on
forgiveness, a right relation with God, and hope of eternal life. We
do not have assurance of peaceful, joyous relations with other people
in this life. Instead our earthly relations will often be difficult
and trying.

If we can set aside God's word in this case because obedience makes us
"unhappy," then we can set aside God's law about anything! Instead of
God's word being the standard for determining right and wrong, we
would be guided by our own subjective feelings of joy or unhappiness.
D. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 - Some Say "Abide in Your Calling" Means a
Convert Should Always Stay with His Current Spouse.
As studied before, these verses say only that we should abide in
circumstances that are not sinful.

Paul is discussing circumstances that are "nothing" either way (v19),
like circumcision (v18,19) and slavery (v21-23).

The marriage relationships being discussed in context are not sinful,
but are "sanctified" (v14). That is expressly stated to be why they
could remain in it.

Where does the passage teach people to stay in marriages that are not
sanctified? God says an unscriptural remarriage is "adultery." Does
that sound like He has "sanctified" it?
V19 expressly says that what matters is the keeping of the commands of
God.

Paul is not justifying staying in a relationship that is sinful, but
only in situations that are in harmony with God's commands.

Consider a few "states" ("callings"): prostitute, alcoholic, drug
addict, whiskey manufacturer, thief, hired killer, Mafia member,
polygamist, couple living together but not married, homosexual
marriage. May people remain in these callings and be saved?
Consider now the application to one who marries, divorces (not for
fornication), remarries, then gets baptized.

In what state is he called? Is this state in keeping with God's
commands, so he can stay in it, or is his state in violation of God's
commands so he must cease it?

* He is bond by a valid marriage covenant to his first companion. Is
this calling sinful? No, it was righteous. Therefore, 1 Cor. 7:17-24-
says he must abide in it - conversion does not free him from that
bond.

* But he is married to another woman and living with her. In this
relation, is he "keeping the commands of God"? No, it is adultery
because he is still bound to the first wife.

What must this man do then? Abide in his first marriage covenant and
leave his second marriage. Like all proof texts we have examined, this
one requires the very thing we have been advocating and contradicts
those who use it to teach otherwise.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I come to the same conclusion.

Jesus and St Paul were speaking to their own generation.  I don't think that
they expected us to remain in an agonising relationship just on principle.
In a perfect world it might be possible, but this world is not perfect, and
never will be.  There really is such a thing as the lesser of two evils.

The situation where one partner divorces the other and re-marries, but the
other partner refuses to remarry, is a matter of choice.  There are no easy
answers.

There is only one rule in dealing with a spouse, separated or not: love the
person.  Loving may mean getting out of that person's life.  Couples who
have Church weddings still go for St Paul's description of love in 1
Corinthians 13, and those who won't go near a Bible probably know
instinctively what he is talking about.  Somebody once said that love is
such a sublime and powerful force that it can't be confined to a few short
years.  If you can be truly loving, you automatically fulfil all the
Commandments, as Jesus said.

Frank, a book about books points out that whether you accept the Bible or
not, it is the source of all ideas of human rights, regardless of race,
gender and status, that Western nations all believe in.  It wasn't always
that way.  In feudal, Norman England, the penalty for murdering a serf was
far less than for murdering a Norman lord.  It was a desire for freedom to
have their own Christian beliefs that sent the early settlers to America.
You are lucky to be living in a country which inherited those beliefs.
There are countries today that don't accept them.

And the ethical basis of Christian morality derives largely from Stoicism, a
philosophy first devised by a Cypriot who taught at Athens about 300 B.C.,
and given a religious flavour by the Roman philosopher Seneca (d. 65 A.D.),
the brother of the Gallio before whom Paul was brought (Acts 18.)  Like the
Christians, Seneca was put to death by Nero.  The Stoics were opposed to
the absolute Emperors, and Seneca wasn't the only one they put to death.

Doug L.
--
Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage - Shakespeare.

Too right.  If the Bible were without error, then it becomes your god,
people.  Make your own decisions!  Drive you own live.  To Hell with a
2000 year old book of superstitions.

OZ