Can We Handle The Truth?

My book now available on Amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/dp/154089424X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502457226&sr=8-1&keywords=can+we+handle+the+truth

But For the Grace of God Go I

Is this saying another way to blame God? One day I was reading the newspaper about a tragic accident that happened on I-95 where a six-year-old child was killed. The driver was the father who had a car load of children on their way to a church function. All came out fine except for the death of the father's child. One of the children said to another, "God was with us," which those around were in agreement and with much thankfulness. But I can't help but think, was God not there for the six-year-old who was killed? And what about the grieving family?

How many times have we heard, "There but for the grace of God go I?" Often we hear that phrase when it has to do with escaping some horrible accident, escaping death, various addictions, or some type of disaster. We may hear something similar, "By God's grace" He helped me find a job, find a spouse, pay my bills, that my house didn't get flooded during the storm, etc., etc..

I used to have a co-worker who used that phrase quite often. I couldn't help but cringe every time she said it. Finally one day I asked her, "What about those who were not as fortunate to experience all of this supposed grace? What about those who end up with flooded homes, no job, or loss of a child in some horrible accident, etc. etc.? " I could see I caught her off guard and she stumbled for an answer.

I have never noticed anyone using the phrase directly at the person experiencing the horrible tragedies in their life.  Could using the phrase be an unintentional smug remark when others are faced with disaster, disgrace, or other misfortunes, as a result of their choices or no fault of their own? Does it not imply that the person making the remark could have been in the same position but was fortunate enough to escape such disasters because God favored them more than the other? Is such an expression Biblical or implied? I have yet to find it.

I have a friend from Germany who needed help with the grammar of this expression. He could guess from the context but didn't get the exact meaning. He said the sentence would not work in his native tongue.  My reply to him is that one could explain it as a person who experiences bad things in life, but to the other person, it could have happened to them, but it didn't because God was watching over the "favored one." For example, one year my neighbors around the corner from us were flooded out of their homes from a week long rainfall. I could easily have said, "There but for the grace of God go I." It's another way of saying, "Too bad God wasn't watching over and protecting you, but God protected me instead from such disaster.

I think it is such a terrible saying for those who face a string of personal catastrophes and to think we come out unscathed because God favored us over them. It is one of the dangers of attributing an event to God's direct involvement when it could have been natural causes.

Another danger of this kind of thinking is concluding that disastrous events did not happen to you because of your good relationship with God, or by those who think they have a relationship with God. There is one thing I do know. Jesus said,

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Matthew 5:45.

It is not a matter of who is getting blessed and who isn't. Or who is enjoying life and who is not. As someone has aptly said,

"God is not rewarding the unjust with his rain, nor is he trying to frustrate the just by raining on the unjust. It is simply a testimony to God’s impartiality."

What is the Gospel?

Many professing Christians cannot fully tell you what the Gospel is. It seems the only answer they can give is to quote 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

"Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . . "

They say THAT is the whole Gospel. Well, not really. Notice what Paul says, “For I delivered to you AS OF FIRST IMPORTANCE...” Now why would Paul start off like that? Because there is much more to the story than Christ dying and raised from the dead, but since this chapter has to do with the resurrection, this is his main focus for the rest of the chapter. If the dead are not raised, then our preaching is useless and so is our faith. If Christ is not raised, our faith is simply foolish.

I’ll tell you why.

Because the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is about God’s immortality plan for human beings in the Kingdom to come which all will "inherit the earth." (Psa_37:9; Psa_37:11; Psa_37:22; Mat_5:5)  

The one major element of the Gospel that most people leave out is the Kingdom of God. Jesus came preaching the Gospel (Good News) about this kingdom and was the main purpose for which he was sent.

"I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose." Luke 4:43

Jesus sent his disciples (seventy others - Luke 10:1-12) to preach this gospel before any of them knew about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (which of course, later became part of the gospel...good news!). The disciples preached this gospel. (See Matt. 4:17; 4:23; 9:35; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:11, and also read how Jesus always spoke about the Kingdom of God before and after the cross (Acts 1:3).

Heb. 2:3, along with many other verses, attest that Jesus is the first preacher of immortality. Even Paul tells us that Jesus,

“brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.” (2 Tim. 1:10)

Jesus is our preacher who showed us by his example and told us how we can eventually live forever. People must repent and believe this gospel about the kingdom of God.

Paul spent two years in his own hired house and,

“welcomed all who came in to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God, and teaching those things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom, and without hindrance.” (Acts 28:30-31)

So to sum it up, the mission statement of Jesus reveals his whole purpose, i.e., to preach the GOOD NEWS about the Kingdom of God and how to gain immortality in that Kingdom.

The devil wants to blind the eyes and promote lies that being disobedient to God will not lead to death (Gen. 3:4) But for those who believe the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and do as Jesus instructs us, though they die physically, will one day be resurrected to a life of immortality, just as Christ was.

The Kingdom of God will be inaugurated by the return of Jesus to resurrect the faithful of all ages (who are still dead in their graves) to a life of immortality.

Jesus said,

“Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29). 

Spiritual Death or Physical death in Romans 5:12

In the past I had a problem when it came to the term "spiritual death," because of the connection with Reformed Theology.

"Spiritual death" simply means a "moral and relational" separation from God” which comes about by sinning, and never has to do with infants. Infants do not come into this world morally and relationally separated from God. The Bible teaches that infants are born morally innocent (2 Kings 14:6; 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19), that children are born innocent with no knowledge of good or evil (Rom. 9:11, Ecc. 7:29, Duet. 1:39). Infants do not go to hell when they die (Matt. 19:14 Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).

Question: How do you explain the fact that humans die?

Man physically dies because they have no access to the tree of life. Jesus himself was under this condition. Like all humans, He had cells that reproduced and died. He lost his baby teeth. He lost hair and grew more. He got hungry, he thirsted, and he grew tired and needed sleep. He was in all ways like us. (Heb. 2:14; 17)

We have this idea that Adam was created immortal, which the Bible says he was not (1 Corinthians 15:47-50).  If Adam and Eve had to eat from the tree of life to become immortal,  then they were created mortal to begin with!

Sin is a choice, not a constitution. Sin is a transgression of law (1 John 3:4) and conscience (James 4:17). If sin is a choice it cancels out constitution, if sin is in our constitution it cancels out the choice.

Now, if "physical death" is referred to in Romans 5:12 as a result from Adam's sin, then it can no longer be a result from "personal" sin. In Romans 5:12 it states,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

The death in Romans 5:12 deals with personal transgression... "for all have sinned." Spiritual death comes by sinning. The word "have" indicates an activity on every individual's part since sin is voluntary. All that have sinned are the ones who have sinned. Babies do not sin.  Babies cannot make moral choices.

However, when a person comes to maturity where he knows the difference between good and evil, and does evil, they sin and consequently come under the wrath of God as a result of them misusing their free will. (Rom. 1:18-21; 2:12-15; Rom. 6:16). So the type of death that comes upon individuals for their own personal sin is not physical (all are going to eventually die physically), but spiritual (Eze. 18:4, 20). This spiritual death (severed relationship with God) comes by personal disobedience to light. (James. 4:17; Heb. 7:26; 1John 1:5)  It is addressing spiritual death that passes upon all men, for that all have sinned (v.12). Not in Adam! It does not say "all have sinned in Adam." This is why there was a group of people (not babies) who were spiritually dead between Adam and Moses (v.14). So death (spiritual) still reigned over those who had NOT sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression (v.14), meaning they were sinning against the law of their conscience (James 4:17).

Sin is optional, not a necessity of nature. All who choose to sin become spiritually dead in their sins. But just as a person may choose to sin (which we all have) they must also choose to reject the created habits. This is possible through the freedom of the will and God given nature (Ecc. 7:29; Rom. 2:14). If sin were physical (as Gnostics teach) this would not be true.  How can a person feel responsible for something that does not spring from his choice but rather governs his choice?  But sin is moral so the will is always in play - always able to choose vice or virtue - otherwise we're robots!

Michael Pearl, as well as others, teaches that Roman 5:12 is referring to [physical] death  and that [physical] death is the condemnation that went out upon all of Adam's descendants, but Romans 5:12 is speaking of a death that comes upon all men  for their own personal transgression ("for all have sinned").  And it is only upon a person sinning that they can experience condemnation (Eze. 18:4,20; Eph. 5:5-7), since condemnation and justification are completely conditioned upon a person’s personal choices, not Adam's.  Those who decide by free will to follow Adam's example are spiritually dead in their sins (i.e. separated from God relationally Isa. 59:2), without righteousness (Rom. 6:20) and will receive the punishment of eternal death (2Thess.1:9; Rev.21:8). BUT, those who choose to follow Christ's example will be spiritually alive (reconciled relationally to God Jn.17:3; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21) without sin (Rom. 6:7; 11,13; 8:10) and will receive eternal life in the world to come (Mk. 10:30).

Now here is where we need to be very careful.  If Paul were not speaking of "spiritual death" in Rom. 5:12, he would then be teaching what is known as "positional righteousness" in Rom 6, 7, 8. WHY?

Knowing this that our old man was crucified with Him that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

(Here it is...)

For he who has DIED has been freed from sin." (Rom. 6:6-7)

It's very easy to see that 'baptism of repentance' which happens in 'initial salvation' (2 Cor. 7:10-11) is a spiritual regeneration (Rom. 6:4-7; Jn. 3:3; Titus 3:5). The problem is, if Paul were referring to [physical] death in Rom. 5:12, then he is also referring to [physical] death here in Rom. 6:7.  Therefore Paul would have been teaching (which he did not) that a person must [physically] die to be "freed from sin!" (Rom. 6:7) This then makes Rom. 6, 7, 8 all POSITIONAL, rather than PRACTICAL. This is a very dangerous teaching!! 

Likewise you also reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 6:11)

This must be done positionally (counting yourself dead to sin) since sin will be with you until you [physically] die according to Michael Pearl and many others who teach the physical death position. (Rom. 6:7)

The question must be asked.  How can someone be "set free from sin" (Rom. 6:18), but still NOT be set free from sin, since you have yet to [physically] die? (Rom. 6:7) This is where imputed righteousness comes into play. Romans 7:5, 14-25 must also all be taken in positionally since you must [physically] die  in Rom. 6:7 to be "freed from sin."  So many have fallen for this false teaching, myself included, that one will not be set free from sin until they die!  This is wrong!

Michael Pearl rejects Rom. 7:14-23 as being the normal Christian life (since it was directed at unsaved Jews, Rom. 7:1, and I agree), but by teaching there is only one type of death in the scriptures (i.e PHYSICAL), he cancels out his commentary and refutes his own position of Paul's penmanship. How? Simple - by teaching that Rom. 5:12 is speaking of [physical] death necessitates Rom. 6:7 to be speaking about [physical death].

Pearl rejects the sin nature (and I do as well), but His position on the meaning of "death" leaves the sin nature in tack (somehow) since you cannot be freed from sin until you [physically] die!!! (Rom. 6:7) This is where I see a problem with a teacher who rejects original sin and holds on to a doctrine like imputed righteousness.

The same condemnation that is found in Rom. 5:16, 18 is found in Rom. 8:1. Since the condemnation is due to Adam's transgression and is referring to physical death (as Pearl says) that was unconditionally imputed to all his descendants (that is condemnation was imputed), then there is in fact condemnation for those who are in Christ since they are physically still alive! (Rom. 5:18; 8:1) This might be another reason why Pearl holds to imputed righteousness....the blood must cover, not purge.

Romans 8:6 says,

For to be carnally minded is [physical] death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Huh? How? If death only has one meaning, how does Pearl explain this verse?

For if you live according to the flesh you will [physically] die... (Rom. 8:13) ???

There are people who live according to the flesh and live well up to their 80's and 90's and sometimes more. So this is the problem of Romans. 5:12 with death being 'physical'; it necessitates positional righteousness.

The context of Romans 5:12-21, Paul speaks of condemnation and justification. The condemnation is referring to spiritual death, for those who are justified still die physically.

Also, if "death" in Romans 6:23 means physical death, being justified would mean that we would not die physically!

It is "spiritual death" in Rom. 5:12, not physical. I see the influence and effects of Adam's sin led unto the condemnation of all people - that is - upon all those who choose to sin by their own free will and follow Adam's example will come under the wrath of God.

Pearl's rejection of original sin but acceptance of imputed righteousness would be like me teaching the sin nature and telling people to obey God.  It DOESN'T WORK. If you're born a sinner, you MUST have Jesus' imputed righteousness (which they teach and is not Scripturally correct); however, if you're born morally innocent, then you must obey from the heart! (Rom. 6:16-17; 1 John 3:7)

Take Romans 5:16:

And not as it was by the one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

The two examples and their work are yet again being contrasted. Adam's influence and sin resulted unto condemnation while Christ's obedience resulted in a free gift unto justification. Let me point out that it does not say that the sin of one condemned them all, but rather that the sin of one led to the condemnation of them all. This is because condemnation and justification are both CONDITIONAL, not unconditionally universal as Pearl says. Condemnation can only come upon personal transgression, while justification comes freely through the process of repentance and faith. (Acts 11:18; 20:21; 2 Cor.7:10-11)

I see a state of spiritual deadness as a state of relational separation from God DUE to moral disobedience.  I do not believe there are any morals in the metaphysics of man. For example, I attended a funeral a while back. Upon seeing the deceased it was obvious there was no vice nor virtue in the corpse. The body is simply an instrument (2 Pet. 1:13-14). This instrument can be used for "righteousness" or unrighteousness" (Rom. 6:13). Yielding our instrument (flesh) to sin leads to death while obedience leads to righteousness (Rom. 6:16). If Adam's sin has caused the whole human race to physically disease and decease, then how does our personal sin lead to physical death, again? (Rom. 6:23)

If the spirit cannot die, then Christ would have to be joined with sinners, but if the spirit can die then Christ must be separated from sinners (Heb. 7:26).  Now, if two persons are separated that must mean they are no longer joined although they both actually live. This is the same thing as "spiritual death." Nothing physically dies, but rather separates. The Bible says God must be separated from all sin (1 Jn. 1:5; 3:5; Heb. 7:26). 

King David who fell into murder and adultery with his beautiful neighbor Bathsheeba (2 Sam. 11-12) is said by many to have only lost his joy of salvation or maybe some loss of rewards (Psa. 51:12) but not his spiritual state with God. Since King David was an "elect" they say he could grieve the spirit, but never quench it. However, Ezekiel said something totally different.

But when a righteousness man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? [The answer to this question has eternal consequences] All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. (Eze. 18:24)

How could Ezekiel be referring to physical death when Judaism teaches man is created mortal and which the Bible supports? This is how we know that King David was NOT in a safe "spiritual" condition until he found godly sorrow in Psalms 51. Hence, David lost his justification and fell back under condemnation DUE to the fact he transgressed known law (1 Jn. 3:4; James. 4:17; Rom. 8:13). Although King David was still alive (since he was physically walking about) his communication with God was severed for those 8 months until he found repentance.

Can the spirit die? Jesus said it could.  But remember, "spiritual death" simply means a "moral and relational" separation from God”

...for this my son was dead [morally and spiritually] and is alive [relationally] again. (Lk.15:24; 32)

...He that...believeth...is passed from [moral and spiritual] death unto life [relationship]." (Jn. 5:24)

Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead [moral and spiritual], and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5:14)

...yield yourselves unto God, as those that are [relationally] alive from the dead [moral and spiritual]." (Rom. 6:13)

And you being [morally and spiritually] dead in your sins...hath he made [relationally] alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." (Col. 2:13)

We know that we have passed from [moral and spiritual] death unto life [relationship]." (1Jn. 3:14)

Spiritual death means being out of touch with God and righteousness, which means that a person who is out of touch with God has no righteousness (Rom. 6:20) and therefore must reinforce only unrighteousness. And since all unrighteousness is sin (1 Jn. 5:17) the unrighteous are sinners (1 Jn. 3:7-10), and must by necessity be separated from God (Heb. 7:26) due to their wicked works (Col. 2:13), not birth!

"Spiritual death" comes ONLY by sinning! Since sin is a moral issue which is a transgression of the law and conscience, and babies are not able to make moral decisions, they are morally neutral! (2Kings 14:6; Deu. 24:16; 2Chr. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-4; Eze. 18:19-20) Babies are innocent.  Children are neither guilty of evil, nor worthy of praise until they are able to make their own decisions (Rom. 9:11). They have to come to the age of maturity (accountability) where they know the difference between good and evil. This sin is not by necessity, but rather by choice. (James. 1:13-15). This is why every human is responsible for the "things done in the body” and is judged "according to what he/she has done, whether it be good or bad." (2Cor. 5:10)

The founder of Calvinism said we were born "lumps of sin" (i.e Augustine of Hippo). And as far as John Calvin, I do not believe that he was a regenerate born again believer. He took his theology from a man who thought babies could be regenerated by baptism. Of course Calvinism holds to total depravity. If they didn't, their heresy would all fall down (_.U.L.I.P?). Basically, Calvinism is modern day Manicheanism, which is Gnostic. Denial of man's "free will" is a heathen belief, just like dualism! (i.e. the “sinful nature.”) If man cannot respond to the call of the Spirit, then man is not a man but rather a preprogrammed robot. If mankind can't repent no more than ice can burn, God is a liar. (Mk. 1:15; Lk. 13:3,5; Acts 11:18, 17:30; 26:18-20) If man is OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), the Son of man was a liar (Matt. 10:22; Lk. 13:24).

James also said:

Therefore lay aside ALL filthiness and overflow of wickedness and "receive" with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. (James. 1:21-22)

What do the Calvinists say about that?

If Reformed Theology have it right, then that means God must by necessity save people in their sins. Since they are incapable of responding to the call of repentance proven by deeds and faith working by love, they would have to be compelled [by God] and forced against their own will [by God] to do something they never wanted to do - that being of course - love God. Calvinism is heresy!

Keep in mind the day that Adam sinned against God he "spiritually died" (Gen. 2:17). Spiritual death comes by personal sin, not Adam's. If one were to say that physical death is a result from Adam's sin, then it would stand to reason that we do not physically die for our own personal transgressions...but yet

She that lives in pleasure is dead while she lives. (1Tim. 5:6)

Is she physically dead or spiritually dead? Can you even be physically dead while you're physically live?  If the spirit cannot die, how is she dead while she still lives? This is precisely what happened in the garden. God said,

You shall not eat from the tree for IN THAT DAY you shall surely die. (Gen. 2:17)

Did Adam physically die the moment he ate from the tree? NO. Scriptures say Adam lieved to be  930 years old and then he died. (Gen. 5:5) So the death God was speaking of in Gen. 2:17 must have been referring to the relational ends of things... spiritual death. [He eventually died physically because he and Eve and all his posterity no longer had access to the tree of life which sustained their mortal fleshly bodies.  We suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, but are not guilty of his sin.

Sin is not a substance since there are no morals in substance. Adam, by his own free will, chose to transgress and consequently brought sin into the world and spiritual death comes by sin.  (Rom. 5 :12) It is speaking of "spiritual death" through Adam. How? Not by imputation, but by following his EXAMPLE of disobedience. So "[spiritual] death passes upon all men for that all  have sinned." (V.12) 

The verse in Romans is speaking to the influence and effects of Adam's sin which led to the condemnation of all men, upon all those who choose to sin by their own free will. There is no such thing as universal condemnation. Again, notice in Rom. 5:16 it does NOT say that the sin of one condemned them all, but that the sin of one led to the condemnation of them all.  Condemnation is conditioned upon personal transgression and justification is conditioned upon repenting and believing. Men can only be condemned for their own personal sins (1Cor. 6:9; Rev. 21:8) and reconciliation requires a personal choice (2 Cor. 5:20). Condemnation is the wrath of God that comes upon the sons of disobedience.(Jn. 3:36; Eph. 5:5-7) Romans 8:1 says,

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.

Again, condemnation is CONDITIONED upon a person's walk, it is not universal apart from choice. Condemnation is shown to be spiritual death, for if you live according to the flesh you will [spiritually and morally] die (Rom. 8:13), since being carnally minded is death. (Rom. 8:6) 

Another question worth pondering is this.  If the carnally minded are dead but still walking around, how are they dead?  If condemnation is physical, and a person gets born again, are they still condemned since they are still in the flesh and condemnation is physical? How could there be no condemnation? (Rom. 8:1)

Thus it can be clearly seen that Romans 5:12 speaks of spiritual death. In fact, much of Scriptures speak of spiritual death unless the context calls for physical death.

Divorce and Remarriage

By Ramon Carroll

What does the bible really teach about divorce and remarriage? There has been much division, condemnation, and speculation from many concerning this doctrine. What I will attempt to do is give a clear and precise teaching on what the scriptures actually teach concerning the topic of divorce and remarriage. What I will present are the teachings from the scriptures which the two major groups involved in the discussion base their understanding of this topic. I will point out the fallacies that have been taught concerning the doctrine while trying to present what both groups believe to the best of my ability. We must be mindful that there are variations of the teaching within each camp. So I am by no means claiming to fully know what everyone who holds either view believes. This article is based on my own personal experiences and discussions I have had with others from both camps. I pray it would be a blessing to all and that eyes would be opened to the truth.

All scripture references will be in bold, while definitions will be in italics. Also, definitions for certain words are included in the endnotes.  Many of the scripture passages presented are lengthy and for that reason I will reference the passages, quote the main points, and request that the faithful reader would go back and read the entire context to ensure that what is being taught is indeed sound doctrine.

The two major groups who have been involved in this debate since after the time of the apostles are these:

Group #1:  Is what we will call what has become known as the “Marriage to death camp”. They believe divorce is only permitted in cases of “fornication” but neither spouse can remarry unless the other dies.

Group #2:  This group believes that divorce is allowed for other reasons than adultery or sexual immorality, but the ONLY reason for remarriage is adultery, sexual immorality, or death.

The following is the most used text by the groups I have come in contact with when discussing the topic of divorce and remarriage: 

 “But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”  Matthew 5:32

The first group that has become known as the “marriage to death camp” teaches that based on Jesus’ words above, the only reason for divorce is if the MALE spouse, during the betrothal[1] period of the Israelite custom, find that his wife to be, had been unfaithful or lied about her virginity. They insist that this scripture does NOT permit divorce after the marriage has been consummated and the couple has lived together. The belief is based on Deut 24:1 which says:

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”   

This was the teaching many of the Jews at that time had been following. Most of the people in Jesus’ day were interpreting the text based on one of two schools of thought:

1. The one view was from the school of Shammai.
2. The other was from the school of Hillel.

The understanding of the word “uncleanliness” is what caused the most disagreement as the Hebrew word “ervah” (#6172 ) has many possible definitions. Those definitions include nakedness, nudity, shame, nakedness of a thing, indecency of a thing, improper behavior (figuratively), disgrace, blemish, and uncleanness of a thing.

Shammai taught that the word only meant infidelity. Meaning that one of the individuals was sexually unfaithful.

Hillel argued that the indecency of a thing is what deserved more attention. He went on to teach that if a man were to find ANY imperfection that he found in his wife.

Another Rabbi named Akiva concurred with Hillel. He himself went so far as to teach that it was permitted to divorce your wife if you found another woman to be more attractive/pleasing than she was. This is the background and setting in which Yeshua was preaching the gospel of the kingdom. The question was put to him in Matthew 19:3: 

“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?” 

Yeshua’s response to THIS question is what has been overlooked in the midst of our modern day abuse of the exception clause. Understanding what was asked of Jesus and also what the views were of his day, sheds much more light on the answer that Yeshua gives. He answers in verse 9 the same way he did when he earlier taught on the subject. Anyone reading his answer and understanding the two schools of thought would have immediately understood that he was confirming what Shammai had taught. Though he points out why the command was given and that divorce was never part of God’s plan for marriage, he certainly endorses Shammai’s teaching on what the law actually taught concerning divorce. Two questions that now arise are these. Did Shammai believe that “infidelity” was only committed during the betrothal period? Also, was remarriage permitted in such cases where one spouse was unfaithful? To find out we must revisit the original teaching in Deut 24.

We ended with Deut 24:1 but the teaching on the subject does not end there. After the bill of divorce is given, as confirmed by Jesus, for the cause of infidelity, what is allowed and what is prohibited according to the scriptures? Deut 24:2 reads,

“And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.”  

Here we have a clear example of the permission to remarry even in the case of the “guilty party”.  The woman here is permitted to go and be another man’s wife. What is implied also is that the man may marry another woman since the marriage was dissolved lawfully.  During the time of Yeshua’s ministry it is very well possible, even likely, that many had suffered from a spouse being unfaithful and had remarried. One thing that is being taught today, that was not included in Jesus’ teaching, is that if you are in your second or third (etc.) marriage ( at the point when you hear the marriage to death camp’s teaching), you must divorce your current wife/husband and leave whatever family you have for you are in an unlawful marriage. If this was the conclusion that Jesus was coming to, why would he not come out and say it plainly? Why leave it up for the people to decide what to do if they found themselves in such a state? I dare say that even those who were following the teaching of Hillel were not instructed to divorce their current wife if they had previously put their wives away for the wrong reason.  Jesus corrected their misconceptions and condemned their previous practice of committing adultery. From that point on they would be guilty of committing adultery themselves and they would be guilty of causing the spouse to commit adultery if they persisted with such actions.

What the “marriage to death camp” teaches today is that you are in a state of perpetual adultery after you have come to this knowledge and you do not divorce your current wife.  They say “She is not your wife. You were never really married” This was not included in the teaching of Jesus and would not have been the conviction of any of the adherents of either school of thought.

Problem#1:

One major problem with the freelance teaching of this group is that they, at times, teach totally contrary to the law. I myself have heard many teach that if you find that you have been guilty of adultery you are to leave the current spouse you are with and return to your husband. But is this what the law taught? Remember that Shammai’s understanding of Deut 24 was confirmed by Jesus. We have also seen that the divorced and the divorcee were permitted to remarry.  Now we must see what the teaching was concerning returning to your previous spouse. Deut 24:3-4 states: 

And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 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 Yahweh: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”  

We see that the law completely forbids the woman who has been legally divorced and legally remarried to another man, to return to her previous husband, even in the case of the death of the current husband.  Is she permitted to marry another man other than the previous husband?  Based on the first teaching of this law, she is. There is no prohibition here except for her returning to the previous husband. The irony is that the marriage to death camp, for the most part, teaches that this is exactly what must take place! They teach boldly that either the divorced party must remain alone or return to their first spouse.  In the case of separation, not divorce, this is the logical and biblical teaching.  If a woman departs from her husband or if a man departs from his wife and they remain alone without marrying another, they are indeed permitted and should be encouraged by all the saints to be reconciled to one another.

Paul gives his godly counsel in such matters when he says things like in 1 Cor. 7 (please read full context): 

“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” And…“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart.  A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” 

Here Paul takes the liberty to expound upon the topic. Yeshua did not teach on this specific scenario and Paul recognized that.  In expounding on Yeshua’s teaching he did not overstep or contradict the messiah. His counsel is to do everything within your power to dwell in peace with your spouse though they be an unbeliever.  If the spouse decides to depart (separate) you should let them leave. If in this case the party who leaves does not want to return, insists on divorce, and marries another, the believing spouse is not in bondage in such cases. Why should the believing spouse who did no wrong be bound to live without a helper or a head the rest of their lives if that is not the power and gift that they possess from God as Paul alludes to in 1 Cor 7:7 where he says,

“For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”  

What Paul says here is in line with how Christ responded to his disciples after the very same teaching.  After hearing the teaching the disciples replied in Matt 19:10: 

 “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.  

To this statement from the apostles Jesus replies in verse Matt 19:11-12, 

"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.  For there are eunuchs,[2]  which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”  

The saying that Yeshua is referring to is not his own teaching but the true understanding of the apostles.  It is better not to marry.  Jesus makes it clear that this statement of the apostles is easily received by those whom he names, those to whom it is given. We know this is referring to the apostle’s statement and not his own teaching because he immediately begins talking about Eunuchs when he had not mentioned them before. Eunuchs are the ones that Paul would have referred to as having the same gift as he did.

Problem #2:

Continuing in 1 Cor 7:20-28 (please read full context), Paul goes a little further into his counsel for the married and the unmarried alike. He touches on something that the marriage to death camp is not known for mentioning.  Here again we will find that they teach the complete opposite of what the scriptures do concerning the topic at hand.

20 “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called….” 24 “Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God…” “27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”

Here we see Paul again expounding on the teaching of Yeshua. The question that people are left with is, “What if I find myself in my second or third marriage after I have come to the knowledge of the truth and been saved?”  Paul’s counsel by permission of the Lord is to “let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called”. The teaching of Paul is in line with the teaching of Yeshua, given that the previous divorce was indeed a lawful one. We should not be led to believe that Paul would contradict Yeshua. You should not, having come to the truth, be led to divorce and abandon your family. That is not what Yeshua or his apostles taught. When people want to teach that any divorce and remarriage is forbidden they usually choose to quote from Luke.  Luke’s gospel is the more abbreviated teaching so they use this one instead of the teachings in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19.  

Anyone who has been studying the scriptures, and especially the gospels for any amount of time, should know that a basic principle is that you use the more complete account to shed light on the areas in scripture that may seem more obscure. The people who teach that remarriage is never permitted know this as well. That is why they will usually take you to Luke 16:18 which reads,

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” 

Jesus’ previous teaching is not contradicted here by Luke. Marriage to death believers would not say it contradicts, but they will argue as if Luke is contradicting Matthew.

Problem #3:

Another text that is invoked when this topic is discussed is found in Romans 7:2-3: 

 “2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.3 So then if, while her husband liveth, 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.”

It is often argued that this passage clearly teaches that the only legal reason to remarry is if the spouse is dead. What is usually done is the focus is drawn towards the death of the spouse and drawn away from the point of Paul’s teaching.  First and foremost, Paul never mentions anything about divorce in this passage. He simply says if a woman be married to another man while her husband is alive she shall be called an adulterer.  It is not hard, or even uncommon, for women to leave their husbands without obtaining a divorce and marry another man.  Everyone who knew her would call her an adulterous because she had not been released by her husband who was still alive. Of course after the husband dies there is no cause for her to be called an adulterer anymore. According to what the law teaches (Deut 24:2), if she was given a bill of divorce by the husband she could be married to another and not be rightly called an adulterer.  As another brother pointed out, "If she were divorced, according to the teaching of the law, whoever calls her an adulterer would be falsely accusing her."

Problem #5:

The same brother mentioned above pointed out something that I had not considered before.  Based on the conversations he and I have had with these individuals who misunderstand Yeshua’s teaching Deut 22:13-22 totally contradicts Deut 24.  Some of them may claim that Yeshua is teaching what was wrong with the people’s understanding of the law and that it needed to be corrected, period.  But to claim that is a bit of a stretch, for within two chapters it makes the law contradict itself.  Here is what Deut 22:13-22 states (please read full context):

 “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:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him” 22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

The brother astutely pointed out, that according to verse 22, if there were never a cause for divorce and remarriage other than death, two chapters later where remarriage is permitted (Deut 24:1-3), it would mean that the second man whom the woman married would be stoned along with her on their wedding night.  For how can a woman who was never allowed to remarry go and be another man’s wife without bringing immediate death by stoning upon both of their heads? Verse 22 obviously does not apply to Deut 24, and since that is the case, it should be clear that not all cases of remarriage are adultery. The argument that “except for fornication” is referring to the “betrothal period” raises more questions and causes more problems as you have probably already noticed.

Problem #6:

If “fornication” only referred to the woman being unfaithful during the time of betrothal, are we to believe that the woman or man whose spouse is unfaithful after years of marriage falls under a different set of rules? Not only is this illogical but the teaching is completely absent from the scriptures. Many argue that the betrothal period ends when the marriage is consummated, meaning, when the couple has sexual relations they are thereby confirmed in marriage. Do you notice the issue with claiming that the betrothal period is the only time where you can divorce? First of all, you cannot divorce someone who you are not married to. To be married, according to the people who teach “marriage to death,” is to have consummated the marriage. After that point the betrothal period is over. So in both Deut 22 and Deut 24 the man takes the wife and marries her/goes into her. The betrothal period is over at this point, by their own confession. Some may argue that he found some uncleanness in her or found she was not a virgin before they consummated the marriage. A major issue with that line of reasoning is that the two main ways to find out whether or not someone is a virgin is to have sex with them or to have someone with knowledge tell you the person is not a virgin. Which begs the question, "How would they know, have they lain with the woman?"  If they did, what does the law command them to do? If you would like to know read Deut. 22:23-29 and then ask yourself, "How likely would it have been that a man who had lain with a virgin would confess it during the time of her betrothal?"

Problem #7:

Another issue with the argument that “fornication” is only referring to the “Jewish betrothal period” is that we are led to believe the only man or woman who is able to obtain a divorce is someone who is Jewish. Did the rest of the world fall under the Jewish laws and customs?  No. So how would people who had never known or understood the “Jewish betrothal period” have understood what that meant? They most likely would not.

We have talked to multiple people who hold this doctrine about the counsel they would give to people who had been married multiple times prior to coming to the knowledge of the truth. We have received a wide range of answers.  I will take this time to address some of them.

1. One of the most common answers is usually preceded by a, “Well…. you know….,” which tells me they have some reluctance to say what they are about to say. They proceed to explain how they believe that none of the marriages after the first marriage were true marriages in the eyes of God. Therefore, if you were to ever marry again it would be to the previous spouse only. The brother I mentioned above talked with someone about this and the person boasted about how he snapped at some man telling him, “That is NOT your wife and those are NOT your kids!”

2. Believe it or not this next answer is actually one that I have read about. Some teach that marriage is a sort of a sacrament and that not even death can break its bond. Yes, that is right. Even after your spouse is dead you are not to marry as death itself is not an excuse for you to find another spouse. I am not making this up!

3. I have also heard it taught that the marriage is still a marriage yet an adulterous one that you cannot get out of. One of two things are advised by people who teach you to remain in an “adulterous marriage”. One group teaches that the husband is to find another place for either he or his family to live. He is to take care of his family from a distance and abide alone in another house of his own. Who is going to purchase a second home, second car, second stove, second refrigerator, etc? You guessed it. The man. I guess such a man can just hope and pray that he comes into a large sum of money to manage this new found financial burden.

The second group advises the man to sleep in another part of the home. He is to remain married to his wife and be a father to his children. He is forbidden from not only having sexual relations with his wife, but also from being sexually attracted to this woman whom he has been with for years. I think it is easy to see how this causes more problems than it solves, especially as it pertains to matters of the conscience. This man who has been convinced that he is not really married to this woman is instructed to remain married to her. He is to live with her, not lust after her, spend time with the children, try his hardest not to show any affection to his wife who is not his wife. Okay. Some may be thinking that he can get over that. What about how the children are being raised? Are they actually experiencing the love of a complete family? Are they learning how they should abide with their spouse should they decide to marry? Wouldn’t they begin to wonder why mommy does not ever really talk with daddy? Yes, when they are older you may be able to try and explain this whole debacle to them, but would the damage have already been done?

4. One person has suggested that not only should the man sleep in another room but that he should live in a different part of the house altogether. The same issues arise.

I always wonder though. Why do they assume that people have large houses that can be divided into two? Why do they assume that people can handle these heavy burdens being laid on them, not by Christ, but by zealots?  Who are these people who get to come up with these solutions? Did Christ or Paul instruct them what to do or are they freelancing? After talking with these people about their own lives and relationships, something dawned on me. Many of the people who hold this doctrine have never themselves had to deal with the situation they are teaching about. By the grace of God many of these individuals married their high school sweethearts. They never really experienced an ignorant and wild period of their lives where they made too many foolish mistakes.  Many of them have never been married and don’t desire to be married.

It is easy to speak about being with one person your whole life when you HAVE been with one person your whole life. It is easy to speak about being alone when you have never experiences what it is like to be with someone. One thing that is most disturbing about the arguments I hear is this - that those who don’t agree with the fallacious teaching of the “marriage to death camp,” are simply lacking self-control, don’t truly love the lord, are sex addicts and cannot give up their lusts etc. When their doctrine is met with opposition and they realize that their reasoning is not right, they resort to bully tactics. This is unfortunate for both them and others who may cross their paths.

I admire and greatly respect those who have never been married and choose to remain that way, those who have been divorced and choose to stay loosed from a spouse, those who in such a state have had a heart to honestly consider any of the options above. I admit that it takes great self-control, devotion, and determination to do any of those things. I also believe that the person who chooses to marry, is legally divorced and remarried, and the widow who has taken another husband can also possess all of these virtues. What I do not admire are those who presume to be teachers of the word wrongfully and haphazardly teaching falsehood concerning this doctrine of “marriage to death” regardless of the circumstances.

In conclusion, the teaching on marriage and divorce is a sensitive subject because we are dealing with emotions vs. truth of the scriptures. Those on both sides of the argument are prone to allowing their emotions lead them in a different direction than what the scriptures clearly teach. I believe that if we are going to get to the bottom of what the scriptures plainly teach on any given subject, we must be able to set our emotions aside for the sake of reasoning with one another. Understanding how sensitive a subject this is in our day, those who endeavor to teach the word of God must handle it with care and faithfulness. We must never allow for favoritism to creep into our hearts, a preference of one translation/text above another simply because it favors our preconceived notion, nor should we allow for any of the holy men of the scriptures to teach things contradictory one to another. Anytime we find someone guilty of doing any of these things, a red flag should go up. It is an obvious sign that the person is out to win an emotional argument instead of trying to reason and come to the truth. Such an attitude stems from pride. The doctrine of divorce and remarriage is not a hard doctrine to understand or accept if you have a love for the truth and a heart determined to follow the Lord. Simple teachings like this become complicated when professing teachers neglect to do due diligence in studying the word. Yeshua’s teaching on the topic is this: Any man who divorces his wife for any other reason than sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery in the event that she goes and marries another. The man to whom she would go would also be guilty of adultery seeing as the wife was not divorced for a legal reason. While some would not apply the “except for sexual immorality” to the remarriage part of Yeshua’s teaching, it is clear from the scriptures that Yeshua himself did mean for the exception to apply to remarriage as well. If this was not his intention then he would not have mentioned remarriage at all. It would have been enough to say that “whoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery.” This is how his teaching has been interpreted but it is clearly not what Yeshua taught.

I pray that those who presume to teach God’s word would do so faithfully and not slothfully. I also pray that those who, previous to knowing this truth, who divorced and remarried would heed the teaching of Christ and not put away their wives for any reason than sexual immorality, and even in such cases would make divorce the FINAL option. There are other options than divorce and just because Yeshua gives permission, it does not mean that it is commanded to divorce one who has been unfaithful. Those who are in covenant marriages in the Lord should not even have divorce on their minds. If you both are Disciples of Christ, then your mindset should be, from the start that, “divorce is not an option”.  If any brother or sister should find themselves in a situation where they feel they cannot bear the infidelity, abuse, neglect, perversion, or ungodliness in a marriage any longer, then I would suggest a time of separation in hopes that your spouse would come to their senses or come to the Lord. Divorce has finality to it that separation does not.  For that reason I would not counsel any brother or sister to hastily divorce their spouse no matter what the situation might be. I pray that those reading would be encouraged to seek after the Lord more diligently and also to remain faithful to him in all things. God bless you all.

______________________________________

Quotable:

In his commentary on Matthew John Gill writes 5:33 “Christ does not infringe, or revoke the original grant, or permission of divorce; only frees it from the false interpretations, and ill use, the Pharisees made of it; and restores the ancient sense of it, in which only it was to be understood: for a divorce was allowable in no case, saving for the cause of fornication; which must not be taken strictly for what is called fornication, but as including adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation; and is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Hillell: who admitted of divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous pretences whatever; when Shammai and his followers insisted on it, that a man ought only to put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ. For so it is written`The house of Shammai say, a man may not put away his wife, unless he finds some uncleanness in her, according to ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) The house of Hillell say, if she should spoil his food, (that is, as Jarchi and Bartenora explain it, burns it either at the fire, or with salt, i.e. over roasts or over salts it,) who appeal also to ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) . R. Akiba says, if he finds another more beautiful than her, as it is said, ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) "and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes. The commentators F11 on this passage say that the determination of the matter is, according to the school of Millell; so that, according to them, a woman might be put away for a very trivial thing: some difference is made by some of the Jewish doctors, between a first and second wife; the first wife, they say F12, might not be put away, but for adultery; but the second might be put away, if her husband hated her; or she was of ill behaviour, and impudent, and not modest, as the daughters of Israel. Now our Lord says, without any exception, that a man ought not to put away his wife, whether first or second, for any other reason than uncleanness; and that whoever does, upon any other account, causeth her to commit adultery; that is, as much as in him lies: should she commit it, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man; and it may be added, from ( Matthew 19:9 ) that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, would be guilty of the same crime.”

Anabaptist teaching:

What is a Marriage?  A marriage is a covenant relationship between two people that is recognized by the society in which they live.  There are three types of marriages:  (1)  A marriage of a man and a woman, both believers and followers of the Lord Jesus, that occurred in the Church in accordance with the Word of God and is approved by God.   (2)  A marriage of a man and a woman who were not followers of the Lord Jesus at the time of the marriage but, being of sound mind and free to marry, have, of their own free will, made vows of fidelity with each other.  Such a marriage may be recognized by God as a valid marriage in his sight.  (3)  A union of two people in circumstances other than above.  This could include marriages between close relatives, bigamous marriages, homosexual marriages, forced marriages, marriages involving an underage, or mentally ill or drugged person or marriages involving a person who is not free to marry.  Such a union is not recognized by God as a marriage.     The Jews in the Old Testament were given a number of rules to determine a valid marriage, such as involving close relatives, violated women, divorced wives and marriages to slaves and foreign women.  Note that divorce and bigamy was allowed.  The New Testament has a little to say about what constitutes a valid marriage, one is that a church leader must have been married only once.     All people, believers and unbelievers alike, are created by God.  Are only marriages between believers put together by God?  No, God loves all that he has created, he created the world and placed man in it according to his plan, and his plan was and is that his will should be done on earth as it is in heaven.  As his will extends even to the smallest things, it surely includes determining who should marry who.  However, as we well know, God has given man a choice to obey or disobey God and man's choice is all too often not in accordance with God's will.   Are all marriages that are recognized by society or the government also recognized by God? No, for there are many situations where people marry, even homosexual marriages, that are legal in the eyes of the government but obviously have not been put together by God. This is a key point in understanding divorce and remarriage.

Four Points Concerning Divorce and Remarriage  Let us examine the following four points to see if they are supported in the Word of God:   (1)  Godly marriages, marriages approved or recognized by God, are considered to be put together by God and are permanent while both are still living (Luke 20:34-36); therefore remarriage results in adultery (Mt 19:9).   (2)  However, ungodly marriages, couples joined together outside of the providence of God, are not marriages in his sight; therefore a civil divorce and a new marriage that has been put together by God is allowed. An ungodly marriage may be just two people living together in fornication, regardless of the legal status given by the government or the society in which they live.  (3)  The Church, guided by the Word of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit, is the final judge of whether or not a marriage is of God; however, in gray areas of remarriage, the Church must consider the belief of the couple as to whether their previous marriage was of God or not.  In many cases it will be obvious that the marriage must have been put together by God.     (4)  The Church, guided by the Word of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit, has the power to declare a marriage godly, even if one or both were involved in a previous ungodly marriage (Mt 18:18).

God’s Toleration  What do we see here in this teaching of the Lord Jesus concerning marriage and divorce? For one thing, we see that God has tolerance for the weaknesses of mankind as he did allow divorce. Is there any other area of human activity where God is so tolerant? Has his tolerance ended? Consider that Jesus said, "Let anyone accept this who can."

Godly Marriage  Another item to note is that Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let no one separate." If all couples were joined together by God, then he would not have need to say this, but since he did, he is saying that only those that are joined together by God should not be separated by man. This obviously implies that those couples that are not joined together by God can be separated.

Ungodly Marriage  What is an ungodly marriage?  Any marriage that has not been put together by God.  Take, for example, homosexual marriages, are they joined together by God? We would all say a loud NO. But now there is an effort to make homosexual marriages legal in some states. If they become legal in the eyes of the state, will they become legal in the eyes of God, who is higher than the state? Of course not, we will loudly say. If a homosexual legally married to another homosexual later divorces, repents of his sin, and joins the Church, can he be married in the eyes of God? We would obviously say yes as we did not recognize the homosexual marriage, even though it may be valid in the eyes of the state, it was not valid in the eyes of God.     What about heterosexual unions that are questionable? Take the case of a child bride, which is legal in some countries. Her parents marry her off to an adult man in exchange for money or other advantages. The child bride has no say in the matter and may be too young to really know what is going on. Is that couple joined together by God and their marriage valid in God’s eyes? We would probably say no, it is not.

Ante Nicene Quotes:

Tertullian writes on divorce in A.D. 207 and says: "I maintain, then, that there was condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery, put away," that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced.  Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself?”

He later states circa  A.D. 217

"If you are bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed. If you have been loosed from a wife, do not seek a wife. But even if you have taken a wife, you have not sinned." [1 Cor. 7:27, 28]. He says that because to a man who had been loosed from a wife prior to his believing [in Christ], his wife will not be counted as a "second wife." Because she is his first wife after his believing.”

Methodius writes in A.D. 290:

"To the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they can remain even as I am. But if they cannot contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn." Here Paul also persisted in giving the preference to continence....He challenged his hearers to this state of life, teaching that it was better that a man who had been bound to one wife should from then on remain single, just as he did. On the other hand,... on account of the strength of animal passion, Paul allows "by permission" one who is in such a condition to contract a second marriage.... He allows a second marriage to those who are burdened with the disease of the passions, lest they should be wholly defiled by fornication.”

___________________________

[1]  Betrothed- 3565. numphe noom-fay' from a primary but obsolete verb nupto (to veil as a bride; compare Latin "nupto," to marry); a young married woman (as veiled), including a betrothed girl; by implication, a son's wife:--bride, daughter in law. (Equivalent to our fiancé or engagement period)

[2] Eunuch- Heb 2135 eunouchos yoo-noo'-khos from eune (a bed) and 2192; a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by implication, a chamberlain (state-officer):--eunuch.