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.

Jesus Just a Piece of Flesh?

The Oneness doctrine that Oneness Pentecostals hold to is just as awful as the Trinity doctrine. With the Trinity doctrine we have 3 Gods, which consists of three “persons” that supposedly makes up one God. The Oneness Pentecostal doctrine (which is Modalism or Sabellianism) has one God as a single person who has revealed himself in three modes or forms. Both doctrines adopt each other’s language and pet scripture verses to prove their doctrine that Jesus is God.

What both doctrines do is reduce Jesus the Messiah to a piece of flesh who did not really exist as a total human being. In other words, according to both these doctrines, God needed a piece of flesh to clothe or robe himself in to walk and speak through. This boils down to being no different than God using Balaam’s ass, a piece of flesh!

Oneness and Trinitarians say it was Jesus’ flesh that was crucified; it was the flesh part that died, and it was Jesus’ flesh that was in the tomb, all this nonsensical language just to try and prove Jesus is God. Oh wow! How thoughtful to accept and believe a lie served to us on a silver platter from the enemy to turn us away from the teachings of Jesus that leave us without the Son and the Father! (2 John 1:9)

How can we ever appreciate God when we deny the true humanity of Christ and what he did for us? There is no problem understanding the scriptures that plainly show us the Father is the only true God and Jesus the Messiah is his Son (John 17:3; John 20:17, etc.).

No, Jesus is not God, but he is everything to God!

Jesus the Eternal or Everlasting Father??

Trinitarian advocates like to use Isa. 9:6 to prove Jesus is God because of the use of Mighty God and Everlasting Father.

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Trinitarians are not really consistent. They will tell you themselves that they do not believe Jesus is the eternal Father, but the eternal Son. It just goes to show that they too would argue that this name should not be taken in a strict literal sense.

Nor does the verse prove Jesus is the Father for the Oneness Pentecostals. There are many who bore names that included the word God (Heb. El or Yah). Eliab means “My God Father”; Jehoram means “Yahweh Exalted”; Ithiel means “God with Me”; and Isaiah means“Salvation of Yahweh."

Furthermore, in the bible a human being can be called "God" if he represents God to the people. Moses was God to Pharoah (Ex. 7:1). In Ps. 45:6-7, Solomon refers to someone as God ("Therefore God, your God..."). The judges of Israel are called Gods (Ps. 82:6), and Jesus brought this to the Pharisees attention when THEY accused him of calling himself God. 

Having a name or title does not necessarily describe the person. However, we do know for sure there is only one true God and that is the Father. (Isa. 64:8; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3)

God Manifest in the Flesh?

Trinity and Oneness (Modalism) advocates like to use 1 Tim. 3:16 to prove Jesus is God. It reads like this in the KJB,

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

First thing we need to know is, the word “God/theos” was forged into a small number of Greek texts around the 4th century. The KJB is based on corrupted manuscripts here.

Since I am not a Greek scholar and don’t know the Greek language (as many of you), let’s approach this verse anyway with a common sense approach, putting aside the indoctrination that has been handed down to us.

The verses says, “Great is the MYSTERY OF GODLINESS.” “Godliness” means “righteousness,” as in “godly” or “piety.” Paul is not saying Jesus is God incarnate nor that it is a mystery who God is. Paul certainly knew who God was (Phil. 4:19).

Jer 9:24 says, “But let him who boasts boast in this, that he UNDERSTANDS and KNOWS me…”

It’s an insult to God who made us his children that He would not give us enough intelligence to know who He is.

Also, if we go to 2 Cor. 4:11, Paul uses similar terminology “For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of JESUS might be made MANIFEST in our mortal flesh.” Does this make us Christ?

Folks, it’s not a mystery who God is. Anything we want to know about God starts on the first page of the bible to the last page of the bible.

Even if Paul did say “God” was manifest in the flesh, this still does not make Jesus God Almighty.

It is a fact that Jesus manifest the Father in his own life. He was the express image of the Father and we know an image is not the original but a representative or likeness of the original. That’s why Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” He he did not say, “He who has seen me has seen the Father because I am the Father.”

John 1:1 Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)

"In the beginning was the word" does not mean "In the beginning was the Son" 

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew [1] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified [i.e. he gave them glory in intention, not yet in reality] (Rom. 8:28-30; cf. Eph. 1:3-10). 

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenlies with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. He predestined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the one he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will [the mystery of the Kingdom] according to his good pleasure which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment — to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ (Eph. 1:3-10). 

But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to ransom those who are under the Law in order that we might receive the full status of sons. To show that you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, an heir also, by God’s own act (Gal. 4:4-7, Translators’ Translation). 

God has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel (2 Tim. 1:9, 10). 

In the hope of the life of the age to come which God who cannot lie promised before aionion times but at the proper time manifested, namely his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted (Titus 1:2, 3a). 

John and the Preexistent Purpose of God 

      One day a theological storm is likely to erupt over the translation of John’s prologue in our standard versions. At present the public is offered a wide range of renderings, from the purely literal to the freely paraphrased. But do these translations represent John’s intention? Or are they traditional, based on what “everyone accepts”? Have they sometimes served as a weapon in the hands of Christian orthodoxy to enforce the decisions of post-biblical creeds and councils? The seeker after Truth of the Berean style (Acts 17:11) should investigate all things carefully. 

      According to the findings of a recent monumental study of the origin of Christ in the Bible, Bible readers instinctively hear the text of John 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God,” or “In the beginning was the Son and the Son was with the Father…”[2] 

      This reading of the passage provides vital support for the traditional doctrine of the Godhead, shared equally by Father and Son from eternity. Paraphrased versions sometimes go far beyond the Greek original. The Contemporary English Version interprets John to mean that two beings were present at the beginning. “The Word was the One who was with God.” No doubt, according to that translation, the Word would be equivalent to an eternal Son. It would certainly be understood in that sense by those schooled on the post-biblical creeds. 

    But why, Kuschel asks, do readers leap from “word” to “Son”? The text simply reads, “In the beginning was the word,” not “In the beginning was the Son.” The substitution of “Son” for “word,” which for millions of readers appears to be an automatic reflex, has had dramatic consequences. It has exercised a powerful, even mesmerizing influence on Bible readers. But the text does not warrant the switch. Again, John wrote: “In the beginning was the word.” He did not say, “In the beginning was the Son of God.” There is, in fact, no direct mention of the Son of God until we come to verse 14, where “the word [not the Son] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of a unique Son, full of grace and truth.” Until verse 14 there is no mention of a Son. The Son is what the word became, but what is the word? 

    Imagine I told my child, “Our car was once in the head of its designer, and now here it is in our garage.” The child might respond: “How could that car fit into the head of the designer? It would be too big.” Fair point, but based on a large misunderstanding. The application to our problem in John 1:1 is simply this: The fact that the word became the man Jesus, the Son of God, does not necessarily or automatically imply that Jesus, the Son of God is one-to-one equivalent to the word before Jesus’ birth. What if the word, the self-expression of God, became embodied in, was manifested in, the man Jesus? That makes very good sense of John 1:14. It also avoids the fearful, never-resolved complexities of Trinitarianism by which there are two or three who are fully and equally God. If our theory is right, John will have been speaking about a preexisting divine Purpose, not a second divine person. 

    It is commonly known to Bible readers that in Proverbs 8 wisdom was “with [Hebrew, etzel; LXX, para] God.” That is to say, God’s wisdom is personified. It is treated as if it were a person, not that Lady Wisdom was really a female personage alongside God. We accept this sort of language, usually without any confusion. We do not suppose that Prudence, who is said to be dwelling with Wisdom (Prov. 8:12), was herself literally a person. When the famous St. Louis Arch was finally completed after several years of construction a documentary film announced that “the plan had become flesh.” The plan, in other words, was now in physical form. But the arch is not one-to-one equivalent with the plans on the drawing board. The arch is made of concrete; the plans were drawn on paper. 

The Misleading Capital on “Word” 

    Here is a very remarkable and informative fact: If one had a copy of an English Bible in any of the eight English versions available prior to 1582, one would gain a very different sense from the opening verses of John: “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. All things came into being through it, and without it nothing was made that was made.” 

    “All things came into being through it [the word],” not “through him.” And so those English versions did not rush to the conclusion, as does the King James Version of 1611 (influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims version, 1582) and its followers, that the word was a person, the Son, before the birth of Jesus. If all things were made through “the word,” as an “it,” a quite different meaning emerges. The “word” would not be a second person existing alongside God the Father from eternity. The result: one of the main planks of traditional systems about members in the Godhead would be removed. 

    There is more to be said about that innocent sentence: “In the beginning was the word.” There is no justification in the original Greek for placing a capital “W” on “word,” and thus inviting readers to think of a person. That is an interpretation imposed on the text, added to what John wrote. But was that what he intended? The question is, what would John and his readers understand by “word”? Quite obviously there are echoes of Genesis 1:1ff here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...and God said [using His word], ‘Let there be light.’ ” “God said” means “God uttered His word,” the medium of His creative activity, His powerful utterance. Psalm 33:6 had provided commentary on Genesis: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made.” And so in John 1:1 God expressed His intention, His word, His self-revealing, creative utterance. But absolutely nothing in the text, apart from the intrusive capital letter on “word” in our versions, turning word into a proper noun, would make us think that God was in company with another person or Son. The word which God spoke was in fact just “the word of God,” the expression of Himself. And one’s word is not another person, obviously. 

The Meaning of “Word” 

    Sensible Bible study would require that we attempt to understand what “word” would mean in the background of John’s thinking. Commentators have long recognized that John is thoroughly Hebrew in his approach to theology. He is steeped in the Hebrew Bible. “Word” had appeared some 1,450 times (plus the verb “to speak” 1,140 times) in the Hebrew Bible known so well to John and Jesus. The standard meaning of “word” is utterance, promise, command, etc. It never meant a personal being — never “the Son of God.” Never did it mean a spokesman. Rather, word generally signified the index of the mind — an expression, a word. There is a wide range of meanings for “word” according to a standard source. “Person,” however, is not among these meanings. 

The noun davar [word] occurs some 1455 times...In legal contexts it means dispute (Ex. 18:16, 19; 24:14), accusation, verdict, claim, transfer and provision...[otherwise] request, decree, conversation, report, text of a letter, lyrics of a song, promise, annals, event, commandment, plan (Gen. 41:37; II Sam. 17:14; II Chron. 10:4; Esther 2:2; Ps. 64:5, 6; Isa. 8:10), language...Dan. 9:25: decree of a king; [also:] thing, matter or event. Of particular theological significance is the phrase “the word of the Lord/God came to...”...In Jud. 3:19-21 Ehud delivers a secret message (i.e. a sword to kill him)...Yahweh commands the universe into existence. Yahweh tells the truth so everyone can rely on Him. The word of the Lord has power because it is an extension of Yahweh’s knowledge, character and ability. Yahweh knows the course of human events. Similarly human words reflect human nature (“the mouth speaks from the abundance of the heart/mind”)...Words are used for good or evil purposes (Prov. 12:6)...Words can cheer, correct and calm.[3] 

    We might add that “As a man thinks in his heart [and speaks] so is he” (Prov. 23:7). A person “is” his word. “In the beginning there was the word,” that is, the word of God. Clearly John did not say that the word was a spokesperson. Word had never meant that. Of course the word can become a spokesperson, and it did when God expressed Himself in a Son by bringing Jesus onto the scene of history. So then Hebrews 1:2 says: “God, after He had spoken long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, at the end of these days has spoken in a Son.” The implication is that God did not earlier speak through His unique Son, but later He did. There is an important chronological distinction between the time before the Son and the time after the Son. There was a time when the Son was not yet. 

    It would be a serious mistake of interpretation to discard the massively attested meaning of “word” in the Hebrew matrix from which John wrote and attach to it a meaning it never had — a “person,” second member of a divine Trinity. No lexicon of the Hebrew Bible ever listed davar (Hebrew for “word”) as a person, God, angel or man. 

The Word “With God” 

    John’s prologue continues: “And the word was with God.” So read our versions. And so the Greek might be rendered, if one has already decided, against all the evidence, that by “word” John meant a person, the Son of God, alive before his birth. 

    Allowance must be made for Hebrew idiom. Without a feel for the Hebrew background, as so often in the New Testament, we are deprived of a vital key to understanding. We might ask of an English speaker, “When was your word last ‘with you’?” The plain fact is that in English, which is not the language of the Bible, a “word” is never “with” you. A person can be “with you,” certainly, but not a word. 

    But in the wisdom literature of the Bible a “word” certainly can be “with” a person. And the meaning is that a plan or purpose — a word — is kept in one’s heart ready for execution. For example Job says to God (10:13): “Yet these things you have concealed in your heart; I know that this is with you.” The NASV gives a more intelligible sense in English by reading, “ I know that this is within you.” The NIV reads “in your mind.” But the Hebrew literally reads “with you.” Again in Job 23:13, 14 it is said of God, “What his soul desires, that he does, for he performs what is appointed for me, and many such decrees are with him,” meaning, of course, that God’s plans are stored up in His mind. God’s word is His intention, held in His heart as plans to be carried out in the world He has created. Sometimes what God has “with Him” is the decree He has planned. With this we may compare similar thoughts: “This is the portion of a wicked man with God and the inheritance which tyrants receive from Him” (Job 27:13). “I will instruct you in the power of God; what is with the Almighty I will not conceal” (Job 27:11). 

    We should also consider the related concept of “Wisdom.” In Job we find this: “The deep says ‘It [Wisdom] is not in me.’ And the sea says, ‘It is not with me’ ” (Job 28:14). To have wisdom or word “with” one is to have them in one’s mind and heart. “With him is wisdom and strength. To him belong counsel and understanding” (Job 12:13). And of course Wisdom, that is Lady Wisdom, was with (Hebrew, etzel; LXX, para) God at the beginning (Prov. 8:22, 30). 

    In Genesis 40:14 we read “Keep me in mind when it goes well with you,” and the text reads literally “Remember me with yourself...” From all these examples it is clear that if something is “with” a person, it is lodged in the mind, often as a decreed purpose or plan. Paul remarked in Galatians 2:5 that the Gospel might continue “with [pros] them,” in their thinking. John in his Gospel elsewhere usespara, not pros to express the proximity of one person to another (John 1:39; 4:40; 8:38; 14:17, 23, 25; 19:25; cp. 14:23. Note also meta in John 3:22, 25ff, etc. See New Int. Dict. of NT Theology, Vol. 3, p. 1205). 

    Thus also in John 1:1, “In the beginning God had a plan and that plan was within God’s heart and was itself ‘God’ ” — that is, God in His self-revelation. The plan was the very expression of God’s will. It was a divine Plan, reflective of His inner being, close to the heart of God. John is fond of the word “is.” But it is not always an “is” of strict identity. Jesus “is” the resurrection (“I am the resurrection”). God “is” spirit. God “is” love and light (cp. “All flesh is grass”). In fact, God is not actually one-to-one identical with light and love, and Jesus is not literally the resurrection. “The word was God” means that the word was fully expressive of God’s mind. A person “is” his mind, metaphorically speaking. Jesus is the one who can bring about our resurrection. God communicates through His spirit (John 4:24). The word is the index of God’s intention and purpose. It was in His heart, expressive of His very being. As the Translators’ Translation senses the meaning, “the Word was with God and shared his nature,” “the Word was divine.”[4] The word, then, is the divine expression, the divine Plan, the very self of God revealed. The Greek phrase “theos een o logos”[5] (“the word was God”) can be rendered in different ways. The subject is “word” (logos) but the emphasis falls on what the word was: “God” (theos, with no definite article), which stands at the head of the sentence. “God” here is the predicate. It has a slightly adjectival sense which is very hard to put exactly into English. John can say that God is love or light. This is not an exact equivalence. God is full of light and love, characterized by light and love. The word is similarly a perfect expression of God and His mind. The word, we might say, is the mind and heart of God Himself. John therefore wrote: “In the beginning God expressed Himself.” Not “In the beginning God begat a Son.” That imposition of later creeds on the text has been responsible for all sorts of confusion and even mischief — when some actually killed others over the issue of the so-called “eternal Son.” 

A Disturbance of Monotheism 

    The great difficulty which faces those who say that there was a “God the Father” in heaven while “God the Son” was on earth is that this implies two Gods! There was, on that theory, a God who did not become the Son and a God who became the Son. This dissolves the unity of God. It undermines and compromises the first commandment: “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One Lord ” (Mark 12:29). It also flies in the face of the great statement of Isaiah that God was unaccompanied as the Creator. “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth — Who was with me?’ ” (Isa. 44:24). 

    Of course, if one has taken a first false step by assuming that the “word” in the beginning was “the Son,” then the phrase “the word was God” can only confirm the impression that there are two members of the Godhead, both of whom are somehow One God. However problematic and illogical this leap into a duality in God may be, Bible readers have been conditioned to make that leap painlessly. They have made that leap despite the impossibility of understanding John 1:1c to mean “and the Son was the Father.” No Trinitarian believes that, but to avoid it he must assign a different meaning to the word God in John 1:1c than he has given it in 1b, where he instinctively hears “and the Son was with God [= the Father].” But the whole idea of a duality of persons in John’s prologue contradicts Isaiah’s statement that no one was with the Lord in the beginning. [6] That fact in itself should have prevented translators from thinking that “word” was another person alongside the Lord God. Moreover, any introduction of a second divine being into John’s prologue is at the cost of contradicting what Jesus later said. Jesus elsewhere proves himself to be a staunch believer in the unitary monotheism (God is one person) of the great Jewish heritage. Addressing the Father, Jesus says unequivocally, “You, Father, are the only one who is truly God,” “the only true God,” “the one who alone is truly God” (John 17:3). 

    J.A.T. Robinson writes, “John is as undeviating a witness as any in the New Testament to the fundamental tenet of Judaism, of unitary monotheism (cp. Rom. 3:30; James 2:19). There is one true and only God (John 5:44; 17:3). Everything else is idols (1 John 5:20)...Jesus refuses the claim to be God (John 10:33).” 

Unitary Monotheism is Not Abandoned by John or Jesus 

    We really do not need an army of experts to help us understand that simple sentence. Jesus refers again to the Father as “the one who alone is God” (John 5:44). These are echoes of the pure, strict monotheism of the Hebrew Bible and thus of the Jews for centuries. God remains in the New Testament “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3; Rev. 1:6). Jesus had, and has, a God, and Jesus’ God is the Father, the one and only God of John 17:3. How exactly like the Old Testament: “Have we not all One Father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal. 2:5). “You are great. You alone are God” (Ps. 86:10). “You alone whose name is the Lord are the Most High over all the earth” (Ps. 83:18). How beautifully this harmonizes with Paul’s great creedal declaration: “For us Christians there is one God, the Father, and none other than he” (see 1 Cor. 8:4, 6). That too is an unambiguous statement about how many persons there are in the Godhead: only one. 

Jesus is Lord 

    Theology has tragically tried to disturb this simple Truth. It has been argued that Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is called “one Lord.” Certainly he is, but if the Father is “the only one who is truly God” (John17:3), [7] logically it is impossible for Jesus also to be that one God. Jesus is indeed the unique lord, but in what sense? “Lord” in what sense? This is where the celebrated Psalm 110:1 comes in to reveal precious truth to us. That verse wins the prize for being the most frequently mentioned Old Testament verse in the New Testament. It is referred to some 23 times and by implication many times more. In that Psalm the one God, Yahweh, speaks to David’s lord, in the Hebrew “adonee.” Now “adonee” appears 195 times in the Old Testament and never refers to the one God. The custodians of the text carefully distinguish between the “God-Lord” and all other superiors. The Lord God is called adonai 449 times (all of its occurrences) while human (and very occasionally angelic) superiors are called lord (adonee). Once again the translators took liberties and put a capital letter in English for “lord” in Psalm 110:1 — and only in that verse did they capitalize “lord” when translated from adonee. The RV, RSV, NRSV, NAB corrected the mistake and wrote correctly “lord.” Jesus is the one Lord Messiah (Luke 2:11). To give him his full title he is “the Lord Jesus Messiah,” “the Lord Messiah, Jesus.” But he is not the Lord God since there is only one in that category (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6). How fearfully complex and illogical it is to have one God the Father in heaven while supposedly another, who is equally the one God, walks on earth. Would that not be two Gods? How impossibly difficult it would be to imagine that the Lord Messiah who expressly said that he did not know certain things was actually at the same moment the Almighty, omniscient, omnipresent God of the Universe. On that amazing theory, the speechless baby in the manger was also at the same time upholding the universe with his unlimited powers. To that sort of imaginative fantasy the church has been committed for too long. 

John 1:1, 14 — The Wisdom and Word of God Expressed 

    We propose that John’s meaning is as follows: 

In the beginning there was a divine word and it was stored in God’s heart and was his own creative self-expression. All things came into being through that divine word and without it nothing was made that was made...And the word/plan became flesh — was realized in a human person and dwelt among us. 

That living expression of God’s intimate purpose for mankind was Jesus Christ, the human person supernaturally conceived as the Son of God. Jesus is thus the expression, as Paul said, of the wisdom of God, “that hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world to our glory” (1 Cor. 2:7). Jesus thought of his own activity as the expression of wisdom, with which he equates himself: “I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes...” (Matt. 23:34). The same saying is reported by Luke: “For this reason the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and Apostles...’” (Luke 11:49). Jesus is indeed the expression of “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 2:24). 

    This understanding of John 1 reflects exactly the Jewish background to the New Testament. At Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls), Jews wrote, “By God's knowledge everything has been brought into being. And everything that is God established by His purpose, and apart from Him nothing is done” (1 QS XI.11). Jews and the Jewish Christian, John, equated knowledge, wisdom and word, meaning God's grand scheme for the universe and the salvation of mankind. Professor C.B. Caird of Oxford University wrote, “The Jews had believed only in the preexistence of a personification. Wisdom was a personification, either of a divine attribute, or of a divine purpose, but never a person. Neither the fourth Gospel nor Hebrews speaks of the eternal Word or Wisdom of God in terms which compel us to regard it as a person.” God’s plan and intention was realized in the human being Jesus who was supernaturally begotten, coming into existence as the Son of God. 

The Views of Modern Scholars 

    Contemporary scholars are coming to the same conclusion about John’s opening words. Here are some renderings of John 1:1, 14 and comments which do not require the word to be a person before the birth of Jesus. 

In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine wisdom and word was there with God and it was what God was. (The Complete Gospels)[8] 

In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God and the Message was deity. He was with God in the beginning. (Simple English Bible) 

At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. (Phillips New Testament in Plain English)[9] 

In the beginning was the Word (the Logos, the expressed concept, here personified). (The Authentic New Testament)[10] 

In the beginning was God’s purpose, and this purpose was revealed in a historical encounter.[11] 

“The Word,” said John, “became flesh.” We could put it in another way — “the Mind of God became a person.” [12] 

C.C. Torrey translates John 1:1c, “the word was god.”[13] The professor aims with this rendering to tell us that the word has the quality of God but is not identical with God. His sensitivity to the nuances of the Greek is shared by James Denny who discussed the clause “The word was God”: 

As for your remark that you missed an unequivocal statement that Jesus is God, I feel inclined to say that such a statement seems unattractive to me just because it is impossible to make it unequivocal. It is not the true way to say a true thing...The NT says that theos een o logos [the word was God], but it does not say o logos een o theos [the word was the one God], and it is this last which is really suggested to the English mind by “Jesus is God”...Probably the aversion I have to such an expression as Jesus is God is linguistic as much as theological. We are so thoroughly monotheistic now that the word God, to put it pedantically, has ceased to be an appellative and has become a proper noun: it identifies the being to whom it is applied so that it can stand as the subject of a sentence. In Greek, in the first century, it was quite different. You could say then “Jesus is Theos.” But the English equivalent of that is not “Jesus is God” (with a capital G), but, I say it as a believer in his true deity, Jesus is god (with a small g) — not a god, but a being in whom is the nature of the One God...Jesus is God is the same thing as Jesus=God. Jesus is a man as well as God, in some ways therefore both less and more than God; and consequently a form of proposition which in our idiom suggests inevitably the precise equivalence of Jesus and God does some injustice to the truth.[14] 

A most enlightening comment comes from Dr. Norman Kraus. Dr. Kraus commends the translation of J.B. Phillips in John 1:1 and deplores the rendering of the Living Bible which gives the impression that Jesus himself was alive before his birth. [15] He says, 

The Word expressed in Jesus is the self-expression of God. Thus John tells us that from the beginning God is a self-expressive God, not transcendent and aloof as in the Greek Neo-Platonic philosophical thought which greatly influenced the orthodoxy of the fourth and fifth centuries. God is not hidden, revealing His will only in written form as in Islam’s Koran. Neither is He the silent reality which can be discovered only in the discipline of meditation beyond all human rationality as in the practice of zazen [in Buddhism]. How different the whole meaning of John’s Gospel would be if the first verse read: In the beginning was satori(enlightenment).[16] 

It is interesting that a translation was made as early as 1795, by Gilbert Wakefield, which rendered John 1:3, 4: “All things were made by it and without it was nothing made.” The same translation rendered the first verse of John 1: “In the beginning was Wisdom.” There is no doubt that from the point of view of Jewish background, Wisdom and Word carried similar meanings. 

A distinguished member of the team of scholars who produced the Revised Version of the Bible (1881) noted that “word” means “Divine Thought manifested in a human form in Jesus Christ.” He rendered verse 3: “In it was the life and the light of men.”[17] 

A leading British expert on the texts of the Bible, Dr. Hort, admitted that even in John’s Gospel there is no clear statement that the Son of God existed before his historical birth in Bethlehem: “An antecedent [i.e., preexistent] Fatherhood and Sonship within the Godhead, as distinguished from the manifested Sonship in the Incarnation is nowhere enunciated by John in express words.”[18] 

These examples from the pens of leading Christian analysts of the Bible show that it is entirely legitimate to think of “word” as God’s utterance, not His Son at that stage of history. The Son is in fact what the word became. Thus the Son is the visible human expression of God’s pre-planned purpose. There was no Son of God until the Messiah was conceived in history. Before that God had His Design and Plan “with Him,” in His heart. 

When Did the Son of God Begin to Exist? 

    Luke had no doubt about the reason and basis for Jesus being entitled to be called the “Son of God.” It was as a consequence of the supernatural miracle wrought in the womb of Mary that Jesus is truly “the Son of God.” “For that reason indeed [dio kai] he will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Luke/Gabriel did not believe in an eternal or preexisting Son. The Son was supernaturally conceived in history when Mary became pregnant. Matthew was careful to note that what occurred in the womb of Mary was the creation, the coming into existence, the begetting of the Son of God. He was not begotten before that miraculous moment. Matthew 1:20 states that “what is begotten [i.e., describing the Father's procreative act, wrongly rendered “conceived” in many versions] in her is from the holy spirit.” At that moment, and not before, God became the Father of the unique Son, Jesus. 

    Luke 1:35 informs us that this creative act of God brought into existence the Son of God. There was therefore no Son of God until the miracle which God performed in Mary. The Son of God was begotten by the Father when Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, was six months pregnant. Professor Caird comments correctly: “What Luke is here concerned to tell us is that Jesus entered upon the status of Sonship at his birth by a new creative act of that same Holy Spirit which at the beginning had brooded over the waters of chaos. It is this new creation which is the real miracle of Jesus' birth and the real theme of Gabriel's annunciation and Mary's wondering awe.” 

    Other New Testament writers proclaim the same truth about how God finally spoke in a Son in New Testament times. Jesus is the fulfillment of the greatest of all God’s promises: Paul wrote to Titus (1:2) about “the knowledge of the truth...in the hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie promised long ages ago, but at the proper time manifested, namely his word in the proclamation [Gospel].” Salvation comes to us “according to His own purpose which was granted to us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed, by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:9). 

Luke and Paul are in perfect agreement about the origin of the Son of God. He is a supernaturally created human being originating in time in the womb of Mary. Thus Paul carefully writes in Galatians 4:4 of the Son, that he “came into existence (genomenos)” of a woman. Paul chooses not to use the normal word for “born” (gennao). He stresses the fact that the Son came into existence at his birth. In the 50s AD Paul was already fending off any notion that the Son did not have his beginning in the womb of his mother. After all, a person who is pre-human is non-human. One is what one is, according to one's origin. The whole point about the Messiah, Son of God, is that he is a member of the human race. As God created Adam, son of God, from the dust (Luke 3:38), Jesus was created in his mother's womb by miracle. 

F.F. Bruce and Professor Don Cupitt 

The noted Bible scholar F.F. Bruce questions the traditional translation of John 1:1 with these words: “On the preexistence question, one can at least accept the preexistence of the eternal Word or Wisdom of God, which (who?) became incarnate in Jesus.”[19] 

Professor Cupitt of Cambridge writes: 

John’s words ought to be retranslated: “The Word was with God the Father and the Word was the Father’s own Word,” to stress that the Word is not an independent divine being, but is the only God’s own self-expression. If all this is correct, then even John’s language about Jesus still falls within the scope of the King-ambassador model.[20] 

      The considered views of these leading Christian thinkers show that it is sufficient to think of “word” as God’s utterance, not His Son prior to the begetting of the Son in Mary. On this model, the Son is in fact what the word became.[21] The Son does not preexist as Son. The Son is the visible human expression of God’s pre-ordained purpose. There was no Son of God until the Messiah was conceived in history. Before that God had His Design and Plan “with Him,” as the basis of His whole intention for creation and for mankind. On this understanding the Messiah is truly a human being, a status which cannot be claimed for him if he has been alive since before Genesis! 

Is John’s Unity With or Opposed to the Rest of the New Testament? 

    If we read John and his introduction in this fashion, we find him proclaiming, unitedly with the other Gospel writers and the rest of the New Testament, the supremely important fact that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God. On that great truth the church is to be founded (Matt. 16:15-18) and united, and for that single purpose — to demonstrate and urge belief in Jesus as the Messiah — John wrote his whole gospel (John 20:31). But notice carefully that the Messiah is the human lord of David (Ps. 110:1), the Son of God, and that there is only one God. Remember too the wise words of a leading contemporary scholar: 

Indeed to be a “Son of God” one has to be a being who is not God!...It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: “In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God.” What has happened here is the substitution Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning.[22] 

On that fatal shift the whole Trinitarian “problem” was constructed. The resolution of that problem will come only when we return to the unitary monotheism of John, of Jesus and of the whole Bible. 

    The celebrated Church historian, Adolf Harnack, put his finger on the root of the problem displayed in traditional views of the Godhead: 

The Greeks, as a result of their cosmological interest, embraced this thought [of a literal preexistence of the Son] as a fundamental proposition. The complete Greek Christology then is expressed as follows. “Christ who saved us, being first spirit and the beginning of all creation, became flesh and thus called us.”[23] That is the fundamental, theological and philosophical creed on which the whole Trinitarian and Christological speculations of the Church of the succeeding centuries are built, and it is thus the root of the orthodox system of dogmatics; for the notion that Christ was the beginning of all creation necessarily led in some measure to the conception of Christ as the Logos. For the Logos had long been regarded by cultured men as the beginning and principle of the creation.[24] 

    Another distinguished historian of Christian dogma, Professor Loofs of Halle University, stated that "polytheism entered the church camouflaged" when John's logos was turned into the preexisting second member of the Trinity. 

A Gnostic Twist of John’s Words 

    John 1:1 suffered at the hands of its Gnostic expositors early, even we think in the New Testament period. Whether or not 1 John 1:1-2 was written earlier or later than the Gospel of John, it provides just the commentary we need to clarify John 1:1. With utmost emphasis the Apostle tries to ensure that we think of the word as “it” not “he.” There are no less than five neuter pronouns in 1 John 1:1-3. “That which was from the beginning...concerning the word of life...and we announce to you the life of the age to come which was with [pros] the Father and was manifested to us.” It was the promise of the Life to Come, the promise of the Kingdom which was “with the Father.” That promise was manifested in the flesh at the conception of the Messiah. The Messiah embodied all the promises of God. God was and is in him reconciling the world to Himself. But to turn the promise into the actual person of Messiah, consciously in existence before his birth, is to destroy the promise and its fulfillment. God did not speak in a Son in the past ages but He did in these last days (Heb. 1:1-2). 

    The Jewish writer Philo, a contemporary of Paul, recognized Moses as an expression of God’s plan. He describes Moses as the “empsychosis” of God’s divine thought, i.e. as the personalization of the Divine Plan (Life of Moses, I, 28). Thus John says that while the law came through Moses, Jesus was the personalization of the character of God expressed as grace and truth (John 1:17). Jesus, if you like, is “Mr. Grace and Truth,” the expression of God in a miraculously begotten Son. But before that time there was no Son of God, except as a promise in the Divine Plan from the beginning. 

    In all probability John has been “turned on his head.” What he intended was to stave off all attempts to introduce a duality into the Godhead. For John the word was the one God Himself, not a second person. The later, post-biblical shift from “word” as divine promise from the beginning, the Gospel lodged in the mind and purpose of the one God, to an actual second divine “person,” the Son, alive before his birth, introduced a principle of confusion and chaos from which the church has never freed itself. This shift was the corrupting seed of later Trinitarianism. God became two and later, with the addition of the holy spirit, three. It remains for believers today to return to belief in Jesus as the human Messiah and in the One God of Israel, his Father, as the “one who alone is truly God” (John 17:3). God is one person not three.

[1] Jesus himself was foreknown (1 Pet. 1:20).

[2] Karl-Josef Kuschel, Born Before All Time: The Debate about the Origin of Christ, New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992, 381.

[3] Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 1, 912, emphasis added.

[4] British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973, emphasis added.

[5] The transliteration reflects modern Greek pronunciation.

[6] Lord (YHWH) is the personal name for the Father. Trinitarianism includes two others in the title and thus has the Son of God communicating in OT times, contrary to the plain statement of Hebrews 1:1-2.

[7] Note that Jesus said “You, Father, are the only one who is truly God.” He did not say “your Godhead is the only Godhead.” In other words the One God is a single person, not an abstract Godhead or essence.

[8] Ed Miller, Annotated Scholars Version, revised, Harper, 1994.

[9] These two versions equivocate by insisting on the personal pronoun “he” for Message and expression.

[10] Hugh Schonfield.

[11] R.M. Grant, D.D., The Early Christian Doctrine of God, Macmillan, 1950. Dr. Grant is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Divinity School, University of Chicago.

[12] William Barclay, Gospel of John, Saint Andrews Press, 1957, Vol. 1, 14.

[13] The Four Gospels, A New Translation, New York: Harper, 1947.

[14] Letters of Principal James Denny to W. Robertson Nicoll, 1893 – 1917, Hodder and Stoughton, 1920, 121-125. While Denny retains his belief in the Trinity for reasons of his own, his testimony stands as evidence against a tradition of translation which has promoted belief in the Trinity on the part of many others. Such evidence has often been ignored by Trinitarians who are less cautious in their approach to translation.

[15] “Before anything else existed, there was Christ with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is — nothing exists that he didn’t make.” This is an obvious contradiction of Isaiah 44:24 and fifty other texts ascribing creation to the Lord alone.

[16] Jesus Christ Our Lord, Herald Press, 1987, 105.

[17] Dr. G. Vance Smith, The Bible and Popular Theology, 159. Dr. Smith was a non-Trinitarian member of the RV translating committee.

[18] Dissertation, 1876, 16.

[19] From correspondence with the author, June 13, 1981, emphasis added.

[20] The Debate About Christ, SCM Press, 92.

[21] Cp. Leonhard Goppelt, The Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1992, Vol. 2, 297: “The logos of the prologue became Jesus; Jesus was the logos become flesh not the logos as such.” This comment of Goppelt was cited by James Dunn with approval in Christology in the Making, SCM Press, 1989, fn. 120, 349.

[22] Colin Brown, D.D., Ex Auditu, 7, 1991, 88, 89.

[23] II Clement 9:5.

[24] Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. 1, 328, emphasis added.

By Anthony Buzzard from:http://focusonthekingdom.org/