Chapter 6: Adultery, Fornication, Desertion, Divorce And Remarriage Part 3

©This book is copyrighted with the following provisions: (1) No part of it may be commercially reproduced for profit. (2) It may be freely reproduced for use as a study and teaching aid in not-for-profit organizations. (3) It may not be posted to another web site without our express written consent. Each case will be considered on its own merits. For questions email us at:

contact@earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com

CHAPTER 6 PART 3: ADULTERY, FORNICATION,

DESERTION, DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

DESERTION AS A SCRIPTURAL GROUND FOR DIVORCE

Matthew Henry had this to say about desertion as a scriptural ground for divorce and remarriage:

“The Christian calling did not dissolve the marriage covenant, but bind it the faster, by bringing it back to the original institution, limiting it to two persons, and binding them together for life. The believer is not by faith in Christ loosed from matrimonial bonds to an unbeliever, but is at once bound and made apt to be a better relative. But, though a believing wife or husband should not separate from an unbelieving mate, yet if the unbelieving relative desert the believer, and no means can reconcile to a cohabitation, in such a case a brother or sister is not in bondage (v. 15), not tied up to the unreasonable humour, and bound servilely to follow or cleave to the malicious deserter, or not bound to live unmarried after all proper means for reconciliation have been tried, at least of the deserter contract another marriage or be guilty of adultery, which was a very easy supposition, because a very common instance among the heathen inhabitants of Corinth. In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself. For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other? Indeed, the deserter seems still bound by the matrimonial contract; and therefore the apostle says (v. 11), If the woman depart from her husband upon the account of his infidelity, let her remain unmarried. But the deserted party seems to be left more at liberty (I mean supposing all the proper means have been used to reclaim the deserter, and other circumstances make it necessary) to marry another person. It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate: in such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed.” [Matthew Henry Commentary On The Whole Bible, on 1 Corinthians 7:15]

Matthew Poole had this to say about desertion as a scriptural ground for divorce and remarriage:

“If the unbelieving husband or the unbelieving wife will leave his or her correlate, that is, so leave them as to return no more to live as a husband or as a wife with her or him that is Christian, let him depart. Such a person hath broken the bond of marriage, and in such cases Christians are not under bondage, they are not tied by law to fetch them again, nor by the laws of God to keep themselves unmarried for their perverseness. But it may be objected, that nothing but adultery, by the Divine law, breaketh that bond.

Answer. That is denied. Nothing but adultery is a justifiable cause of divorce: no man may put away his wife, nor any wife put away her husband, but for adultery. But the husband’s voluntary leaving his wife, or the wife’s voluntary leaving her husband, with a resolution to return no more to them, breaks also the bond of marriage, frustrating it as to the ends for which God hath appointed it; and, after all due means used to bring again the party departing to their duty, doth certainly free the correlate. So that although nothing can justify repudiation, or putting away a wife or a husband, and marrying another, but the adultery of the person so divorced and repudiated; yet the departure either of husband or wife without the other’s consent for a long time, and refusal to return after all due means used, especially if the party so going away doth it out of a hatred and abomination of the other’s religion, will justify the persons so deserted, after due waiting and use of means to reduce him or her to their duty, wholly to cast off the person deserting; for no Christian in such a case, by God’s law, is under bondage.” [See Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, Volume 3, page 560]

Brother Karl Baker had this to say about 1 Corinthians 7 and the doctrine of desertion:

“Are you going to say, that when Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7, “A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but the Lord hath called us to peace” does not mean, because of the desertion of the unbeliever, God is not freeing (loosed, I believe it says in verse 27) you from the bondage of marriage? Why, the whole context of the chapter is the commandments concerning marriage!” [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 101]

Brother Harold Sightler had this to say about whether desertion is a scriptural basis for divorce:

“Divorce is never permissible on the grounds of desertion. This happens many times. Husband or wife will simply walk away. They will desert one another. I know the laws of our state will permit divorce on this ground but the Bible knows nothing of divorce on such grounds.” (Page 5, Divorce and Remarriage, Harold B. Sightler)

But does Harold Sightler’s statement line up with what the Bible teaches on grounds for divorce? That is the question that we answer next. Is desertion a scriptural ground for divorce?

What about the man or woman who deserts their mate and never gets a divorce, but lives a life of fornication. Isn’t it ungodly to keep a Christian brother or sister in bondage to a mate who is consorting with the Devil by rubbing fornication in the Christian’s face. Isn’t it ungodly to continue in fellowship with a mate who is in open fornication when God has commanded Christians to separate from the unfruitful works of darkness. Isn’t it ungodly to continue in fellowship with a mate who is in open fornication when God has commanded Christians NOT to keep company with any man that is called a brother who is a fornicator: how much more so an unbelieving mate. This creates a big problem for those who maintain that adultery is a second ceremony and not an act of fornication. Calling the marriage ceremony adultery allows the unsaved mate to live a licentious life style without being held accountable for it. When you will not allow a scriptural divorce in cases of adultery and desertion you are punishing the innocent party for the sin of another. Adultery is not a ceremony. Adultery is an act of fornication by a married person. If adultery and fornication are forgivable sins, then how is it that divorce is an unforgivable sin?? You will deny that you believe divorce is an unforgivable sin, but that is not what the application of your doctrine screams. If my doctrine creates a huge conflict with another Biblical doctrine, I had better be adjusting my doctrine to line up with the Scriptures. When the application of OUR law conflicts with God’s law and God’s mercy and grace, then we need to check our law against the Scriptures. When your doctrine will not allow for divorce where the Scriptures allow for it, then you subvert and hijack the mercy and grace of God in the life of an innocent believer who has been grievously injured by an act of treachery on the part of an unfaithful mate. This leads us to our third ground for divorce.

Our third ground for a scriptural divorce is an act of desertion whereby an unbeliever rejects and deserts a believing spouse. A believer cannot desert an unbelieving spouse and remarry. If a believer deserts an unbelieving spouse they must remain UNMARRIED (divorced). You cannot be unmarried without a divorce. The argument for desertion being a scriptural ground for divorce is based mostly upon 1 Corinthians chapter 7 which we deal with in the next few paragraphs. We would encourage you to read our chapter in this book on 1 Corinthians chapter 7. There are generally four arguments presented against using desertion as a scriptural ground for divorce: (1) They interpret the word “unmarried” in verse 11 to mean separation; (2) They say you put yourself in a supposed impossible position of trying to establish who is unbelieving in verse 15; (3) They accuse you of believing that God changes positions from verse 11 to verse 15 and then changes His position again in verse 27-28 and then back again in verse 39; (4) They accuse you of contradicting the Lord Jesus Christ who said in Matthew that the only grounds for divorce was fornication. Lets deal with the idea of “unmarried” being interpreted as “separated”.

Does the word “unmarried” in verse 11 mean separation? What is legally called separation cannot exist in an unmarried, or in other words, a divorced state. Separation does not fit in the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 7. That the Holy Ghost is defining divorce as being unmarried is clearly stated in the context of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. A legal separation is not a divorce. It enables you to live separately but to remain legally married. A legal separation comes via a secular court order and is no where found in the Scriptures. Many try to infer it from 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, but those verses plainly state that the departed spouse is unmarried, not separated. At the risk of being accused of tautology, unmarried means “not married”: unmarried does not mean separated. Unmarried applies to those who have never been married and to those who have been married but are no longer married because of death or divorce. The only reason we even address the issue of legal separation here is because some unscripturally call the “unmarried” of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 “the separated” in an attempt to eliminate desertion as a scriptural ground for divorce. In the context, unmarried means not having a sexual relationship with another person and thereby making them your spouse. That chokes those who refuse to acknowledge the scriptural definition of marriage as becoming one flesh without the necessity of a ceremony. First Corinthians 7:10-11 is a restatement of the law and runs parallel to Romans 7:1-4. Romans 7:1-4 is not about divorce and remarriage, but is about living in an adulterous state. Divorce and remarriage have to be read into Romans 7:1-4 because they are not stated or implied in the context. Now, let’s read Romans 7:1-4:

Romans 7:1-4

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 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.4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Here, we can plainly see that the law of death in marriage is being used to show that the believer’s death to the law through the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ broke our marriage with Satan so that we could and should be married to the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the application of the text, but if we are going to use it in the context of a debate or a discussion on marriage, then we need to rightly divide it according to the Old Testament laws of marriage and divorce and not read our doctrine into it. If you read your doctrine into it, we call that adding to the word of God (Revelation 22:18-19). Notice that the Romans 7:2 says, “woman which hath an husband,” and “her husband.” What is this text picturing? The picture is of a woman married to one man, who commits adultery. Under the Mosaic Law, she would now be stoned for committing adultery; there would be no remarriage for her. Nowhere in this context is divorce/remarriage mentioned. Why? Because a divorced woman no longer has a husband. Her marriage is over. The picture here is of adultery, not a divorce/remarriage situation. It really is that simple. This text has nothing to do with remarriage. The binding of the law refers to their marriage and the loosing from the law refers to the breaking of the marital bond in this case through death. The loosing from the law of a spouse also takes place in a scriptural divorce which is the whole point of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. That loosing allows remarriage which is the whole point of verses 2 and 3 where a bill of divorcement is given. That is also what the meaning of bound and loosed is in 1 Corinthians 7:15, and 27 where we see:

1 Corinthians 7:15

¹⁵ 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.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

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.

It is already an established scriptural fact that no sin is involved when a person remarries after the death of a mate. So, verse 27 cannot be referring to a widow or a widower. Verse 27 is referring generally to all those in verses 15-26. Those that have suffered the death of a mate are addressed in the closing two verses of 1 Corinthians 7, verses 39 and 40. Brother Karl Baker had this to say about 1 Corinthians 7:27-28:

“Do not seek a wife, but, if you do-make sure it is in the Lord (verse 39) and you have not sinned if you do (verse 28)!... Can’t you see in 1 Corinthians 7:15 with verse 27, the cross reference of Romans 7:2 that says “bound” and then says “loosed” with verse 2 and then says “free” in verse 3? Free to do what – stay single? 1 Corinthians 7:27 says that if you are loosed from a wife, and that includes verse 15, seek not a wife – 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 (verse 28).” [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 96]

What is clearly established in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is that it is not a sin to remarry if there were scriptural grounds for divorce. That scriptural grounds is established here in 1 Corinthians 7 by the desertion of an unbelieving mate. In most cases, the deserting, unsaved mate will have a sexual relationship with a party that is not their spouse (marry) another and loose (release) the saved victim from being bound (married) to the unsaved deserter. This act of adultery would give the saved victim an additional ground for a scriptural divorce. A rough parallel can be drawn between the divorces allowed for the desertion of unbelieving mates in the New Testament and the divorces allowed for the strange wives that Israel had taken from the pagans in their day that were documented in Ezra chapter 10. That rough parallel exists in the fact that in both cases believers were ordered and/or allowed to be divorced from their unbelieving spouses. The actions that were taken in Ezra chapter 10 prove that divorce is not always a sin because those divorces were sanctioned by God Himself.

We also want to emphasize here that if the believer deserts the unbeliever they are bound to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to, to their former spouse until their former spouse either dies, gets remarried, or sexually consummates another relationship. Brother Karl Baker has this to say concerning this matter:

“Before we leave 1 Corinthians 7, I would like to say this; in dealing with desertion, it is only the desertion of the unsaved. God doesn’t expect us to take advantage of his graces or pervert them. When two Christians have trouble and one departs, it is not verse 15, but verses 10-11 that they fall under – reconciliation”. [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 102]

Is it true that we put ourselves in an impossible position if we try to establish who is an unbeliever in line with 1 Corinthians 7:15? We have heard it stated that if we interpret the desertion of 1 Corinthians 7:15 and 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 as another grounds for divorce that we are put in the untenable position of trying to discern if an individual is a believer. It is sometimes phrased in this manner:

“If the abandonment by an unbelieving spouse is grounds for divorce, we face the unenviable responsibility of determining whether the departing spouse is redeemed. While evidence can be procured to show definitively that a spouse has been unfaithful we will have a hard time proving that any given individual is an unbeliever”.

Or, it is phrased like this:

“Further, to see “abandonment by the unbelieving spouse” as grounds for divorce puts us in the situation of trying to determine whether the departing spouse is born-again.”

Statements like these beg the question. If we cannot with some degree of certainty determine whether a person is saved, then why would the Holy Ghost use the phrase “if the unbelieving depart”. It has to mean that we can conclude that an individual is unsaved based upon their conduct or their words. While we cannot judge a persons heart, we are charged to base our continuing full fellowship with our families, our friends, and those around us upon whether they are believers. This charge is given to us in 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 where we read:

2 Corinthians 6:14-15

¹⁴ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? ¹⁵ And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

While we cannot judge a persons heart, we can judge their fruits. If we do not have some basis upon which to determine if a person is a believer, then we cannot have any assurance of being able to obey any commandment to separate from unbelievers. The same principle of interpretation, or hermeneutics, applies to the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15. Therefore, we can with some degree of certainty determine whether an individual is saved.

If we interpret 1 Corinthians 7 to allow divorces in case of desertion, do we believe that God changes positions from verse 11 to verse 15 and then changes His position again in verses 27- 28 and again in verse 39? The answer to that question is that we know for sure that God does not change positions, but we also know for sure that he changes persons throughout 1 Corinthians 7. What we have here is an issue of rightly dividing the Word of Truth. In verses 10 and 11, we are talking about believing spouses who desert their unbelieving spouses. When believing spouses desert unbelieving spouses, the believing spouse must remain unmarried (divorced) because believers are subject to the law. In cases where believers desert unbelievers, the believer cannot remarry until such time as the unbelieving spouse either commits adultery or remarries. In verses 12-15 the subject switches to unbelieving spouses who desert their believing spouses. When the unbelieving spouse deserts the believing spouse, the believing spouse is loosed from the bondage of the law and may divorce and remarry. In these cases the unbelieving spouses are not subject to the law, neither indeed can. In verses 27-28 the focus has switched back to a mixed group of people that includes saved, unmarried folks including the divorced and virgins that are told that if they marry they have not sinned. Verses 39-40 are dealing with saved widows.

Do we contradict the Lord Jesus Christ when we allow divorce on the ground of desertion when He said except it be for fornication? What we have in this question is a denial of the doctrine of progressive revelation as it relates to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. While the question could be dealt with dispensationally, there is no need to when it is obviously a matter of progressive revelation. While many will allow for, and even promote, the doctrine of progressive revelation in Bible Prophecy, Salvation, the Scriptures, and other doctrines, they deny that it can be applied to the doctrines of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. That creates a major problem for those who try to apply laws written strictly for the Jews to the Gentiles. The original biblical doctrines of marriage, divorce, and remarriage were laws that were written for the Jewish people in a society that was actively regulated and controlled by the five books of the law. The Gentiles were not subject to that law. In Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, the Lord Jesus Christ overrode and permanently changed some Old Testament Jewish laws that had been in existence for thousands of years. That was his prerogative because he is the Author and God of the law and the Scriptures. The Lord Jesus Christ eliminated the “for every cause” divorce interpretation of the Pharisees that had probably existed since shortly after Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was written because man’s natural tendency is to pervert the law to feed his wicked flesh. The Lord Jesus Christ also eliminated the death penalty for fornication and adultery that had existed for thousands of years. Was that a matter of contradiction also? No, it was a matter of progressive revelation. Note also that the Lord Jesus Christ was dealing with nothing but Jews in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. The gospel was to go forth to Jew and Gentile. The Lord Jesus Christ also knew that the Gospel would be going forth to the Gentile nations that had not the rule of the Jewish law. He also knew that many newly converted Christians would be deserted by their unbelieving spouses as the Gospel was sent forth to all the earth. What we have here is another case of pharisaical men finding the swords among the plowshares and vice versa and calling it a contradiction because it does not fit their doctrine. It was not some scribe or Pharisee that made the following statements:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

¹⁰ 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.

1 Corinthians 7:15

¹⁵ 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.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

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.

It was God the Holy Ghost that made those statements. Though it was not some scribe or Pharisee that made the above statements, it is always a bunch of scribes and Pharisees that will deny them. We have heard many men twist and contort the words unmarried, bondage, bound, and loosed in 1 Corinthians 7 into the most mangled verbal mess we have ever heard. They would put most propagandists to shame. It makes you wonder if English is their first language. If you have a problem interpreting the words bound and loosed, go and look again at Romans 7:1-4 for the contextual definition that is the same as it is in 1 Corinthians 7. The reason some have a problem with this passage is because they see an apparent contradiction with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ that is somewhat difficult to explain without the application of the Laws of Progressive Revelation and Progressive Mention. What we have in 1 Corinthians 7 is not a contradiction of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather further revelation on the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage by the Holy Ghost. It is an addition to the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage by the Holy Ghost.

REMARRIAGE AFTER DEATH AND DIVORCE

When the scriptural conditions are given allowing for divorce and remarriage, in no case is a ceremony stated or implied. It is assumed that the marriage is made and broken by a sexual act. In the case of a broken marriage, a bill of divorcement was required. We are going to turn to some comments made by Brother Harold Sightler. We will briefly refute his comments and then move onto a deeper analysis of the whole issue of remarriage. Brother Harold Sightler said:

“In Matthew 19:8-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18, the grounds for divorce is only “fornication”; and the remarriage of the divorced person is forbidden. And let us remember that this is the ONLY grounds upon which one may scripturally divorce”. (Page 7, Divorce and Remarriage, Harold B. Sightler)

Luke 16:18 does not include fornication as a grounds for divorce, but fornication is included as a grounds for divorce in Matthew 19:8-9 and Mark 10:11-12. In a scriptural divorce, the permission to remarry is granted by the bill of divorcement. The topic under discussion in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 was divorce and remarriage. There was no question in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ that fornication was a scriptural (lawful) ground for divorce. The Lord Jesus Christ made it so himself when he said a married woman could fornicate and that it was grounds for divorce. The answer of the Lord Jesus Christ made it lawful for the innocent party to remarry when their spouse was guilty of fornication. The Lord Jesus Christ made it plain that if anyone married a person that had been put away for fornication then they themselves were guilty of adultery. Brother Harold Sightler also said:

“The question is often asked, Why cannot the innocent party remarry after divorcing according to the scripture? Look again carefully at the passage above, Matthew 19: 8-9, “Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” This is the innocent man whose wife is put away for fornication who is forbidden to remarry. If we reread the passages from Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:10-12 as well as the passages in Genesis which refer to the origin, purpose and sacredness of the marriage relation, we must conclude that it was never in the mind of God, nor did it occur to Jesus when He explained the matter to the Pharisees, that remarriage could be permitted”. (Pages 7-8, Divorce and Remarriage, Harold B. Sightler)

The innocent man is NOT forbidden to remarry. This interpretation by Brother Harold Sightler is just plain wrong. The concept of remarriage did occur to the Lord Jesus Christ because he used the word “remarry” in His response to the Pharisees. When the Pharisees came to the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19, their whole fallacious argument was based upon a licentious interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The context of the question that the Pharisees asked plainly included divorce AND remarriage: twice, in fact. Read Deuteronomy 24:2-3 again and again very slowly and very carefully. The Lord Jesus Christ in his answer to the Pharisees also answered their question in the context of “putting away AND shall marry another (remarry)”. In His response to the Pharisees, not only did the Lord Jesus Christ do away with the“for every cause” divorce interpretation, but He also overrode the Old Testament death penalty required for adultery from Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:21-24. Brother Sightler goes on to say:

“To marry the second time is wrong and sinful....It is better, beloved, to be on the safe side and not to guess at the will of God or risk disobedience”. (Page 8, Divorce and Remarriage, Harold B. Sightler)

The Bible nowhere says that it is wrong and sinful to marry a second time. That has to be read into the Bible through the prism of someone’s doctrinal bias. It is based upon the false ideas that both parties to a divorce are always wrong, that God does not allow divorce under any circumstances, and that God does not allow remarriage. It is better not to do anything less or do anything more than what the Scriptures require than it is to risk adding to or taking away from the Word of God by yielding to the unscriptural prejudices and fears of men. Yielding to the prejudices and fears of men is the source of much heresy and apostasy in the Church. That is why we demand a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. When we do not yield to the whole counsel of God on a particular subject, we risk disobedience, apostasy, and heresy.

Returning to the issue of fornication as it relates to the grounds for lawful divorce and remarriage we want to reemphasize that contrary to what is taught and preached in many fundamentalist and independent and denominational Baptist churches, a married person can be guilty of fornication (See our detailed discussion under fornication above). The proof of that statement is given by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:9. That also makes sex between a man and a woman who are unmarried fornication. A married person who commits adultery is guilty of both adultery and fornication. The bottom line is that both married and single people can be guilty of fornication. Fornication is any sex outside of the God ordained boundaries of marriage. That makes pornography fornication. That makes sodomy fornication. In other words, that makes sex between a man and a man and a woman and a woman fornication. What the world calls homosexuality and lesbianism, the word of God calls sodomy. The Bible does not refer to them as homosexuals, and lesbians, and gays. The Bible calls them sodomites. The necessity of dealing with sodomy as being fornication when dealing with the issue of scriptural marriage has come to the forefront in the year 2014 because many relationships between husband and wife are being destroyed by many sodomites and sodmitesses coming out of Satan’s closet and deserting their spouses. For those of you who believe that the fornication called out by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 is sex before marriage, or sex between couples neither of whom is married, what are you going to do when the sodomite or sodomitess who comes out of Satan’s closet starts running around on their mates in a same sex abominable relationship? Are you going to require that the innocent mate remain in the relationship and endanger their lives? If they get scripturally divorced, are you going to require them to remain celibate and unmarried for the rest of their lives in violation of Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7 verses 15, 27, and 28? Or, will you say in your self righteous, pharisaical hypocrisy that they should not have the desire to have a sexual relationship while you continue to have a normal sexual relationship with your spouse? Brother Karl Baker has well said:

“The answer the good doctors have for all this is; the innocent must stay unmarried and wait upon their spouses return or the tranquility that only death can bring! The problem is, this sounds fine if the Lord commanded such. However, that is not what the Scriptures say and I, as a minister, am not going to help support a false and erroneous method of sanctimonious spirituality”. [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 113]

In Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:7, celibacy is described as a proper gift of God that would not be able to be received by some. Forbidding to marry or remarry when the Scriptures allow it is described as a doctrine of devils in 1 Timothy 4. Forbidding to marry or remarry reeks of the heresy of Roman Catholic celibacy. It comes from the same Roman Catholic theological crypt as forbidding divorce under any circumstances. THE BIBLE SAYS: IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN BURN! THE BIBLE SAYS: BUT AND IF THOU MARRY, THOU HAST NOT SINNED!

Much of the argument as to whether a divorced person can remarry is based upon a false belief that divorce does not end a marriage or that divorce is never allowed under any circumstances. Therefore, so the unscriptural argument goes, since divorce is never permitted, then remarriage is out of the question. Now, let’s look at Matthew 19:3-12 where it is written:

Matthew 19:3-12

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, 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 whole context of Matthew 19:3-12 is lawful divorce and lawful remarriage. To use these verses to teach that a divorced person cannot remarry is twisting the whole passage out of context to promote a preconceived unscriptural doctrine that divorced people can never remarry. What we are obviously dealing with here are matters hard to be understood because most of our fundamentalist and Independent Baptist preachers, pastors, and teachers wrest these Scriptures to the destruction of their divorced brethren and make their divorced brethren unto themselves as heathen men and publicans. What the phrase “and shall marry another” does is put the whole passage in the context of divorce and remarriage. What this passage also teaches is that a married person can be guilty of fornication unlike some who teach the false doctrine that a married person cannot be guilty of fornication in the present tense. The Lord Jesus Christ himself said that a wife can commit fornication in Matthew 19:9. Adultery is an act of fornication that becomes the crime of adultery when the act of fornication is committed by a married person with a person that they are not married to. If a wife can be guilty of fornication when she commits adultery, then a husband can be guilty of fornication when he commits adultery. The complimentary passages to Matthew 19:3-12 are located in Mark 10:2-12 and in Luke 16:18.

Mark 10:2-12

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18

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

1 Corinthians 7

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10 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. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 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. 39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

According to the Lord Jesus Christ, divorce does end a marriage. Why did the Lord Jesus Christ say to the woman at the well in John 4: “thou HAST HAD five husbands and what was her sin? She was obviously having sex with a man who was not her husband because he was married to another woman! She was committing adultery and fornication and he was committing adultery and fornication. Also, the clear implication of this passage is that she has been divorced five times. Why would the Lord hold it against her that she had been married five times, if those men had simply died? The Lord Jesus Christ showed us that she was a sexually promiscuous woman, living with a man who was not her husband. Notice that he does not say that she is married to all five of those men. He says that she “hast had” (past-tense) five husbands. She is no longer married to those men. Therefore, it is inaccurate to speak of a divorced person as having multiple living spouses because of the divorces. If her previous divorces had not dissolved those previous marriages, the Lord Jesus Christ would have said that “thou hast (present tense) five husbands”. So much for those preachers, pastors, and teachers that state that a divorced man has more than one wife if he remarries. That whole theory is blown out of the water with this one passage of Scripture! Do you actually think the Lord Jesus Christ would change his wording if it was a man at the well who “hast had” five wives? Based upon what the Lord Jesus Christ said here, you cannot say that a lawfully divorced man or woman who is married now has more than one husband or wife. When a person is divorced from a spouse, that person is no longer their spouse in any sense of the word. Otherwise, the Lord Jesus Christ would have used the present tense to indicate that the five men were still her husbands.

We have already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that divorce and remarriage are allowed in the case where a spouse is guilty of the act of fornication called adultery. We have also proved that divorce permanently dissolves the marriage and that people who are scripturally divorced are allowed to remarry. Brother Karl Baker had this to say concerning the issue of remarriage:

“Divorce is a divine sanctioned grace in the New Testament established by our Lord himself (Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7).... Divorce therefore has to be a loosing of the marital bonds (1 Corinthians 7:15). For those who know the law (Romans 7:1), divorce also annuls the relationship and allows a divorced person, by the permissive will of God to marry another person without being an adulterer (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) just as death separates the bond in unquestionable terms (Romans 7:4-6). Therefore, divorce does the same to those who have chosen death over life in the spiritual sense (1 Timothy 5, 1 Corinthians 7:14-15, Romans 8:5-8, Ephesians 2:1-5, and 2 Corinthians 5:11-12) as much as death in the physical sense. The minister of the gospel has no right to take upon himself a self-imposed law of righteousness for the sake of preserving the church against the so-called “evil fruits” of unrighteousness because he feels if he doesn’t the life of the church will die or the church will be affected by the evil to such a degree she will never recover.” [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 71]

“Dr. Ballew says: Even though the Lord permits a man to put away his wife on the basis of fornication, he does not clearly give him freedom to remarry.... Karl Baker says: Now if a man is divorced in the eyes of God (Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, is he not?); And if the woman may go and be another man’s wife lawfully (Deuteronomy 24:2-3); and if in fact she can do it twice (Deuteronomy 24:3); then do you mean to tell me the divorce did not totally and unconditionally separate the two so the man could marry again?” [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 88]

“Both they that have been loosed who choose to remarry and virgins are explicitly told that the choice of marriage is ultimately a personal decision of self-determined necessity and although marriage may cause “trouble in the flesh” (verse 28), the trouble is not because of sin (verse 28), it is just more of the present distress of life (verse 26).... These so-called “well meaners” go to no ends to try to prove that under no condition does divorced mean you are “free” to marry again – no matter if Christ or Paul the apostle accepted it. Divorce does not mean, “loosed” to these “gnat strainers” whose only method of interpretations is based upon “private interpretation”.” [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 97]

Remember that remarriage is included in the Old Testament permission to divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which the Lord Jesus Christ replaces in Matthew 19:9. In Matthew 19:9, the Lord Jesus Christ said that He prohibited divorce and remarriage, except in the case of fornication. In the phrase “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” he joins the putting away (divorce) with the remarriage by the word “and”. Tying the two together is consistent with Deuteronomy 24:2-3 where remarriage was allowed after a scriptural divorce. Notice that divorce ends the marriage. In verse 2, she goes and becomes another man’s wife. Verse 4 refers to her first husband as her “former” husband. He is no longer her husband. They have no relationship, and indeed are forbidden to re-establish a relationship. Their marriage is over. In no sense does God or the law consider her and her first husband still to be married. Nor does she commit adultery against her first husband when engaging in the marriage relationship with her current husband. Otherwise, she would be stoned for adultery and would not be continuing in a second marriage (much less a second divorce as the text indicates). No, her marriage is over.

Brother Karl Baker in quoting Brother Stinnett Ballew had the following to say:

“Dr. Ballew stresses the idea that although the woman is free to marry, the man is evidently not free because in the next paragraph he says: “Even though the Lord permits a man to put away his wife on the basis of fornication, he does not clearly give him freedom to remarry”. [The Marriage & Divorce Controversy, Karl Baker, page 79]

In his book, Brother Baker goes on to rightly condemn this statement of Brother Ballew. We see no need to clearly give the divorced man the freedom to remarry because the law specifically grants him the permission to remarry with the proviso that he could not remarry the woman he had put away for uncleanness. Also, the Lord Jesus Christ specifically grants permission to divorce AND remarry in cases of fornication. Furthermore, why would the woman be explicitly given the right to remarry and the same right be denied to the man. The Pharisees’ question in Matthew 19 was focused upon the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which allowed divorce for uncleanness. The fact that they framed their questions in terms of “for every cause” shows that adultery was not in view, but they got more than they bargained for. The Lord Jesus Christ used the whole confrontation to set aside the whole of the Pharisees’ doctrine of divorce and to reestablish God’s original intent for marriage from Genesis 2:24. The Pharisees’ question in Matthew 19 was NOT on the issue of adultery because the Pharisees knew that adultery was handled according to Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 which required the death penalty for both parties. That was the whole point of the confrontation between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Pharisees in John 8:1-12. The woman’s adultery required the death penalty, but where was the man? This whole series of confrontations should put to rest the false doctrine that the uncleanness of Deuteronomy 24:1 was fornication or adultery because that whole issue was covered in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:13-30. The penalty for the uncleanness of Deuteronomy 24:1 was divorce. The penalty for the fornication/adultery of Deuteronomy 22:13-31 was death. It is significant to note that the declaration of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:9 abrogated, or done away with, the death penalty for fornication and adultery in marriage. The penalty would now be divorce with the innocent party being allowed to remarry. The guilty party is not allowed to remarry without committing adultery.

All unscriptural divorce and remarriage constitutes a sin of adultery under the following conditions: 1. A man who divorces his wife and takes a second wife commits adultery against his first wife if he did not divorce her for her fornication and/or adultery, or desertion. The second woman he marries also commits adultery if the husband did not scripturally divorce his first wife. The same is true for the woman also 2. A man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery if that woman’s former husband was not put away for fornication and/or adultery, or desertion.3. A woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery if the woman did not put away her former husband for fornication and/or adultery, or desertion.4. A man who divorces his wife is guilty of causing her to commit adultery if his wife was not put away for fornication and/or adultery, or desertion. We will close out this section with a comment from Brother Harold Sightler where he stated:

“It is a dangerous thing to lower God’s standards to accommodate man’s weakness.” (Page 8, Divorce and Remarriage, Harold B. Sightler)

To which we reply, that it is a dangerous thing to raise man’s standard above the word of God because you then get into the doctrines and commandments of pharisaical men whose natural tendency is to exceed the righteousness of the Scriptures resulting in the subverting of the grace of God . “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” (Matthew 23:4).

ARE THOSE THAT ARE REMARRIED

LIVING IN PERPETUAL ADULTERY?

Consider now the interpretive snare created by the unscriptural position that divorce does not end marriage. Some churches will not let divorced people join their churches because they say they are in perpetual adultery as long as the continue to stay married after their divorces. Some churches describe it as “living in sin”. This false doctrine that states that a divorce does not permanently end a marriage is the creator of yet another unforgivable sinner and that being the “perpetual adulterer/adulteress”that can be added to the blasphemer of the Holy Ghost and the divorced man. [We are being satirical here. We do not believe that divorce and adultery are unforgivable sins] Can the “perpetual adulteress/adulterer” ever join a Bible believing New Testament church? The church is clearly commanded to separate from those who continue in sin (Matthew 18:15-17, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18,1 Corinthians 5:9). A Scripture that is pertinent to the discussion before us is Galatians 5:19-21 which says:

Galatians 5:19-21

¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, ²⁰ Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, ²¹ Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Note that adultery is at the top of the list in Galatians 5. In verse 21, the phrase “they which do such things” means “they which continually do these things”. If we believe a remarried person commits an act of adultery every time they engage in the marriage act with their new spouse, these verses deny them salvation. That would mean that they are going to Hell. What if that remarried person was already saved ? Do you actually believe they would lose their salvation? The view that a remarried couple is “living in perpetual adultery” comes from a misinterpretation of Scripture and is rooted in Roman Catholic theology which states:

“2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.” [Quoted from the 1993-1994 Roman Catholic Catechism]

The “living in perpetual adultery” argument denies that a scriptural divorce ends a marriage. Usually it misuses Romans 7:3 or 1 Corinthians 7:39 to argue that only death ends a marriage. It also misuses Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 to the exclusion of Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9. Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 include the exclusion clauses “saving for the cause of fornication” and “except it be for fornication”. What those two clauses establish is a scriptural ground for divorce and that ground is fornication/adultery. However, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 clearly indicates that divorce ends marriage. In John 4, Christ told the woman at the well “thou hast had five husbands,” pointedly using the past-tense to indicate that those previous marriages were divorced.

How does this individual quit committing this adultery? Do they divorce their new spouse? That would create yet another problem. Furthermore, it is never right to commit wrong to correct wrong. Remarrying an individual you have divorced after you have married a different spouse is not lawful. Deuteronomy 24:3-4 has this to say:

Deuteronomy 24:3-4

³ 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; ⁴ Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

So, that rules out a divorce and remarriage to the former spouse. Do they quit sleeping with their new spouse? To do so means they become guilty of yet another sin by breaking God’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, where married folks are told not to cease from the marriage bed except for a time of fasting and prayer, making sure to come together again. Is God now commanding them to sin? The answer to that question is obviously no. What we need to do in these situations is to apply the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:9 where he clearly states that the innocent party can remarry in cases that involve fornication and in 1 Corinthians 7:15, 27-28 where the Holy Ghost plainly states that a person that has been loosed from a marriage does not sin if they remarry. These verses state:

Matthew 19:9

⁹ And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:15

¹⁵ 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.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

To be loosed is to be freed from the marriage bond. The marriage bond becomes bondage when the innocent victim of a fornicating and adulterous spouse is required to remain either celibate in marriage or unmarried for life while the guilty spouse is allowed to force the innocent spouse to continue to suffer. To require the innocent victim to continue to suffer would be a violation of the spirit of Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3 which state:

Matthew 19:10-12

¹⁰ His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. ¹¹ But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. ¹² For there are some eunuchs, 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.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

¹ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ² Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; ³ Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

In Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:7, celibacy is described as a proper gift of God that would not be able to be received by some. Forbidding to marry or remarry when the Scriptures allow it is described as a doctrine of devils in 1 Timothy 4. Forbidding to marry or remarry reeks of the heresy of Roman Catholic celibacy. It comes from the same Roman Catholic theological crypt as forbidding divorce under any circumstances. Furthermore, for you to set up a rule that requires an innocent spouse to remain celibate, or unmarried for life, while their adulterous mate continues to fornicate is to violate the command not to defraud the marriage bed that is explicitly stated as follows in 1 Corinthians 7:

1 Corinthians 7:5

⁵ Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

We cannot overemphasize that Matthew 19:1-12 is given in the context of LAWFUL DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE. That is what the phrase “and shall marry another” means. For you to state that Matthew 19:9 does not allow for remarriage, is to take away from the Scriptures.

The topic under discussion in Matthew 19 is divorce and remarriage. There was no question in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ that fornication was a scriptural (lawful) ground for divorce. The Lord Jesus Christ made it so himself when he said a married woman could fornicate and that it was grounds for divorce. The answer of the Lord Jesus Christ made it lawful for the innocent party to remarry when their spouse was guilty of fornication. The Lord Jesus Christ made it plain that if anyone married a person that had been put away for fornication then they themselves were guilty of adultery. In reading these scriptures, remember that Deuteronomy 22 and 24 give two different exceptions to the prohibition concerning divorce. In Deuteronomy 22, the exception was fornication and the penalty was death. In Deuteronomy 24, the exception was uncleanness and the penalty was divorce. We also need to remember that God (the Lord Jesus Christ) gave an exception to the prohibition against divorce in Matthew chapters 5 and 19. The exception was fornication and the penalty was divorce and NOT death. We also need to remember that the Biblical definition of fornication is ANY sex outside the God ordained boundaries of a marriage between a man and a woman. That makes adultery, premarital sex, sodomy, child molestation, pornography, etc to be fornication. We realize that in the New Testament that two different Greek words are used for fornication and adultery. We realize that in the Old Testament that two different Hebrew words are used for fornication and adultery. Both words in both Testaments refer to illicit sexual intercourse: the only difference being whether the offenders had husbands or wives. In 1 Corinthians chapter 7 it is very crucial that you look at every detail so that you will know exactly what group of individuals are being dealt with.

SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED: SUMMARY

At the outset of this study we posed 17 different questions which we have answered during the course of this chapter. The answers to these questions form somewhat of a summary of this chapter and are given in brief here:

(1) What is adultery? Adultery is an act of fornication that involves two people of the opposite sex not married to each other, one of whom is married. Both parties whether single or not are said to be guilty of adultery.

(2) What is fornication? Fornication is any sexual act outside the God ordained boundaries of marriage between a man and a woman. Fornication includes adultery, harlotry, prostitution, sodomy, pornography, rape, beastiality, and child molestation.

(3) What is the difference between fornication and adultery? Fornication is any sexual act outside the God ordained boundaries of marriage between a man and a woman whereas adultery is an act of fornication committed by a married person with someone they are not married to.

(4) Can a married person be guilty of fornication? Yes a married person is guilty of fornication when they have sexual intercourse with someone they are not married to.

(5) Is adultery a sexual act or a ceremonial act? Adultery is never described as a ceremonial act in the Scriptures. It is always a sexual act.

(6) What, if any, are the scriptural grounds for divorce? There are three scriptural grounds to dissolve a marriage. These are death, fornication/adultery, and desertion.

(7) Does unmarried mean separated, but not divorced? Unmarried means divorced. Unmarried is never referred to as a separation in the Scriptures.

(8) Is desertion a scriptural ground for divorce? As we have proved, desertion is a scriptural ground for divorce.

(9) Are all divorces absolutely prohibited? As we have seen they are not because God divorced Israel and God ordered the priests and the people of Israel to divorce their pagan wives in Ezra 10.

(10) Is divorce always wrong? Not only is divorce not always wrong, it is sometimes absolutely necessary for the relief and the protection of the innocent. It is even commanded by God in certain instances.

(11) Is divorce always a sin for all parties to the divorce? As we have seen, not every party to a divorce is guilty of the sin that led to the divorce. Many times, the innocent are made to suffer the penalty of the guilty.

(12) Under what circumstances is a divorce scriptural? There are three scriptural grounds to dissolve a marriage. These are death, fornication/adultery, and desertion.

(13) Is divorce an unforgivable sin? Though most divorced people in fundamentalist and Independent Baptist churches are treated as if their divorces are an unforgivable sin, there is but one unforgivable sin and that is the blaspheming of the Holy Ghost.

(14) If a person gets divorced can they remarry? All those that have been scripturally divorced can get remarried if they have suffered wrong through the desertion or adultery/fornication of their spouses.

(15) If a divorced person gets remarried are they in perpetual adultery? No, they are not in perpetual adultery if they get remarried. Such a preposterous concept is based upon the false doctrine that divorce does not end a marriage. This is especially true where an innocent party to a divorce has been granted a scriptural divorce. Furthermore, even the guilty party or parties in a divorce are guilty of but one act of adultery when they get remarried and that being the initial sexual consummation of the new marriage. The ceremony itself is not an act of adultery.

(16) Should a person who has been guilty of an unscriptural divorce put away (divorce) their current spouse and reunite with their former spouse? No, they cannot divorce their current spouse and remarry their former spouse because that would be yet another sin because the Scriptures ban that practice.

(17) Can you be married to someone and them not be your spouse? According to Mark 6:17-18 a man can be married to a woman and her not be his wife . These verses say:

Mark 6:17-18¹⁷For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. ¹⁸For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.

What these verses indicate is that though Herod was married to Herodias through a sexual relationship, he could not scripturally be her husband because she was scripturally married to Herod’s brother Philip. What we have here is a case of adultery and bigamy on the part of Herod and Herodias. The same situation existed with the woman at the well in John 4:7-30. In John 4:17-18, the reason the man the woman at the well was sleeping with was not her husband is because he was another woman’s husband. Though the woman at the well had “married” this man, he could not be her husband because he already had a wife. We know this may offend some of our Christian sisters, but under the Old Testament law this man was not guilty of adultery because he was not having sex with a woman who was married to another man.

APPENDIX I

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

CANON I – If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

CANON V – If any one saith, that on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond of matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.– If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband; let him be anathema. [This statement contradicts and denies the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:7 allowing the innocent party to remarry, but is in keeping with the unscriptural doctrine of marriage pushed by many so-called fundamentalist and Baptist preachers and pastors]

CANON VIII – If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

[This denies 1 Corinthians 7:3]

CANON IX – If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able. [To require anyone to remain celibate and unmarried as a condition of service in the church is a violation the literal intent and spirit of Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:7, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, and Titus 1:6]

CANON X – If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema. [This is adding to the Scriptures and contradicts Hebrews 13:4. Marriage, and not celibacy, is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ and the His Church.]

[All cited from the twenty-fourth session of the Council of Trent, November 11, 1563, the doctrine on the sacrament of matrimony] Note from the author: The sacrament of matrimony is a Roman Catholic heresy that makes marriage a part of the works that accumulate to salvation.

THE 1993-1994 ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

[All cited from the 1993-1994 Roman Catholic Catechism (the numbers preceding the text are the so-called canon numbers)]