I believe that the Bible teaches remarriage after divorce is lawful and allowed by God, and that the parties in the new marriage are not to be viewed as adulterers or adulteresses. To view them as such is a SIN!
This article is an explanation of why this is a Biblical fact, understanding that there is a difference between “putting away” (Greek: apolyo, as seen in “put her away” in Matt. 1:19), and “a bill of divorce,” (Greek: “apostasion”).
I completely understand that God’s original sacred plan for marriage is that it is between one man and one woman, for life, and I heartily encourage that everyone – particularly Christians – strive to uphold and continue this plan. If your marriage is in trouble, humble yourselves before God, seek direction and counseling, and do whatever it takes to reconcile.
Toward those who have been divorced against their will, Christians must always treat each other with tenderness and sensitivity. Jesus spoke gently and with kindness to the Samaritan woman who had been married and divorced several times (John 14: 16-18). He did not accuse her of sin, he did not judge her, and he did not call her an adulteress. We must always speak on this topic with love for the parties involved.
What is the purpose of the law?
The law shows us the depth of our sin and our desperate need for salvation through Jesus Christ’s atoning death on our behalf. God, through the Mosaic Law, set up instructions for sinful man in order to keep us from making really bad choices with dangerous consequences. The laws don’t force us to make better choices, but they do provide true and essential guidance.
ALL laws are necessary because of our sinful nature. If we were still sinless, perfect creatures like Adam and Eve were before the Fall, there would be no divorce and no need for any laws, for the Ten Commandments, or even for Christ to have died in our place to redeem us from our sins.
However, the Fall DID occur. Sin is rampant and seems to continue to increase. Laws are very necessary.
An example of the need for laws after the Fall was that God instituted the death penalty for first-degree murder. From the beginning it was not so, for God created us to live together in harmony. But for the hardness of men’s hearts, it became a very necessary judgment to curb such violent crime.
In order to follow instructions and laws correctly and gain the most benefit from them, it is important to know exactly what the laws and instructions say. There are many, many resources and teachings out there that incorrectly interpret what the instructions say about a Christian remarrying after a divorce.
What is the difference between Divorce and Putting Away?
A common error arises when the word “divorce” is incorrectly used when the scripture actually states something different. Many times the word used is “putting away.” There is a significant difference between the two.
In the original Greek, the word “apostasion” means “a bill of divorce,” and refers to a legal document given to validate the divorce. It corresponds to the Hebrew phrase “sepher kerituth,” which is translated as “certificate of divorce.”
In the original Greek, the word “apolyo” means “to send away, dismiss, release, let go, depart, or get rid of”. This corresponds with the Hebrew word “shalach”, which is translated “send away.”
So “divorce” and “putting away” are two separate words for two separate actions.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines a “bill of divorcement” as:
“This expression, found in Deut 24:1, 24:3, Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8 is the translation of the Hebrew sepher karithuth. The two words, literally rendered, signify a document or book of cutting off, i.e. a certificate of divorce given by a husband to a wife, so as to afford her the opportunity or privilege of marrying another man.”
The common law of the time was called the Hammurabi Code. Under the Code, when a man and woman got married, a written contract was required. However, a man could legally put away his wife by simply saying out loud three times that he repudiated her. That left the woman with no financial means of support, no protection, and only negative options for her future.
God established protections for the divorced women through the Mosaic law by requiring the man to give her a legal, written bill of divorcement instead of just verbally repudiating her and putting her away. This written bill of divorce allowed her to keep her dowry so as not to be destitute and also prevented her of being wrongly accused of adultery.
We must also keep in mind that from the beginning of the Mosaic law, the penalty for adultery was DEATH, not divorce. Under those circumstances, the innocent party would then be a widow or widower, and thus free to marry again.
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. – Leviticus 20:10
What does the Old Testament say about divorce?
The Mosaic law first speaks to divorce in Chapter 24 of the book of Deuteronomy. The King James Version is below, with Hebrew translations added.
“When a man takes a wife and marries her and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce (sepher kerithuth), puts it in her hand, and sends her out (shalach) of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce (sepher kerithuth), puts it in her hand and sends her out (shalach) of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.” – Deuteronomy 24: 1-4
This verse talks about a woman who is divorced from one husband and marries another. She is not forbidden to marry another man after her first husband divorces her. She is only forbidden to go back to her first husband if her second marriage ends in divorce.
If the woman is divorced on without being guilty of anything, isn’t it very unfair that she would then be sent away and considered an adulteress if she remarries? It brings to mind Abraham’s question to God in Chapter 18 of the book of Genesis when he was told the Lord was about to bring destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt Thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt Thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from Thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? – Genesis 18: 23-25
God ultimately agreed to not destroy Sodom if ten righteous persons could be found there. Remarkably, when the angels of the Lord came to destroy Sodom, they rescued only Lot and his wife and two daughters. As they urged Lot to flee to the nearby city of Zoar, they told him that they could not destroy Sodom until he (one person) was spared.
Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. – Genesis 19:22
Chapter 2 of the book of Malachi contains a verse that is often brought up by people who quote it as saying: “God hates divorce.” It actually says, in the King James Version (Another reason I use the Greek Textus Receptus New Testament for specific word studies):
“For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.” – Malachi 2:16
There are several instances in the Old Testament in which God actually INSTRUCTS His people to put away their spouses, but in every one of those instances, it is because He does not recognize their current marriages to be legitimate. For example, in Ezra, when the Israelites had taken foreign wives from the pagan people of the land, they were not told to divorce those wives, but instead for them to put them away.
Is Marriage a Conditional Contract?
A conditional contract or covenant is one that specifies conditions that both parties agree to fulfill. If one party breaks the contract, the wronged party may sue at law for damages or annulment of the contract.
All marriage contracts involve vows made by two parties. By definition, marriage contracts are conditional contracts. Divorce is lawful when the contract is broken by one of the parties.
When God entered into marriage with Israel at Mt. Sinai, Israel (the bride) agreed to submit to His authority and obey His laws (Exodus 19:3-8). God, on the other hand, agreed to give them the Kingdom and the blessings of the Birthright. These included honor, protection, sustenance, and children (Genesis 12:1-3).
Israel violated this contract, being incapable of full obedience, and refused to repent; and thus, her Husband divorced her and sent her out of His house.
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. – Jeremiah 3:8
Note that God not only sent her away, but only did so after giving her a written bill of divorce. This was in accordance with the law in Chapter 24 of the book of Deuteronomy. God’s divorce meant Israel was no longer God’s wife, and he stated so.
Plead with your mother [Israel], plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband. – Hosea 2:2
The fact that God divorced Israel shows that lawful divorce is the result of sin, or violation of the contract. It is the final solution to the problem when all else fails, and when reconciliation is impossible. The contract is always conditional.
What did Jesus say about Divorce?
Jesus’ first recorded words about divorce are found in the sermon on the mount in Chapter 5 of the gook of Matthew.
It hath been said, ‘Whosoever shall put away (apolyo) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion).’ But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away (apolyo) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia), causeth her to commit adultery (moichao): and whosoever may marry her that is divorced put away (apolyo) committeth adultery (moichao).” – Matthew 5:31-32
Why would this “put away” woman be committing adultery if she married again? Because she is still lawfully married! Why would there be an exception to this for fornication? Because the covenant would be broken by the fornication of the wife, who under the Mosaic Law should have been put to death. Since she was considered as dead, the marriage would no longer be considered legitimate and no certificate of divorce was required to be issued.
Also note that the word for fornication is different than the word for adultery. That is a whole study in itself, which will not be covered here.
Some people think that in the sermon on the mount, Jesus was overturning the laws because He recited them and then said “but I say to you…”. Instead, He was showing that the thoughts and motives behind our actions are judged equally with our actions.
The sermon on the mount is for the most part a commentary on Bible law. In Chapter 5 of the book of Matthew, Jesus disclaimed the idea that He was trying to destroy or undermine the law. Further, He positively condemned those who would break the shortest commandment and teach others to do so. From this alone it should be clear that Jesus did not abolish God’s laws on divorce and remarriage.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” – Matthew 5:17
In Chapter 19 of the book of Matthew (and also recorded in Chapter 10 of the book of Mark), the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus into answering a current question in order to find fault with his answer.
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?” And He answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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?’ Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto Him, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” 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. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” – Matthew 19:3-9
Jesus expressed the ideal of marriage for life, and was not overturning the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus into saying something contrary to the Law. Their reasoning was that it was commonly recognized that the Law was given by God to Moses. If Jesus said something contradictory to the Law, then He could not be the Messiah of God.
Jesus is also recorded speaking about the dangers of putting a wife away and not protecting her via a bill of divorcement in Chapter 16 of the book of Luke.
Whosoever putteth away (apolyo) his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away (apolyo) from her husband committeth adultery. – Luke 16:18
The Mosaic Law allowed for divorce because of hard hearts. Hearts are still hard today. Many people have hardened their hearts to God, and do not live up to God’s desire. God often allows us to do things that are not His direct will for our lives. Although the Mosaic Law allowed the writing of divorcement, it was always below God’s divine ideal.
The prescription for marriage to be a life-long, sacred commitment was given to Adam and Eve when they were sinless, before the Fall. That is still God’s expectation for Christian marriages.
However, since the Fall, God no longer expects us to be sinless, and He knows that many will be crushed by the consequences of sin, even if they are the consequences of someone ELSE’s sin, like when an innocent spouse is divorced by the spouse who is not willing to be reconciled.
Divorce should not be necessary among Christians. However, even Christians are often lawless and disobedient to the perfect will of God. For this reason, divorce provisions are necessary even for Christians. When a marriage contract has been broken, and especially if one or both parties refuse to repent and restore the lawful order, divorce may well be the only solution. God does not expect the innocent party to honor the contract when the guilty party refuses to do so.
What does the apostle Paul say about divorce?
Paul first addresses divorce in Chapter 7 of the book of Romans.
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? For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed form the law of her husband. 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. 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. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. – Romans 7:1-6
Paul is here explaining that through our death with Jesus at Calvary, we are dead to the law and delivered from its dominion over us as a principle of justification. He is simply using the commonly-understood illustration of a woman being bound in the contract of marriage to a man until his death. He is not answering any question here about the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage.
And if death is the only Biblical way to end a marriage, why does the Mosaic Law make provision for divorce?
In Chapter 7 of the book of 1st Corinthians, Paul addresses questions written to him from the Corinthian Christians. He has already dealt with their questions about the relative merits of being married or single, and if it is more spiritual to abstain from sex in a marriage relationship.
The Corinthian Christians wondered if it might be MORE spiritual to be single, and if they should break up existing marriages for the cause of greater holiness. Paul confirms that Christians should not break up their marriage in a misguided search for higher spirituality. He tells them that if one were to depart from their spouse, they must either remain unmarried or be reconciled.
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, “Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.”
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. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.” 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.
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 7:10-15
Later in the same letter, Paul addresses the Corinthians’ question about whether or not they should even get married or stay married due to the “present distress” of the persecution that the early Christian church was experiencing.
Paul does not use the technical words for divorce and remarriage, but rather the descriptive terms “bound” and “loosed.” To be bound by law means to be married by contract; to be loosed means to be loosed from that contract (divorced or widowed).
I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art though loosed from a wife? 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. – 1 Corinthians 7:26-28
Few verses are plainer than these. If you are married, do not seek a divorce. If you are divorced or widowed, do not seek a wife because of the “present distress” mentioned in Verse 26. But if you do marry, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED. If a virgin marry, she has not sinned either. In other words, Paul says, remarriage after a divorce is NOT a sin. Thus, divorce and remarriage is NOT adultery.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that if you get a divorce and remarry that you are in continual adultery and you will die in your sins and the Blood of Jesus does not cover that.
Praise be to God that we are now free to live under the Law of Grace since Jesus Christ came and died in our place for the remission of our sins. We no longer stone adulterers and adulteresses to death, as required under the Mosaic Law. Because that is the case, Jesus re-defined how the innocent spouse should be viewed after they had been the victim of first adultery and then divorce by the guilty spouse.
God does not judge a person by the law once they have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. This is the wonderful news of the gospel: that Christians no longer stand before God as sinners under the law. We stand in Grace!
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. – Romans 5:1
Brent
Biblical Word Studies is an ongoing topical series that examines individual words used in the Bible, in their original languages. By investigating the original languages, we glean a clearer picture of the depths of God’s direction and revelation to man, and also clear up apparent contradictions. Greek and Hebrew word studies can reveal new insights and hidden treasures. However, its most valuable resource is the enhanced clarity, practical interpretation, and rich meaning in understanding the original languages concerning a biblical passage that needs to be underlined. It is these gems of affirmation that can strengthen our faith. Our main focus is always on Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior of the world, God incarnate, He alone deserves preeminence in God’s Word. God’s Word, the Holy Bible stands alone as our source of guidance and direction, and is our singular foundation for and of faith. Biblical Word Studies is an outreach ministry of Faith Video Ministries Inc. You may contact us at our e-mail address: blb@faithvideoministries.com
Faith Bible Ministries Blog ~ An Online Study of the Bible 
Reblogged this on Grain of Wheat.
LikeLike
[…] The Bible Says Remarriage is Not a Sin […]
LikeLike
Hello Brent
I just want to thank you for this article and your previous one on Christian divorce. It was most timely for me to read it as I have once more come across Christians who take a hard line on this subject. To a person such as myself who has been previously divorced by my husband (whom I loved) for my faith in Jesus Christ (& his adultery) then your article has just added another facet of understanding the scriptures for me. I have just been digging into my Youngs Literal Tramonslation of the bible and my Strong’s Concordance to check out the words used in Jesus’ teachings on divorce. It has been most enlightening.
I have Word-Pressed a link onto my own blog back to this article in case it can reach a few more people.
Thank you once more for all the work you put into this site – I am certainly being blessed as I browse.
Yours in Christ Jesus
Helen
LikeLike
Thank you Helen.
Many Christians, victims of divorce are being judged and even condemned for remarrying by sincere individuals who attempt to validate their own harsh feels and beliefs, which totally distort the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sincerity is no excuse. I have no doubt that Hitler was very sincere concerning his abominations, as well as Lucifer rationalizing his own pride. But at the same time we must understand that when ever someone treats one of God’s children in a terrible manner after they have been victimized is something that is very serious and never to be rationalized.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. In hindsight, we realize that Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land because he disobeyed God and struck the rock a second time rather than speak to it as he was commanded.
We notice from the passage that he was angry with the people referring to them as rebels, filled with pride talking about how he would do miracles, yet the biggest sin he did in his disobedience was that he misrepresented God to the people.
You see at this time, prior to the fulfillment of the Messiah wherein we all become priest and king before God and have only one intermediate, which is Jesus himself; that before the priest would represent God to the people. Of course we also have the blessing of God’s word, but at that time when Moses spake for God he misrepresented God’s feelings towards the people, God was not angry with them, Moses was.
Because Moses took lightly representing the God of the universe before his children, showing a harshness, anger, which culminated in him breaking a symbol, perhaps even unaware to him by hitting the rock, he lost out on entering the promised land. That is a big penalty.
It is so common these days for individuals to treat salvation like it is a condition that can be lost rather than a relationship which is permanent. Once men have started to go down this road of misrepresenting the ability of God to keep his own (read John 10), it becomes easy to keep on presenting a legalistic type of God who would condemn and harm an innocent victim of divorce.
The main point is God will never punish the innocent with the guilty. Lot is proof of this. Abraham stopped bartering with God it 10 (which is why it takes 10 righteous men to institute synagogue in any town), yet God took it one step further and would not destroy Sodom because of only one man lot (see with the Angels tell lot, they cannot fulfill their destiny to destroy the city until he is out of there.)
The point is our heavenly father is a loving father. And when someone is victimized by being divorced or even the divorce person themselves for reasons of self-defense or even sanity, there is always forgiveness with God. And he will not hold them accountable for damnation for remarrying when the blood of Jesus is already paid for every sin that they would ever do.
I’m sure glad God is not like men. Thanks again for your kind response, Brent
LikeLiked by 1 person
From your article.Remarriage is not sin…
But remarriage followed.by diverce ks absolutely sim
N…remarried people are conginually living in the skn of adultery…if remarriying is not sin christians would follow remarriage…in Hebrews 10: 26,27 a christian is not exlected to do sin after he became.a.christian. why to diverce a christian to their spouse? How Many marriage are allowed a person needs…only death permits a person to re marry
LikeLike
Immanuelsamuel,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my article. Unfortunately I don’t know how well you read it nor check the references but I would suggest that you read it again after reading this communication to you. Also I am sending a Word document which has all the formatting of the below to your personal email address. Unfortunately when I post this as a response on my website it will take the formatting out and the formatting helps to read it, and when I say formatting I mean that I use different colors for different words in order to attempt to make this is easy to understand as possible though by nature many times things are complicated on their own, and reading the word document of this makes it easier to understand.
You see the issue here is not what it says in the English translation, but what God communicated through the original Greek text that he chose to use to bring forth the New Testament.
Many times the English translation does not mean the same thing or it leads you to think something that is incorrect because the context is being abused.
We must always remember context.
First let me address blatant error concerning your understanding of Hebrews 10:26-27.
Because if you don’t understand this there’s no way you will understand marriage, and the fact that God hated putting women aside, without the legal document to protect them which we call a bill of divorcement. They were doing separation before Moses was told to give a bill of divorcement the bill of divorcement is for the protection of the woman. The man could say she was an adulterous and she could be killed if you want to get rid of her, but the written document called a bill of divorcement protected her and made it to where she could remarry because a woman back then cannot survive on our own. God allowed it because they were already doing it he was just protecting the woman because of the hardness of the men’s hearts.
But this is a small issue considering what you’ve Artie said so let’s deal with this issue of sin, and then if you come back to me and have an understanding of that you need to reread the article and understand that there are two issues at stake regarding divorce, one is that men would separate their wives which is called “putting away”, and then there was the issue of putting them away but giving them a bill of divorcement for their protection. There are two situations here not just one.
You see you’ve taken a verse out of its context not understanding who the writer was speaking to, and the fact that he was not dealing with sin generally, but a particular sin which is seen in the Greek grammar.
Again, it is not a translation that we are to take as the inerrant word of God because men have different ways of translating words into the English and the English words many times don’t fit well, or more importantly the biggest problem is is that there’s many Greek words that we don’t have the exact equivalent of in the English.
This is why having a teacher who goes back to the original Greek, and breaks down the grammar can understand what it says from the standpoint of what the author wanted to tell us, and the author, the Holy Spirit chose to use this language so who are we to demand perfection from something that he did not give us in the form of a translation.
We forget that translations are not exact and cannot be because no two languages have definitions for any two words there always different and more importantly than that it is the grammar that really teaches us what is being communicated.
Let me give you a short illustration
have you ever read first John 1:8, in the English it almost sounds like it’s past tense. The tense tells us when something is completely finished, ongoing and continuing, or happening in the future.
In the Greek, what’s referred to as the present tense means something that is taking place currently, which never ends. It is a continuous action somewhat like breathing. Where other words in the Greek may be something that are only done once, or something that’s done in the future.
Now first of all your under the deception that once you become saved God expects you to be un-sinful. And yes we are to take responsibility and not live in sin nor do it willingly.
But we can’t stop sinning anymore than we can stop breathing. He died for all of our sins 2000 years ago on the cross the ones I did yesterday, the ones that I do today, and the ones I do tomorrow.
If you think that you can stop sinning this is really close to heresy, because you put too much credit in yourself. If we could merely stop sinning why did God need to send his son to die for our sins, and this is seen when we look at this verse and first John 18 as well as many other places. If you look at what is below you will see the Greek breakdown and that what the Scripture is saying is that we live in sin and if we tried to say that we can stop sinning we deceive ourselves, then when you go to verse 10 it go so far as to say that if you say that you are not a sinner currently, meaning that you keep doing that you are calling God a liar because he has declared that there is no cure for sin, you can’t fix yourself no matter what you do, and in this body you will sin each and every day of your life whether you acknowledge it or not.
The Pharisees believe that they could keep sin under control and stop sinning and you see how Jesus responded to them.
You have simply been missed taught because the one that taught you this did not fully understand what God has written and his New Testament in the language that he chose to send it to.
Who are we to think that we can translate from the original Greek and that it says what a translation says because translations by its very nature changes something and is never exact.
So the first problem we need to deal with is the fact that you think that you can stop sinning at some level. Please do not believe that this is a permission statement to sin because sin will mess us up and destroy relationships and make our life miserable.
We have the ability to make choices not to sin where the unbeliever must sin each and every time but this ability to choose not to sin at a single event does not mean that you can stop sinning altogether.
Even the thought that you could stop sinning is a sin.
Do you know what the Greek word for sin means, it means to literally “miss the mark.”
It was originally used as an archery term that when ever someone was practicing archery they would have a giant target and that to hit the bull’s-eye was impossible because the bull’s-eye was the exact size of the arrow, and anything outside of that perfection was missing the mark.
This is where people get the idea that all sin is the same to God, yes it is all missing the mark but there are certain sins which are worse to God than others, or he would not be a just God.
Lying to someone not to hurt their feelings is not on the same par as raping someone or killing someone that is ludicrous in the world blasphemes our God when we try to say that all sin is exactly the same to him, that’s not what the text says, the word itself means that sin is anything outside of perfection, nobody can rationalize that there sin is small because sin is sin and every sin that we had done was placed upon Jesus at the cross, the little ones along with the big ones.
So the first thing to understand is that if you think that you can stop sinning than the devils get a run you around like he did the Pharisees, attempting what is called spiritual pride and that is the sure barrier to growing spiritually as a Christian.
It is the publican in the temple that was praying with his face to the ground, tears in his eyes begging God to forgive him because he was a terrible sinner that was forgiven, not the self-righteous Pharisee standing up holding his arms extended to God thanking God that he didn’t sin like he used to, such as at publican a few feet away.
So please read the following and seek out from a Greek dictionary that is in the English what I’ve said because one thing I do is I use references and tell you where it came from.
And you will see below I have included what Warren weirs be has taught about first John 1:8, and 10. That I also have copied an article concerning understanding Hebrews 10:26 through 27 written by one of the greatest Greek teachers I know Kenneth Wiest.
Let me share one more thing that becomes a stumbling block in this area. Between first John 1:8 and 1:10, is obviously 1:9 which states:
“that if we confess our sins he is faithful to forgive us.” In the English this sounds like that to be forgiven for sin we must confess sin on a daily basis. In fact the Catholic Church teaches that somebody that commit suicide goes to hell because they can’t repent of the murder of killing themselves after they’ve already done it.
However, Paul says that humans guard their life by human nature and they take care of themselves and don’t attempt to kill themselves, which leads us to the conclusion that anyone that kills himself cannot be in their right mind, or if they are there simply following where the devil is leading them.
You see if you believe that you have to confess sins in order for them to be all healed what’s that mean regarding the cross.
Our sin was paid for at the cross by the blood of Jesus Christ and saying a few words of repentance will not take them away.
If you understood the Greek you would understand that this verse is talking about our daily walk, and that we have to admit we are sinners before we come to God or else we become spiritually pride as we think we can stop sinning, it creates a humble state of mind because we know that we are a sinner on a daily basis and that as that sin builds up of we don’t acknowledge it or don’t see it then the pride builds up in it creates a barrier of fellowship between us and the Holy Spirit in our minds get seared with a hot iron to were were not sensitive to the Holy Spirit. How many times have you seen self-righteous spiritually proud people that don’t believe that they can sin, this is what that verse is talking about is that we need to confess on a daily basis are sins, but in the Greek it is saying that we should do so because he has forgiven us but we must acknowledge that were sinners otherwise we will fall just like Satan did in pride. I hope the following helps.
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” 1Jn_1:8
SEE BIBLE: KJV+TVM
1 John 1:8 ~ “If we say that we have [words: G2192, Grammar: G5719 ] no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
The verb: “we have” (echo) is in the:
Present Tense, meaning it is: Continuous Action – Never stops
Active Voice, meaning it is: Subject Causes the Action (Object Receives Action) ~ we choose to do it
Indicative Mood, meaning it is: Mood of Certainty – A Reality ~ it is an undeniable fact (When the *present tense is used with the* indicative mood It changes the normal understanding of the present tense as a continual action, it is referring to the moment that it is occurring which will be ongoing yet doesn’t directly attribute itself a lifelong practice, though in them moment, that is every moment of a human’s life sin is a present tense consideration.)
First Person, meaning it is: Applies to the Speaker (“I” – “We”) ~ this is to you and I
Plural Number, meaning it is: Applies to All ~ it applies to everyone
ALLWAYS SEE: 1Jn_2:4
___________________________________________________________________________________
1 John 1:10 ~ “If we say that we have not sinned [Word:G264, grammar: G5758], we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”
The verb: “sinned” (hamartano): [literally means: “to miss the mark”]
Perfect Tense, meaning it is: Completed in the Past, Results in the Present
Active Voice, meaning it is: Subject Causes the Action (Object Receives Action) ~ we choose to do it
Indicative Mood, meaning it is: Mood of Certainty – A Reality ~ it is an undeniable fact
First Person, meaning it is: Applies to the Speaker (“I” – “We”) ~ this is to you and I
Plural Number, meaning it is: Applies to All ~ it applies to everyone
The word sin is a verb and in the perfect tense meaning it is an action that started in the past, in such a way that it is a complete act, once started never to be ended, hence the idea of Completion. Yet it goes on maintaining results in the present. The active voice means that the subject, the person is the one that is doing the sinning. The indicative mood means that this is an absolute fact. The first person means that John is applying this to himself. And the plural number means it applies to everyone as well. This is simply saying that every human being rather believer or not Has sinned in their life, once begun it will never end, seen as a state of being, a change in the person that is unchangeable regarding the results which are encountered in the present. Sin is an everyday part of the human life, not simply something that is done periodically by a person that is basically good. It is a condition which is innate to man and intracle to humans. This does not mean that sin will reigns in the life of the believer as it does in the unbeliever.
“Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not” 1Jn_3:6
The Christian who abides in Christ (this is the fellowship of chaps. 1-2) will not deliberately break God’s law. Every Christian sins, perhaps without knowing it (Psa_19:12); but no true Christian will deliberately and repeatedly defy God’s Word and disobey Him (David) . 1Jn_3:6 ought to read, “Whosoever abides in Him does not habitually sin.” Eph_2:1-3 (It does not say that) makes it clear that the unsaved sin constantly because they live in the flesh and for the devil. But the Christian has a new nature within and is no longer Satan’s slave. (Warren Wiersbe)
Hebrews 10:26
This wilful sin must be defined in its context. It will not do to ignore the historical background of this book and its analysis, and then put an arbitrary meaning upon the words. That is not exegesis, namely, taking out of the text what is there, but eisegesis, putting into the text what is not there. The sin which the book warns against is that of a Jew of the first century who left the temple sacrifices, identified himself with the visible Church and made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, renouncing that profession and returning to the temple sacrifices. This sin is spoken of in Heb_2:1 as letting New Testament truth slip away, in Heb_3:7-8 as hardening the heart against the Holy Spirit, in Heb_6:4 as falling away and crucifying the Son of God, in Heb_10:26 as a wilful sin, and is analyzed in Heb_10:29 as the three-fold sin against the three Persons of the Triune God. This sin could only be committed in the first century while the temple was still standing and only by an unsaved Jew or proselyte to Judaism. In this case, there can be no secondary application to present day circumstances or individuals.
This sin is described as a wilful sin. The word is hekousios, which means, “voluntarily, of one’s own accord.” It is opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or weakness. The Greek has it, “If we go on sinning wilfully,” stress being placed upon the habitual aspect of the sin. The immediate context defines that sin as one of the continued forsaking of the means of grace at the services of the Christian assemblies, and the habitual commission of the sin defined in Heb_10:29.
The word “knowledge” is not the simple word gnosis, but the stronger word epignosis. Alford quotes Delitzsch as saying: “When epignosis is used, there is the assumption of an actual direction of the spirit to a definite object and of a real grasping of the same: so that we may speak of a false gnosis, but not of a false epignosis. And the Writer, by the use of this word, gives us to understand that he means by it not only a shallow historical notion about the Truth, but a living believing knowledge of it, which has laid hold of a man and fused him into union with itself.” Thus it is clear that the Jew who committed this sin, was fully informed by the Holy Spirit of the issues involved between the First Testament and the New Testament, and also of the meaning and the implications of the New Testament, (Heb_6:4, “who were once enlightened”) and therefore, he sinned with his eyes wide open.
Should he commit this sin, there would remain no more sacrifice for sin. Expositor’s quotes Delitzsch as follows: “The meaning is not merely that the Jewish sacrifices to which the apostate has returned have in themselves no sin-destroying power, nor even that there is no second sacrifice additional to that of Christ, but further that for a sinner of this kind the very sacrifice of Christ itself has no more atoning or reconciling power.” Alford, commenting upon this same thing says: “There is but One true sacrifice for sins: if a man, having availed himself of that One, then deliberately casts it behind him, there is no second left for him. It will be observed that one thing is not, and need not be, specified in the text. That he has exhausted the virtue of the one sacrifice, is not said: but in proportion to his willing rejection of it, has ceased to operate for him. He has in fact, as Delitzsch observes, shut the door of repentance behind him, by the very fact of his being in an abiding state of willing sin.” All of which means that this abandonment of the New Testament sacrifice, the Messiah, and the return to the abrogated sacrifices of the First Testament, was not a snap judgment on the part of this first century Jew, but a confirmed state of heart.
Translation: For if we go on sinning wilfully after having received a full knowledge of the truth, no longer for sins does there remain a sacrifice. Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (Kenneth S. Wuest)
LikeLike
I am not remarried or divorced but found this refreshing for those who are. It is amazing how the church through the years got this wrong. I wonder why? I noticed my NKJV Has Jesus saying divorce and not put away, whereas my KJV was put away. With that, I think I am going to stick with the KJV from now on.
Even when people are presented with this truth they still choose to believe remarriage is adultery, I have to wonder why?
LikeLike
Read through this again. Read this after reading your old Chrisitan Divorce article. I got confused at first but then realized those were written prior to this article.
It is truely mazing how when we learn more, the word of God is clearer and we discover more. Love how you quote OT verses and tie it in with NT verses. Many do not see the importance of the OT and how it really reveals the NT. Keep it up!
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing this out, I will take down the old ones. Friday I am releaseing a new “Just a thought” article, please tell me what you think when it ‘s out. Thanks, bb
LikeLike
Sounds good will check it out.
LikeLike
WELLLLLL, I ran into an issue which I must spend more time in research than I thought, so I am just going to republish an old article today. bb
LikeLike
You mean research for “just a thought” or chrisitan divorce?
LikeLike
“just a thought” it touches upon abortion and other insights.
LikeLike
Hello and thank you for this article. I have a question I hope you’ll see and answer. I’ve read through everything a couple times. I need some things clarified. I’d appreciate your help so I know how to apply this to o my life.
You stated above quote “Because that is the case, Jesus re-defined how the innocent spouse should be viewed after they had been the victim of first adultery and then divorce by the guilty spouse.”
Does this mean remarriage is only allowed for the innocent party?
I’m divorced but I didn’t wait until the divorce was finalized before beginning a new relationship. My current partner didn’t wait for his divorce to become finalized either. Both my ex and his ex were unfaithful and that is why we ended the marriages. Are we allowed to remarry each other or are we guilty too because we did not wait? We’ve repented but we are wondering can we get married. We want to do the right thing. Our exes have both moved on to new relationships also.
Also here you stated
“Paul does not use the technical words for divorce and remarriage, but rather the descriptive terms “bound” and “loosed.” To be bound by law means to be married by contract; to be loosed means to be loosed from that contract (divorced or widowed). “
What about in Roman 7:1-3 it says she should remain single. I know you touched on this but I’m still not sure remarriage is allowed here.
Can you explain this too?
Also here…And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, “Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.” Start of 1 Corinthians 7:10.
Who exactly can or can’t remarry here? Sorry I’m confused.
LikeLike
Audra,
I know it’s been six days since you emailed me this question, and believe me I take these very seriously and greatly apologize. I have been in the process of moving and it has taken me night and day. The spirit has troubled me that it’s taken me this long to get back to you and I deeply apologize. Part of the problem is been that my computer has been taken apart, but I don’t plan for this to ever occur again, because serving him is more important than anything else and I serve him by serving others. As you may have noticed that I have been on a hiatus for the last three years.
During this time my life is been turned completely upside down even to the point of dying for a few minutes in dealing with cancer chemo and all the other great side effects that come with attempting to deal with this damnable disease for the second time.
As you have written me I am just now getting to the place where I minister writing again and therefore it is more important than ever to respond to people’s inquiries especially seeing in your last line stating that you were confused about this writing which is probably one of the most problematic subjects there is because it goes against the traditions of man only because that we do not understand the history that’s behind it and the Greek which uses different words for the word which are translated into the same word divorce which in the Greek the two different words actually should be translated, and are in many places the terms. “Putting away”, which will is used by Moses and all throughout the Old Testament and especially concerning Joseph and Mary when Joseph thought she was being unfaithful.
In fact we have the same kind of tradition in America where a hundred years ago if a woman got pregnant and was not married she would be sent to her cousins house for nine months to have the baby which was either adopted out by her parents or other elders or some other situation but putting away just means to disassociate with and to make private. This displays Joseph’s love for her because he would rather do this then to do the legal situation of divorce, which would mean that she would be stoned to death and the baby killed inside her womb. As I just stated the second word is a word divorce which is a legal procedure.
This is the reason why God gave it to Moses because men were so hardhearted that if they didn’t like a woman and according to the Rabbis if she did make a good sexual partner or he didn’t like the way that she cooked he could actually simply just “put her away.” Which again was not a legal procedure but he avoided all responsibility and in the process even keep her dowry.
Dowries were given by father’s two daughters to be held by their new husbands in case the husband died or abandon her she would have money to take care of her. When it came to inheritance the oldest son always received two thirds of the estate, the other one third to be split with younger boys; and dowries were always set up for the girls for protection believing that they would always get married because they didn’t have lesbians in Israel, they were always killed if they ever existed.
In that way a man would provide for his oldest son who would carry on the namesake and keep running the ranch per se the younger boys so they could strike out on their own and have some money, and then the women which would have a protection because all women were responsible to get married in this protection would take care of them if their husbands died or left them. So as Moses said men wouldn’t do right by the woman they would actually cast them away which is what were talking about in a private matter so they didn’t have to suffer a bad reputation and they would even keep the dowries of the wife that they got rid of.
This is how hardhearted these men had become so what we need to understand is that God was safeguarding the women by making it now an open legal situation that the man could not still for the woman, because when we read the terminology, “divorce,” it is actually not just talking about a procedure by the written piece of paper which would say what the woman did why the man got rid of her and that the man took care of the woman by giving her the dowry that her father had intended for her to have.
You see divorce is not good but it is not a curse it is a blessing and a security tool woman. It is the putting in a way that is so evil that God addressed it by making everything open and legal so the man couldn’t do this evil thing. Yet in some cases it was done just like with Joseph as a protection for a woman that got pregnant out of wedlock.
You see with the Jews the legal part of marriage started with being engaged, once a woman was engaged they were legally bound together though they had consummated the act in the ceremony that we call marriage. If during this engagement the woman got pregnant from another man it was considered adultery and she was killed, or in some cases secretly put away. So first of all we need to address everything I just said because nobody teaches us anymore it was openly thought hundred to two hundred years ago when the church.
But now man because of their own self righteousness and the sexual immorality that came around the sixties and their laziness behind the pulpit’s, don’t allow for divorce and they shouldn’t. But is not something that a preacher allows or a church disallows it just something that happens but the legal procedure of divorce is to protect the woman.
You see this is the problem with dealing with the English translation of the new and Old Testament. If God chose to use the Greek language to convey the New Testament which is a revelation or detailed account of the Old Testament which was written in Hebrew the newer we just simply translated into English which is a very wishy-washy ambiguous kind of language to begin with, where such problems as I just stated occur.
You see God created the Hebrew language which is vague and great for showing something somewhat obscure word of the Bible says that God winked at our transgressions during the Old Testament times where he presented the law which condemned every man and displayed that there was a problem which there was no remedy for only that of temporarily shedding blood year-by-year as a foreshadow that whenever that which would be revealed as Jesus said, when you have seen me you seen the father the word here is revelation which means to display something openly which was only vaguely seen before.
The example in the Greek is actually that of a sequence to rapes that a man was hidden from before we could see his outline but no detail, then he would be revealed by coming out from under those directives and you would see him in his full detail and glory which is what Jesus was of the father, when you saw Jesus you saw the details of God the father.
Old Testament believers always understood that God could not be viewed by man in fact look what happened whatever Moses wanted to see him he could not see him face-to-face without dying and had to wear a covering for his face, and when he came down from the mountain the people saw him but they also saw that he glowed. Now a lot of people believe that Moses kept wearing the veil afterwards because as time went on the glow of having been in the area that God inhabited was wearing off and in a carnal way Moses didn’t want the people to see this, this is what the Jews believe and it fits into the Hebrew language but again the Hebrew language is more vague and it’s not meant to be a detailed account.
Such as God’s dealings with man in the Old Testament because if he had to be detail, God would it just had to kill them rather than making a foreshadowing of everything they did showing them that man was sinful and can never be made right and that God would have to redeem him but this would not occur until Jesus Christ, the son of God, God incarnate in the flesh, came to die for men.
Therefore God when he created his communication for man for the New Testament, the revelation, the gospel mom which means good news, where the Old Testament was the bad news, God used the most specific language known to man that’s ever existed which is Greek. But again how many people even teach what I just said and it was commonly taught a couple of hundred years ago.
That’s when you would go to church and the sermons lasted 2 to 4 to 6 hours, impact originally they were an all day affair which is why we had people that would eat during the service and then have the agape, the sharing of the bread and the wine, which we call communion every week during that service which was all day long because the people had the eat. Look at Jesus as the example of this with the feeding of five thousand which was not done once but was done multiple times which is why some people try to say that the New Testament is full of errors because we have different accounts with diversity concerning the feeding of five thousand.
Five is always been the number of grace and a thousand is a maximization of that number meaning that when God in the form of Jesus would teach five thousand he would teach grace addicts maximized point, but what did he always do he always fed the people during that time because when he preached he preached for hour upon hour all day long. Which is why the people at first Following him because they didn’t have time to go home they would just listen to him all day long eat and then sleep and then started all over again and they was sort of moved through the countryside and this was done during the war part of the year.
If we them have become lazy and don’t have a need for lunch because every preacher knows you better be done by noon or the elders will kick you out because you got eat. Whereas the way it’s been done for thousands of years is that preaching took many many hours look how many pages I’ve written to you just in this introduction, to get the point where I can start to answer some your questions because you don’t know about these things because who can teach this in thirty minutes to an hour.
Early in my ministry after I was preaching at a mainline church and left it, I would preach all day long on Saturday and people would come and go we would bring food and do with the way it was done in the first century which nobody does it these days except for a few groups. And unfortunately some of these groups are false Christianity groups where they teach all kinds of stupid stuff such as seen in the moment we call discipleship congregations where the pastors actually made all the decisions for people and they would live in communal houses and their Sundays were all day long teaching while breaking for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Satan always loves to mimic God’s way so to make it look evil to the real believers when they see it, he’s always faking it he’s always a warped buddies always in sheep’s clothing trying to deceive even if the deception is that the real believers don’t follow a procedure which Christ used to use such as teaching all day long and therefore getting into great detail which is what the Greek language demands, which is what I have done here just in letting you know that there are two separate Greek words regarding separation which are translated into the single English word divorce.
That of putting away which is a separate Greek word and that of the word divorce which is also a separate Greek word.
And don’t feel bad for being confused I’ve been practicing what I’m doing now for thirty years to get to this place, but what’s a pity is that the ten years before that that I was in mainline churches, I Am running into inconsistencies, trying to explain why the Bible doesn’t say what we try to say it is such as problems where we tried to say that Jesus clear the temple once the problem is is that they are two separate situations with separate details. It’s only people that really spend their time in God’s word that can go in and look at it chronologically and see that he clear the temple at the first of his ministry and did a second time at the end of his ministry. One of the habits of God is doing what we call bookmarking, he’ll do something or show something at the beginning, and then do the same thing at the end so that in between we can see the pattern. In fact one of the problems that we have in America is such things is not understanding the Greek like the word prophecy.
We believe that prophecy is foretelling the future which occurred but this was the exception and not the rule because the word for prophecy has nothing to do with the future it simply means to speak for another, it’s very close to the word that we use for a herald. Who was sent out by the King to go around the countryside to the different villages and read any of the new laws are anything he wanted to communicate because we didn’t have television or radio.
So a herald was one that spoke for the King, if you disagree with the herald you would be killed if you hurt the herald you would be killed because he was the king’s representative we also have the word evangel which is very similar. So a prophet was one that spoke for God, but many times it was future situations so that in the rearview mirror of life we can look back see how it was God that did it because who else can see things in the future.
But we miss use this word all the time and act like it’s the windshield of the car that God tells us prophecies to warn us about things which does happen but most the time
prophecy as far as future tense Revelation is meant to grow faith. Because if you knew about terrible things that were happening why would you need thanks so prophecy would work against the very thing that God wants to do. You see faith is never blind it’s meant to be grown because of a track record of repetition of trust because he who can make terrible things work out can be trusted and after a situation occurs we look back at a prophecy and see how it happened just the way God meant it to happen but this is meant to build space. Where those that live by prophecy live by site rather than faith.
And yes are many times that he uses prophecy to protect him warn his people but that is more of the exception than the rule.
You see everything I’m telling you sounds strange probably because nobody else spend six pages is an introduction to explain the rudiments of a simple word which is misunderstood when translated from the Greek to the English, such as the word prophecy.
Now I have said all this to explain things that would give credibility to the paper that I am my wife it done on divorce. It is the only article I have ever done with anybody else as a co-author, and that is because my wife is a genius and I needed to have balance of a wife in this presentation, wherein those that know my teaching understood that she was involved in she has more trustworthiness than me because she is such a brilliant person but also such a loving person that by nature puts other people first where with me I understand the word but I’m prone to the selfishness that many men have having been raised by women who sacrifice themselves through a man’s life, growing them into adult.
That’s why men are meant to teach but women have gifts that are so much more important and that of love, and providing structure. Men and women have their own diverse strong points.
So now I am going to present the questions that you gave me and in bed within them the answers. And again if some of the words don’t sound right I am using voice recognition and sometimes sound alike words get past me in the editing, so if something doesn’t sound right go ahead and copy it and send me an email involving that whole paragraph and I will clarify. If I tried to type out seven pages I just presented to you this would take me days not hours.
So now if I seem to be a fool of what I say is ridiculous you don’t need to go any further, but I would ask that you entertain what I present with prayer because even though I haven’t responded six days every day I’ve been praying about what to say to you in this situation because what you presented is so important that it should be glossed over which is why I have waited till I could present a more thorough presentation do you as seen in this introduction.
Hello and thank you for this article. I have a question I hope you’ll see and answer. I’ve read through everything a couple times. I need some things clarified. I’d appreciate your help so I know how to apply this to o my life.
You stated above quote “Because that is the case, Jesus re-defined how the innocent spouse should be viewed after they had been the victim of first adultery and then divorce by the guilty spouse.”
No, this is incorrect Jesus didn’t redefine marriage. In fact when the Pharisees trying to trip him concerning marriage, divorce, the putting away, and this whole issue what did Jesus do. He responded by going back to the beginning, with Adam and Eve explaining what marriage was meant to be, not what it should be during the that day because now after the perfect example of Adam and Eve we have them falling into sin and becoming sinful creatures, wherein we would do stupid selfish stuff like divorce but Jesus was not trying to give us an example of what we should be due doing as part of the law, which we should because divorce is evil let me keep that clear.
But what did Jesus start to say he said from the beginning, he sets the context of his description of the way marriage should be, he was not defining or redefining anything. Because his hearers or those that were listening to him understood that there had always been a putting away as man choose another mate, and that Moses because of the hardening of their hearts gave them a bill of divorcement, a piece of paper which protected the women
Does this mean remarriage is only allowed for the innocent party?
When were reading God’s word we need to understand there are times that the Bible is not validating what’s being said it’s just presenting what the speaker said, otherwise we would see the Bible validating such things as slavery, where God is not validating it heat is saying if it has to occur in the lease there needs to be the safeguards the same is he same with divorce.
God’s not validating divorce he’s just saying since you guys are already doing it we need to have some safeguards.
So we need to understand also that we are all sinners and there have been times were we done terrible things such as get rid of a good woman or a good man or, divorce them because of protection of ourselves for the children but simply because we divorce somebody, you don’t do it according to the only exceptions for it that Jesus gives which is infidelity, and also the we don’t see it abandonment is also an issue for divorce so that a woman could access his funds if he dies out on the sea never shows up again.
But remember this divorce if done with the wrong reason is a saying that everything we seem to do is a sin and to say that God doesn’t forgive divorce is an accusation against God himself, it’s like saying that the blood of his son was not strong enough to cover this one sin, so the short answer to what you’re saying is no if you blow it and divorce somebody for the wrong reasons all you must do is repent, and if later on to fall in love and you’ve learned enough from your prior mistakes remarriage is not taught against.
But I started to say concerning Paul is that there are a few times work Paul says, well God has it this way but let me tell you what I think and that’s what we see concerning his instructions concerning women that go through divorce being single. The church in Rome misunderstood this and this is why we have nuns but, the issue that the church has come to misunderstand is that being a nun is not mandatory because the divorce or a station in life or position but it is where women normally that are older that have had husband that have died or been divorced would choose to live for God only rather than being remarried because their past the years of having children.
What Paul is doing here is merely his suggestion but not a law or legal issue that you must do this if you divorce somebody or even been divorced. Corinthians is misunderstood because Paul is speaking as a Jewish rabbi to a Gentile church that is full of sin. The city of Corinth, located in Turkey was a Greek city that was so corrupted that the correction crept into the church and he was dealing with all kinds of weird issues. This is why we must have correct application not just, context. All that context is is what is said before or after a verse or word so that we understand how that word or verse is meant to be used.
The biblical interpretation of correct application is the same way. If the Bible has a preacher such as John make a statement to his local church that I would have you prosper even as your soul prospers cannot be taken Adam application in use today. The Bible sometimes like I said just record things but does not mandate that we follow it or use it this would be misapplication
John when he is speaking to his own congregation expresses his own desire, yet the Pentecostal denomination that teaches name it and claim it prosperity has misused and taken the salad application. What’s terrible is if you read it from the Greek you would understand that this does not apply to anybody at any time only where it is spoken here because what John is doing is writing a letter to his own church which we are using to understand how things should be but not necessarily fit into all situations because he wrote it to his church and that may be a different situation such as Corinth to us. This is where correct application comes in but you get it usually from understanding the Greek words but more importantly as I do understanding Greek verbs and nouns. You see the verbs and nouns show us how word should or could be used in many times just by explaining the verbs are now you understand that it’s been taught incorrectly.
This is why the American churches got so many things mixed up because we teach in the English and if you translate a word it means that it is a different word than the original language spoke and not the exact hence you have to translated and every time you do this you normally have to take a paragraph to explain the English word because it is not exactly the same as the original Greek word.
So to answer this question if you send by divorcing someone incorrectly repent meaning change your mind about it and you are free to remarry.
And by the way one of the false teaching going around is that you divorce somebody and then you remarry and you figure out that the original divorce was wrong so you divorce the second spouse and go back to the first, which is ludicrous is that destroys people not just once but twice breaking up a family.
It is one of the few areas that God addresses concerning divorce is found in Leviticus where he says that if you divorce someone or are divorce by them, and you are they remarry, and then divorce that spouse you can’t go back to the original because it is such a hypocrisy. It’s the only real guidelines we have concerning marriage divorce and remarriage.
And there doesn’t seem to be any exception for this except for that this was a rule that was given in the law and guess what, you and I are under grace but I still teach that you cannot remarry the original spouse if you’ve married somebody between these two events.
It displays such stupidity that it is a terrible witness to the world. But again how many sins are there that are unforgivable, none. And by the way the unforgivable sin is not what you think it is it is anybody that simply rejects Jesus Christ as the son of God and that is a subject for another area.
The blood of Jesus is so strong that there is not a sin that it can’t be applied to, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not what you think it is you must read it in the original language. The word blasphemy means to slander the Holy Spirit and the word slander means to lie about something knowing that you’re lying.
So blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus is not God and that the Holy Spirit is not of him but you know that it’s a lie so you can’t be a believer and say that meaning that believer cannot commit blasphemy the Holy Spirit because that would make them a nonbeliever.
There are those that came in among us but as John says they left us and we know they weren’t originally of us to begin with and so they can slander the Holy Spirit but they’re not believers never were.
Remember what Jesus said to those people that look like believers when they said Lord Lord did we not prophesy, did we not cast out devils did we not do miracles in all three of these were done in the name of Jesus seem in the follow the example that Scripture teaches us concerning dealing with these three things in the church. Yet what does Jesus say to them he says I never knew you.
ou see people use this as a Scripture to say you can lose your salvation but Jesus did say I knew you and now I don’t know you. In the Greek he says I never ever ever ever knew you in the first place so these were never believers they were this people that were present when miracles were being done that took credit for it. He also’s calls them workers of iniquity and in the verb sense they were always workers of iniquity it is in the perfect verb tense meaning that they were never saved ever ever.
You see what you understand the verbs in the nouns of the Greek it clarifies any misunderstanding. But let’s go to your next question
I’m divorced but I didn’t wait until the divorce was finalized before beginning a new relationship. My current partner didn’t wait for his divorce to become finalized either. Both my ex and his ex were unfaithful and that is why we ended the marriages. Are we allowed to remarry each other or are we guilty too because we did not wait? We’ve repented but we are wondering can we get married. We want to do the right thing. Our exes have both moved on to new relationships also.
Now you did the right thing by divorcing, because your spouses deserved it. Now yes you guys may have got together before the ink dried on the paperwork yet the principles the same. You had a reason to divorce you may have come together and even had sex before the paperwork had completed but the point is that you do not live in sin now, or as Paul said your children would be in sin which is not the case positively.
But as I said before if you two made the mistake of thinking we should never married and divorced each other than try to remarry her spouse this is something God gets really angry about this think of how screwed up your kids would be because of going back and forth. The fact that you guys even recognize that divorce may have not been proper does not mean that you were wrong to get the divorce you what is wrong on getting together to early. So repent of that no big deal. But your divorce is were completely one hundred percent legal if your spouses had committed infidelity, next question.
Also here you stated
“Paul does not use the technical words for divorce and remarriage, but rather the descriptive terms “bound” and “loosed.” To be bound by law means to be married by contract; to be loosed means to be loosed from that contract (divorced or widowed). “
What about in Roman 7:1-3 it says she should remain single. I know you touched on this but I’m still not sure remarriage is allowed here.
Again as I stated above always expressing a specific situation that in the Greek shows that it is not meant as a general rule you see in the Greek grammar there is five different specific areas to address the words.
The tense (which is actually not about chronological time, always), the mood, the voice, the gender and the number.
These last two have to do with who the audience is and in the “Textus Receptus” Greek New Testament translation that I use these last two areas let us know that this is not an application given to everybody in every situation. And yes I do think it is good if that’s what God is called you to which is another thing the Paul says. Follow the way that God wants you to be in the things he wants you to be he does want everybody to do the same thing we see this in the parts of the body as well as anything else.
You see part of what we’re dealing with here is families and if you have children and you divorce your mate because they cheat on you and your children are still in the house they still need to have a father or a mother in that situation and that’s not what Paul is talking about because the Greek doesn’t allow for the. He’s addressing women and men that are older that have raised their family but we don’t see that in the Greek but it is really apparent once you understand what you’re talking about in the grammar. So don’t take and create a misunderstanding because you have to apply context to what Paul is talking about and also application which neither one of them fit what you’re in
Can you explain this too?
Also here…And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, “Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.” Start of 1 Corinthians 7:10.
Now look at what is said here because this is what I was talking about earlier.
Paul is telling you that this is his guidance but not a command of the Lord so it is not a law he’s just saying that if a woman departs and when it talks about a woman it is singular so there are no children, that his suggestion and that’s all this is to remain unmarried or go back your husband but then noticed that he says that you are not to let the man “put away” which does not mean divorce his wife. So the context here is not applicable to you guys and again this is not what God wants Paul was saying that I command but not the Lord.
What we have to understand again is that he’s writing to Corinth it in Corinth we had people divorcing remarrying divorcing remarrying and doing all kinds of stupid stuff but the application does not fit where we are now are where you are or what you’re doing.
His opinion for those in Corinth are either go back to your husband, if he did not commit adultery, meaning that the woman he’s talking to had illegally divorced her husband so it makes sense to tell them it’s my suggestion that you go back to him, but do not let the husband put away his wife meaning not to divorce her but just as separate. When you see the phrase “put away” which is a different Greek word than divorce, you should think of it as it needs in the English to “separate. without legally divorce.
Who exactly can or can’t remarry here? Sorry I’m confused.
I hope that I have addressed your questions. But now comes the hard part. Most people that you try to explain this to again I say that I am wrong because their church has never taught such things. Well I suggest that you give them what I’ve just written and if there’s typos please either cleared up with me before you send it out or do it yourself I don’t care I trust you.
But the main part is that you’re not responsible for teaching people why you’re doing the right thing or not the wrong thing if they refuse what you say just off your feet go to the next house or meaning drop the subject. And if it’s that big of a thing dropped the relationship because these are sick people because they will not receive what God’s word says only traditions of what their church says. Member what Paul says in Colossians whatever you do do when Faith don’t allow other people’s doubt or refusing to believe you control your behavior. Each or me but just don’t need it in front of them meaning don’t reenter the situation verbally.
You are not responsible for judging another man servant God will take care of them and correct them when they’re in his presence then they’ll understand how much wrong it hurt and pain by their human concepts that they brought.
Jesus repeatedly said that you make void the word of God by your traditions which is what the Jews in what we now do in the church because we are ignorant most people won’t even read the thirteen pages as you have.
LikeLike