The Gap Theory

There seem to be a lot of Christians out there who believe in what is called The Gap Theory. This theory suggests that a gap of an indeterminate amount of time exists between Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 and 2. While I personally do not subscribe to this belief in the least, there are some aspects of it that merit some thought provoking consideration. The first half of this article will be written presenting the more valid arguments of the theory (almost like a defense). The last half of the article will be the commentary of two renowned Hebrew scholars. So, without further adieu...

Just because there could have been a Gap between verses 1 and 2 does not mean that all of the teachings of all Gap Theorists are correct. We need to make sure that we are not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Chew the meat and spit out the bones. It is erroneous to take the wildest speculations of Gap Theorists and lump them together as “The Gap Theory” and then use them to ridicule all aspects of the Gap Theory to show how ridiculous it is. False concepts of the “Gap Theory” are as follows:

• billions of years
• evolution taking place
• geologic column and strata
• a race of pre-Adamic humans who died (seeing that Adam was the FIRST man)
• the angels being a race of pre-Adamic man

Some Concepts to Consider:
The “Gap Theory” does not insist that animals and fossils had to exist on a pre-Adamic earth. In fact, it is doubtful that there were any animals in a pre-Adamic world. During the flood of Noah’s days, the water animals were still alive; but in the Genesis account God is filling the waters with the animals. Gap Theorists believe Noah’s flood gave us the fossils we have today. Yes, there are some Theorists who have tried to include various ideas of evolutionary “science” into the Gap, but Gap Theorists deny these.

Gap Theorists affirm that Lucifer was anointed (just as kings are anointed) and that he was the original ruler of Eden, and that his fall and judgment were because of his original sin (the first sin). We know his rule was on the Earth because the Bible says “you have been in Eden,” and he said he would “ascend into heaven...above the heights of the clouds,” and it was said that he would be “brought down to hell.” We may read of Satan in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

Satan was the first being to sin. Whether he sinned between verses 1 and 2 in a Gap or after day six, if we are honest we will admit that his sin did not bring death into the world. When he approached Eve, he was already fallen, yet Adam and Eve still had life. Death came by man because of man’s sin (see 1 Corinthians 15:21 and Romans 5:12)—not the angels’ sin. Angels do not die. A pre-Adamic world inhabited by angels and judged by God would not present death before sin. It seems as though the Earth was only an abode for Lucifer and the angels.

Some will argue that there was nothing created before God created the heavens and the earth. I challenge them to explain God’s pressing question to Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth … when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (angels) shouted for joy?” (Job 28:4-7). The angels, of whom Lucifer was one, rejoiced at the laying of the foundations of the world. So they were obviously created before it was. It has been pointed out that on the second day God did not look at His creation and see it as “good.” It has been proposed that this had already become Lucifer’s domain after his fall and judgment (Ephesians 2:2 – “prince of the power of the air”; Ephesians 6:12 – “in high places”).

The entire universe bears evidence of life, yet it is in complete ruins. Mars bears evidence of once having water by its erosion marks. In our universe, objects continually collide with other objects—comets, asteroids, etc. God is not the author of confusion, so why are all these objects floating around untethered in confusion with the danger of possibly colliding with the Earth?

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. But (ו, wa) the earth became (תית, haya) desolate (תהו, tohu) and empty (בהו, bohu)...”

Genesis 1:1-2

Renowned Hebrew scholars have indicated that the word “was” in verse two can also be translated as “became,” implying that between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some sort of catastrophe must have occurred causing the earth to fall into the desolate and empty state of which the latter part of verse 2 makes mention. Isaiah 45:18 says, “He created it not in vain (tohu – without form, ruined, desolate, confusion, waste, desert, uninhabitable) , He formed it to be inhabited.” 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us that God is not the author of confusion, yet tohu means precisely that—confusion. So why would God create the earth in confusion (tohu – without form, ruined, desolate, confusion, waste, desert, uninhabitable) and then embark on creating it in six days? Each day of creation begins with “God said” and ends with “And the evening and the morning were the # day.” The first two verses precede the six days of creation.

James Montgomery Boice notes: “Arthur C. Custance, who has written an excellent book in the theory’s defense, traces it to certain early Jewish writers, some of the church fathers, and even to some ancient Sumerian and Babylonian documents. It crops up in the Middle Ages as well.” (GENESIS, Vol. 1, p.57)

The Jewish scholars who wrote the Masoretic Text incorporated “indicators” to guide the reader to correct punctuation. One such mark is called “Rebhia,” which is classified as a “disjunctive accent” intended to notify the reader to pause before proceeding to the next verse because there is a break in the narrative between v1 and v2. The initial “waw” which introduces verse 2 should be rendered “but” rather than “and,” and dis-junctive rather than a con-junctive, because the last word of verse 1 is separated from verse 2 by means of the disjunctive accent Rebhia, which implies that we are to let our thoughts dwell upon it before passing on to verse 2.

It is also quite interesting that in Genesis 1:28 we find the same command spoken by God to Adam as we later see Him speaking to Noah in Genesis 9:1 after the flood: “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.”

However…

1:1 “IN THE BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth.” –Heaven and the earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with ו (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in v. 1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. בּראשׁית (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like εν αρχη in John 1:1, and מראשׁית in Isa. 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created…, the earth was,” etc., or “in the beginning when God created…(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light” (Ewald and Bunsen). The first is opposed to the grammar of the language, which would require v. 2 to commence with ותּהי הארץ; the second to the simplicity of style which pervades the whole chapter, and to which so involved a sentence would be intolerable, apart altogether from the fact that this construction is invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo, which is so repulsive to modern Pantheism. ראשׁית in itself is a relative notion, indicating the commencement of a series of things or events; but here the context gives it the meaning of the very first beginning, the commencement of the world, when time itself began. The statement, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things. The verb בּרא, indeed, to judge from its use in Josh. 17:15, 18, where it occurs in the Piel (to hew out), means literally “to cut, or new,” but in Kal it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (v. 27, ch. 5:1, 2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num. 16:30) or of that of grace (Ex. 34:10; Ps. 51:10, etc.). In this verse however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heaven and the earth.” This expression is frequently employed to denote the world, or universe, for which there was no single word in the Hebrew language; the universe consisting of a twofold whole, and the distinction between heaven and earth being essentially connected with the notion of the world, the fundamental condition of its historical development (vid., ch. 14:19, 22; Ex. 31:17). In the earthly creation this division is repeated in the distinction between spirit and nature; and in man, as the microcosm, in that between spirit and body. Through sin this distinction was changed into an actual opposition between heaven and earth, flesh and spirit; but with the complete removal of sin, this opposition will cease again, though the distinction between heaven and earth, spirit and body, will remain in such a way, however, that the earthly and corporeal will be completely pervaded by the heavenly and spiritual, the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, and the earthly body being transfigured into a spiritual body (Rev. 21:1, 2; 1 Cor. 15:35f.). Hence, if in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, “there is nothing belonging to the composition of the universe, either in material or form, which had an existence out of God prior to this divine act in the beginning” (Delitzsch). This is also shown in the connection between our verse and the one which follows: “and the earth was without form and void,” not before, but when, or after God created it. From this it is evident that the void and formless state of the earth was not uncreated or without beginning. At the same time it is obvious from the creative acts which follow (vv. 3-18), that the heaven and earth, as God created them in the beginning, were not the well-ordered universe, but the world in its elementary form; just as Euripides applies the expression ουρανος και γαια to the undivided mass (μορφη μια), which was afterwards formed into heaven and earth.

1:2-5. The First Day. –Though treating of the creation of the heaven and the earth, the writer, both here and in what follows, describes with minuteness the original condition and progressive formation of the earth alone, and says nothing more respecting the heaven than is actually requisite in order to show its connection with the earth. He is writing for inhabitants of the earth, and for religious ends; not to gratify curiosity, but to strengthen faith in God, the Creator of the universe. What is said in v. 2 of the chaotic condition of the earth, is equally applicable to the heaven, “for the heaven proceeds from the same chaos as the earth.”

“And the earth was (not became) waste and void.” The alliterative nouns tohu vabohu, the etymology of which is lost, signify waste and empty (barren), but not laying waste and desolating. Whenever they are used together in other places (Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23), they are taken from this passage; but tohu alone is frequently employed as synonymous with אין, non-existence, and הבל, nothingness (Isa. 40:17, 23; 49:4). The coming was at first waste and desolate, a formless, lifeless mass, rudis indigestaque moles, υλη αμορφος (Wisdom 11:17) or χαος.¹

The more valid arguments in favour of the Gap Theory may appear convincing until you closely examine them and look to what Scripture teaches. If there was any doubt as to how Genesis 1 should be understood, it is quickly dismissed when one reads Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day..." That puts the issue to rest. In six days it was all done. There is no gap between Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 and 2.

---

¹ Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 28-30.

To Wine or Not To Wine

Are you a Bible-believing man or woman?
Do you believe that every word of the Bible is inspired and is there by divine design?
Do you believe that we should take God at His very Word?

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

INTRODUCTION:
I have always been an individual who seeks the fullness of God's truth, regardless of how much I might dislike what that truth is. There are enough spoon-fed Christians out there as it is who cannot think for themselves. They interpret the Bible incorrectly by relying entirely upon others, being clothed in spiritual "hand-me-downs" for their biblical knowledge. Their beliefs change according to what they have been told by those they hold in high regard as being "knowledgeable." That is not the type of Christian I desire to be.

Several wise counselors have told me that where six or more books agree on the definition of a word, that is the correct definition for that word. I have gathered twenty five (25) sources—though not all have been used in this paper—that agree with each other regarding this subject. This article uses the various lessons gleaned from my time in Bible College.

On page 169 of An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics it states, "The interpreter must come to the Bible as open as possible, without any theological bias or presuppositions." On page 45 of Toward an Exegetical Theology it states, "It is the interpreter's job to represent the text, "not the prejudices, feelings, judgments, or concerns of the exegete. To indulge in the latter is to engage in eisegesis, 'a reading into' a text what the reader wants it to say."" Experience does not interpret what the Word of God says. We heard this statement quite frequently in our classes. Thus, this article is the result of inductive reasoning by following Acts 17:11 and 2 Timothy 2:15 for the purposes of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. In John 8:32, Jesus said, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." However, he did not say that the truth would necessarily be easy to accept. The information I now share with you has been liberating for me and has led to a closer relationship with God. May it bless you as well.

BODY:
The First Mention Principle of Hermeneutics states, "God indicates in the first mention of a subject, the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God." If we examine the first mention of the word “wine” in Scripture, we will notice that it is accompanied by the first mention of the word “drunk.” If we examine the second mention of the word “wine,” we will notice that it is used to describe Noah’s drunken state: "And Noah awoke from his wine" (Gen. 9:24). This verse reads more correctly as: "And Noah awoke from his [drunkenness]." The common Hebrew word for wine is yayin (יין). "When the Hebrew word yayin first occurs in Scripture, it is the fermented juice of the grape (Gen. ix. 21), and there is no reason to believe that it has a different meaning elsewhere."¹ Since the first mention of yayin is in conjunction with “drunkenness,” "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken" (Gen. 9:21a), and describes the results of that drunkenness, "And he was uncovered within his tent" (Gen. 9:21b), it cannot denote unfermented grape juice because such would not be intoxicating nor would it cause a man to defile himself and be found naked. "In no passage can it be positively shown to have any other meaning. The intoxicating character of yayin in general is plain from Scripture. The intoxicating quality of yayin is confirmed by rabbinical testimony. The Mishna, in the treatise on the Passover, says that four cups of wine were poured out and blessed and drunk by each of the company at the eating of the Paschal lamb, and that water was also mixed with wine, because it was considered too strong to be drunk alone. The Gemara adds, “The cup of blessing is not to be blessed, until it is mixed with water.” To meet the objection, How can intoxication be hindered? the rabbis replied, “Because wine between eating does not intoxicate a man.” But although usually intoxicating, it was not only permitted to be imbibed, but was also used for sacred purposes and was spoken of as a blessing (Gen. 49:11-12; Deut. 14:24-26; Ex. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5). Some, indeed, have argued from these passages that yayin could not always have been alcoholic. But this is begging the question and that in defiance of the facts."² "The study of the names applied to wine shows that they are, for the most part, evidently synonyms, and that the substance indicated by them all was one which, if used to excess, was liable to cause intoxication. An attempt has been made to obtain textual support for total abstinence by differentiating intoxicating from unfermented wine in the biblical terminology; but it is only special pleading without adequate foundation. The teaching of Scripture as to the pernicious effects of intemperance in any form is clear and explicit, and the Apostle Paul has stated the case for total abstinence in Ro 14 in a way which does not require the aid of doubtful exegesis for its support."³

The Context Principle of Hermeneutics states, “God gives light upon a subject through either near or remote passages bearing upon the same theme.” Since we have already examined the immediate context of the near passages, let us now examine the remote context of a remote passage, such as Proverbs 23:29-35. "Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again." The key here is found in verse 30, "They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine." Having a single glass of wine is not to “tarry long at the wine.” What does it mean to “tarry long at the wine”? Isaiah 5:11 says, "Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!" That is what it means to “tarry long at the wine.” This verse is clearly speaking about drunks and alcoholics. Verses 33 through 35 explain what the results of drunkenness are: "Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again." A single glass of wine does not result in these side effects. These are the results of drunkenness—abuse of what God has given.

The Golden Rule of Hermeneutics states, “If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.” With that in mind, let us look at another passage. "[God] causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart" (Psalm 104:14-15). Special attention should be paid to the words I have placed in italics. After reading Psalm 104 in its entirety, it is impossible for anyone to claim that that which God has made is evil—especially when looking at the original Hebrew and noting that the word used in verse 15 is yayin, meaning fermented grape juice. The psalmist of Psalm 104 marvels at the display of God’s glory in the universe that He has created (Psalm 8:1-9). Since Psalm 104 clearly states that it is God who created wine, how then can one turn to John 2 and say, “With all that’s [apparently] been said, would a holy God create more of the mocker?” Is one advocating that because God created wine that He is unholy? This is unhealthy ground to be standing on. God created the vine and everything that goes with it, including the natural process of fermentation. Wine is only a mocker when you are given to it by tarrying long at it. If God created wine in the first place, as is noted in Psalm 104, can He not make more of it, as noted in John 2, showing that He is Master over quality? "As the English poet has said, “The conscious water saw its God, and blushed.” The simple meaning is that the change took place during or after the drawing from the pitchers, and that that portion only was changed which was carried to the ruler and actually needed to supply the guests. The other pitchers would be in any case refilled for ablutions after the feast. They were at hand, meeting the eye. All possibility of collusion is thus excluded. They had been used not long before; they would soon be used again. The filling of all leaves to the servants the choice of one or more from which to draw. There is an unfailing potential supply; it becomes an actual supply only when needed and appropriated by human want. Here, as everywhere in divine action, there is an economy in the use of power."⁴ "Though Christ hereby allows a right use of wine, he does not in the least do away his own caution, which is, that our hearts be not at any time overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness."⁵

We might also take notice of the precise words spoken in John 2, which are quite relevatory: "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." There are two problems that present themselves in these words. First, if by "good wine" we are to understand "grape juice," who would serve grape juice at a feast followed by alcohol? Second, as a matter of quality, if by "well drunk" it means the people were inebriated, how would they be able to tell that "poorer wine" was served to them later since they would be too drunk to tell? And if poorer wine was served to them first, followed by good wine, they wouldn't be able to tell either. "Well drunk" does not mean they were drunk. As noted in Paul Brians' Common Errors in English Usage, "Many common verbs in English change form when their past tense is preceded by an auxiliary (“helping”) verb: “I ran, I have run.” The same is true of “drink.” Don’t say “I’ve drank the beer” unless you want people to think you are drunk. An even more common error is “I drunk all the milk.” It’s “I’ve drunk the beer” and “I drank all the milk.”"

The common Greek word for wine is oinos (οινος). "The Greek oinos also means the fermented juice of the grape, except when it is qualified by the word new, and even then there are not two wines, one fermented and the other unfermented. New wine is must, which only becomes wine by fermentation. An argument for the use of the term wine for unfermented grape juice has been sought in the fact that wine was used in later times at the Passover, and yet leaven was strictly forbidden during the seven days of the paschal festival; hence the term wine, as has been argued, must have been applied to unfermented juice. But the reason is invalid. Vinous fermentation was not regarded as leaven."⁶ Oinos is said to be of Hebrew origin, being derived from the Hebrew word yayin, which is the fermented juice of the grape. Strongs’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines oinos as "a primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin (3196)); “wine” (literally or figuratively):--wine." As noted in the brackets, it is either literal wine (meaning real wine, that which is fermented) or figurative wine (meaning a figure of speech, such as Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; 1 Cor. 10:16, which refer to wine as the emblem of the blood of the atonement). Grape juice is not figuratively speaking of wine, as it is not a figure of speech. “Killing two birds with one stone” or “more than one way to skin a cat” are figuratively speaking.

In Acts 2:13 the word used is gleukos (γλευκος). "In Acts 2:13 the word gleukos, rendered “new wine,” denotes properly “sweet wine.” It must have been intoxicating."⁷ "Gleuchos (“must”), “sweet wine,” which seems to have been of an intoxicating nature. It is used in Acts 2:13, where the charge is made, “They are full of sweet wine,” to which Peter replies (v.15), “These men are not drunk as you suppose.” If the wine was not intoxicating, the accusation could only have been ironical."⁸ "The term “new wine” does not indicate wine which has not fermented, for in fact the process of fermentation sets in very rapidly, and unfermented wine could not be available many months after the harvest. Modern custom in Palestine also suggests that the wine used was fermented."⁹ "It could not be new wine in the proper sense of the term, inasmuch as about eight months must have elapsed between the vintage and the feast of Pentecost."¹⁰ "Γλευκος, ‘new sweet wine,’ is mentioned in Ac 2:13 as that by which the Jews thought the apostles were intoxicated at Pentecost. It cannot have been unfermented, as that would not have produced the effect, and Pentecost was eight months after the vintage."¹¹

In 1 Timothy 3:3, the Greek word used is paroinos (παροινος), which literally means “staying near wine.” A drunkard is one who will “tarry long at the wine” and becomes “given to wine.” A person is right in stating that there are not two standards given—one to the pastors and one to the pew-sitters—because 1 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7 are both saying not to be drunkards or “given to wine” wherein it controls you and you become unwise. It is preferred that they abstain from alcohol (1 Timothy 3:2, “vigilant;” nephaleos (nhfaleov)) for reasoning such as Romans 14:21: "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Both Vine’s and Zodhiates’ note, "The drinking of wine could be a stumbling-block and Paul enjoins abstinence in this respect, as in others, so as to avoid giving an occasion of stumbling to a brother (Rom. 14:21)."¹² "The drinking of wine, though not forbidden by Scripture (as is drunkenness [Eph. 5:18]), is to be avoided in the presence of weaker brothers who might be influenced to partake against their consciences (Rom. 14:21)."¹³ "The law of love expounded by Paul in 1 Co 8:1-10 and in Ro 14:1-23,15 teaches modern Christians to be willing gladly to give up what they see causes so many to stumble into sin."¹⁴ However, the warning to be heeded is simply not to be drunkards. Grape juice is not in view here as you can drink all you want and never be given to it.

The subject, therefore, that God is addressing is that of drunkenness and the results thereof—not the drinking of wine itself. Having a single drink of wine makes you as much an alcoholic as having a single bite of food makes you a glutton. Proverbs 23:20-21 warns against both sins. "Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags." "WINEBIBBER (DRUNKARD). A person addicted to wine (Prov. 23:20-21). Jesus was accused of being a winebibber because He befriended sinners (Matt. 11:19)."¹⁵ A winebibber is a drunkard—not someone who has a drink of wine. A riotous eater of flesh is a glutton—not someone who has a bite of food. Both a drunkard and a glutton are people who abuse what God has given to them. "Abstinence from wine (cf. the position of the Rechabites in Jer. 35, or Hos. 2:10-14; 3:1, where wine is linked with Baal worship) is rare. On the other hand there are many warnings against over-indulgence, cf. Is. 5:11 f.; Prv. 20:1; 21:17; Sir. 19:1 ff."¹⁶ "The Law of Moses allowed the use of wine; however, drunkenness was forbidden. … There seems to be no doubt that excess drinking was a problem then as it continues to be today."¹⁷ "In the Pastoral Epistles there is a recognition of the grave dangers of excess."¹⁸ "Several emphatic warnings are given in the New Testament against excess in the use of wine (Luke 21:34; Rom. 13:13; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:7)."¹⁹ "So far as the use of wine leads to inebriation it is pointedly condemned by the word of God."²⁰

"The juice of the grape when expressed was used in various conditions: as must (τρυξ, unfermented grape juice)²¹, fresh from the press; as wine (οινος), which was produced by vinous fermentation; and as vinegar (οξος), which resulted when the fermentation process was continued too long."²² According to Hebrew society, they drank either water, milk or wine. "Water was scanty, especially at some seasons, and likely to be infected. Wine and milk were therefore the common beverages."²³ In order for their water to be drinkable, they would mix it with wine. In doing so, the alcoholic content of the wine would kill the germs and bacteria in the water. Unfermented grape juice does not contain properties that can do this. When drinking wine, they would dilute it with water so that it was not so inebriating. "…Water was also mixed with wine, because it was considered too strong to be drunk alone. The Gemara adds, “The cup of blessing is not to be blessed, until it is mixed with water.”"²⁴ "To avoid the sin of drunkenness, mingling of wine with water was practiced."²⁵ "When it is drunk, water is generally mixed with it, and this was the custom in the days of Christ also."²⁶ "The wine was mixed with warm water on these occasions. Hence in the early Christian Church it was usual to mix the sacramental wine with water."²⁷

CONCLUSION: My Personal Belief
Because God made it and gave it to me, I have the right to consume wine (naturally fermented wine) freely and responsibly, avoiding being given over to it, which will make a mocker out of me (Proverbs 20:1) and destroy my testimony, just as I have the right to consume food freely and responsibly. Since God is the creator of the vine and the fruits thereof, as according to Psalm 104, how then can I turn around like Peter and say, "Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth" (Acts 11:8). Wisdom tells me that it is better for me to give up that right in order that I may protect my brothers and sisters from having a stumbling block placed before them. Paul warns us, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak" (1 Corinthians 8:9). Because I think of them before myself, I can relinquish my freedom and abstain from consuming wine at all. Paul commands us that "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" (Romans 14:21). If we do anything that causes our brother to stumble, regardless of what that might be, it is better for us not to do it. If watching movies that indicate, but do not reveal, sexual actions cause my brother to stumble, it is better that I refrain from watching them so that he is not offended or made weak. It’s all about consideration.

In today’s society, where wine is abused and the results of such abuse are horrendous, I believe it is the Christian’s responsibility to abstain from drinking what God has rightfully given to us in order to maintain a godly testimony among the unsaved. Man perverts everything that God has given to him, which includes both sex and wine, among others. If we go around claiming that wine is evil, which the Bible does not advocate, next we will be going around claiming that sex is evil, regardless of whether it is inside or outside of marriage. Also, abstinence protects those whom you do not know if they will stumble and become an alcoholic by abusing the use of wine.

If one claims that “Christians should not be mixed with wine” but advocates the use of bacteria killing agents that have an alcohol base, they are a double minded man. James 1:8 says, "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Whether mouthwash or cough medicine or rubbing alcohol, using such becomes contradictory to not being mixed therewith. One cannot take 1 Timothy 3:2 and say we are not to be mixed with alcohol and then turn to 1 Timothy 5:23 and claim it’s okay to be mixed with alcohol. Either we are or we aren’t. It’s a matter of legalism. If God has said that we should not be mixed with wine nor even look upon it, then Paul is contradicting what God has said when he tells Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake. In fact, it would make God contradict Himself because Paul’s writing was divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is not the case, however. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, those mentioned as not entering the kingdom of God are drunkards—not drinkers of wine, just as in Galatians 5:19-21, the work of the flesh is drunkenness—not drinking of wine. It’s the result of drinking too much wine, which is abuse. "This abuse is particularly unfitting within the Church, for if it is true that drunkenness is in general a sign of heedlessness in spiritual matters, and a disregard of the imminent return of Christ (Rom. xiii. 13), how much more is it to be deplored at the Lord’s table, where it reveals not only a spirit of complete indifference towards God but a spirit of utter thoughtlessness in regard to those who stand together within the Christian fellowship. To sum up, then, it may be said that while wine is not condemned as being without usefulness, it brings in the hands of sinful men such dangers of becoming uncontrolled that even those who count themselves to be strong would be wise to abstain, if not for their own sake, yet for the sake of weaker brethren (Rom. xiv. 13)."²⁸

I would also like to add that biblical wine and modern alcohol are not the same thing. One is comparing apples to oranges on this issue. In the Bible, leaven is always a picture of sin. Leaven is fermented grain. The majority of alcoholic beverages out there are made from fermented grains: beer, whiskey, rye, etc. Therefore, all alcoholic beverages of this type are forbidden to the Christian. The issue at hand is that of wine. "Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation (“alcohol” is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink (i.e. whiskey, gin, etc.) and the twenty per cent fortified wines were unknown in Bible times."²⁹ Modern wine (the product of distillation), for the most part (unless naturally fermented), contains little or no juice of the grape. "On the other hand, whatever approval was given in Palestine to the moderate use of wine, can hardly apply to a country where wine is an imported or manufactured article, often containing not a drop of the juice of the grape; or if genuine and not compounded with drugs, still enforced with distilled spirits."³⁰ Modern "wine" is practically poison in comparison to biblical fermented wine. Today's "wine" would pass as "strong drink," which is also forbidden to the Christian. "The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half of the percentage of the sugar in the juice. And if the alcoholic content is much above 10 or 11 percent, the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases."³¹ For these reasons alone, as well as causing a stumbling block for our brothers and sisters and the results of being given to it, I would promote abstinence in Christians. My personal decision in life is to abstain from alcohol because it in no way enhances my life or brings me more happiness. Individuals who believe that alcohol enhances life or makes you happier are those that Proverbs 20:1 is referring to. They are deceived and are not wise.

If we are going to teach abstinence, let us do so correctly without interpreting God’s Word based on either our personal prejudices, feelings, or judgments. Just because one has had hundreds of experiences with those who abuse the use of wine, and has seen the results of such abuse, does not mean one can conclude that obviously the Bible is against such. Psalm 104 clearly states otherwise. Making such a conclusion is adding to the text that which does not belong. Revelation 22:18 warns against this, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." I view this warning as taking in the entire of God’s Word, not just the book of Revelation. No matter how strong one’s convictions or desires are on a given subject, they cannot approach the Word of God with a bias and read into the scriptures what they want them to say.

FINAL STATEMENT:
Anyone who has a problem with the direct claim of Psalm 104 stating that God created wine, does not have a problem with me and what I have had to say in this article, but with God Himself who breathed the inerrant, divinely inspired, holy Word. If wine only represented drunkenness and its associated evils, and was not something a divine Creator would have made, it could not be used symbolically of the emblem of the blood of the atonement (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; 1 Cor. 10:16).

---

¹ Illustrated Davis Dictionary of the Bible, 866-868.
² Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1168-1169.
³ Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 2:34.
⁴ Ellicott's Bible Commentary, 807.
⁵ Matthew Henry's Commentary On the Whole Bible, 775.
⁶ Illustrated David Dictionary of the Bible, 866-868.
⁷ Easton's Bible Dictionary, Power BibleCD.
⁸ Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1168-1169.
⁹ The New Bible Dictionary, 1331-1332.
¹⁰ Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 746-747. Ploubet’s Bible Dictionary, 737-739.
¹¹ Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, 2:34.
¹² Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 219. Zodhiates’ Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, 1742.
¹³ The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament [Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D.], 1034.
¹⁴ Robertson’s NT Word Pictures, Power BibleCD.
¹⁵ The Layman’s Bible Dictionary, 342.
¹⁶ Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 162-163.
¹⁷ Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, 468.
¹⁸ The New Bible Dictionary, 1331-1332.
¹⁹ Easton’s Bible Dictionary, Power BibleCD.
²⁰ American Tract Society Dictionary, Power BibleCD.
²¹ The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 562.
²² Illustrated Davis Dictionary of the Bible, 866-868.
²³ Cruden’s Complete Concordance, 750.
²⁴ Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1168-1169.
²⁵ Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 864-865.
²⁶ Easton’s Bible Dictionary, Power BibleCD.
²⁷ Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 746-747. Ploubet’s Bible Dictionary, 737-739.
²⁸ The New Bible Dictionary, 1331-1332.
²⁹ Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 864-865.
³⁰ American Tract Society Dictionary, Power BibleCD.
³¹ Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 864-865.

Divorcing Divorce

A Study and Discussion on Marriage, Divorce, and Adultery

In the movie The Mexican, with Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts, Julia’s character, Samantha Barzel, asked the question, “When two people truly love each other, when do they reach that point where enough is enough?”
Excellent question!
The answer, of course, is, “Never!”

Love never ends, as you will read in 1 Corinthians 13:8a. If you reach the point where you can call it quits and file for divorce, then it is quite likely that you never truly loved each other to begin with. You never allowed love to take root and you never nurtured love so that it could grow. Loving another person is hard work, work from which you are never allowed a vacation.

For most people in this world, their “love” is nothing more than lust, infatuation, emotion, or passion wrapped up in self-seeking self-interest while masquerading as “love.” They have no clue what real love is or what it is all about. Love is not a feeling or an emotion. Love is a decision. It involves the will. When you choose to love somebody, your decision has a much stronger and firmer foundation than a simple feeling of love. Feelings come and go. Decisions last for a lifetime.

Prior to having gotten married, you should have asked yourself, Why do I love this person? What do I love about this person? Why do I want to marry this person? Can I commit to them for a lifetime? Perhaps you were in love with an endearing quality that your spouse possessed, such as kindness, but as time wore on that quality vanished. It may be that that quality vanished because you never appreciated it. Perhaps you were in love with a physical feature that your spouse possessed, such as his/her hair, but circumstances in life, such as cancer, removed that feature.

If you marry a person because of some quality that he/she possesses, you might want to consider the fact that that quality needs nurturing from you if it will grow stronger. A little appreciation goes a long way. If you marry someone because of his/her looks, you might want to consider the fact that as she has children or as he/she grows older those looks change. That person will put on some extra weight, lose some hair, develop wrinkles, etc.

What if that person is involved in a serious automobile accident and has his/her face horribly cut up, or loses all use of his/her lower extremities and must be pushed around in a wheelchair for the rest of his/her life? Do you honestly love the other person to remain with them in these life-altering states “until death do us part”? If you cannot, then you do not truly love the other person. You only “love” them as long as they continue to meet your ideals.

There are several excellent examples of love in the Bible. Three such examples are Hosea and Gomer, God and Israel, and Christ and His Church. Neither God, Christ, nor Hosea gave up on love. God’s faithfulness to His bride was never conditioned upon the faithfulness of His bride. I am sure I do not have to tell you the numerous times in the Bible where Israel was unfaithful to God, committing adultery against Him. Likewise, when our sin nailed Christ to the cross, His love never gave up on us. True love never gives up, never quits, and never surrenders. It “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7).

Many Christians today like to turn to Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-9 in order to support their belief regarding divorce. I believe that many of these Christians are no doubt either Liberal “Christians” or else simply misinformed Christians who have been taught incorrectly. Is there truly a cause for Christians to divorce, according to Scripture? Does Jesus truly give us occasion for divorce? Before looking at those passages, look with me to the account of Mary and Joseph and the coming of the birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. This is how Scripture tells the story:

¹⁸Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they were come together [married] she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. ¹⁹And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away [divorce] secretly. ²⁰But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. ²¹She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” ²²Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ²³“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” ²⁴And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, ²⁵but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

(Matthew 1:18-25)

In that portion of Scripture, you will notice that Mary and Joseph were only betrothed—they were not yet married. Yet, they referred to each other as husband and wife. This is because in Jewish custom and culture of the day they had a betrothal period of about one year. Within that period, if one was unfaithful toward the other they could seek divorce. This is why Joseph sought to divorce Mary. He believed that she had been unfaithful to him in their betrothal. But the angel of the Lord comforted him with the fact that she had not been unfaithful, but rather it was the doing of the Holy Spirit.

Please keep this passage in mind as you read the two passages from Matthew that speak of divorce. Look with me also at the parallel passages found in Mark and Luke. Scripture puts them this way:

³¹It was said, “WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE”; ³²but I say to you, that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity [fornication], makes her commit adultery: and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

(Matthew 5:31-32)

³Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” ⁴And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, ⁵and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH”? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” ⁷They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND HER AWAY?” ⁸He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. ⁹And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality [fornication], and marries another woman commits adultery.

(Matthew 19:3-9)

²Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. ³And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” ⁴They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND HER AWAY.” ⁵But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶But from the beginning of the creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. ⁷FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, ⁸AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. ⁹What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” ¹⁰In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. ¹¹And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman, commits adultery against her. ¹²and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.

(Mark 10:2-12)

¹⁸Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

(Luke 16:18)

Now, why is it that Matthew is the only book wherein you suppose you can find a cause for divorce? Why does it not appear neither in Mark nor in Luke? Why does it not appear in any of Paul’s writings? For your answer, you must ask yourself who Matthew was addressing when he wrote his book. The book of Matthew was written to the Jews. Therefore, you must consider what he is writing in context with their culture and customs of that day.

You see, Malachi 2:14-16 clearly states that God hates divorce: “‘For I hate divorce,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel” (v. 16). Now, are we to understand that Jesus, Who is God, Who hates divorce, turned around and gave a cause for divorce? No, because He did no such thing, as Matthew 19:4-6 tells us. The Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and asked if it was lawful to divorce for any reason. Jesus’ response to their testing is found in verses 4-6. After Jesus made this statement, the Pharisees, who knew exactly what Jesus had just said, then tried to pit Moses against Jesus by asking Him why Moses allowed divorce (by the way, Moses never allowed it, he regulated it [Deuteronomy 24:1-4]). Jesus then sets them straight and tells them that Moses did so because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not this way from the beginning. When two people are married, God joins them together as one flesh, and Jesus declared to the Pharisees “What God has joined together let no man separate.”

There is no such fountain on Earth as marriage. Woman takes her being from man, man takes his well-being from woman. As God by creation made two of one, so again by marriage He made one of two.

—Thomas Adams

Look with me to what Paul had to say through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Here is how Scripture records Paul’s words:

¹⁰But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband ¹¹(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

(1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

In this passage, Paul sets forth his understanding of Jesus’ teachings (and remember, Paul was taught of the Lord Jesus for three years [Gal. 1:12, 18] and his words were inspired by the Holy Spirit). Paul makes it abundantly clear in these two verses that what he is saying comes directly from the Lord and not from himself. According to these two verses, if a Christian separates, God commands you to pursue reconciliation rather than to re-marry. Otherwise, you are commanded to remain unmarried.

Marriage of believers is for life, 10-11. The Christian wife is not to leave her husband. If she does, she is to forfeit marrying again. Likewise the Christian husband is not to leave his wife. Loose pagan views of marriage must be abandoned.

Merrill F. Unger, The New Unger's Bible Handbook, p.493.

Let us continue:

¹²But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. ¹³And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. ¹⁴For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. ¹⁵Yet if the unbelieving one separates, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. ¹⁶For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

(1 Corinthians 7:12-16)

In this Holy Spirit-inspired portion of Scripture, Paul—not the Lord—says, that if a Christian is married to an unbeliever—whether he/she married him/her by choice or was himself/herself saved later—and the unbeliever is content to remain with him/her, the Christian is not to seek divorce from the unbeliever whatsoever. The unbeliever is sanctified because of the believer. You do not know whether or not you will save your spouse, so if they are content to stay with you, do not divorce them. But if the unbeliever decides to seek divorce, the Christian is to let him/her go because the Christian is not under bondage in such cases. You are called to peace and if you force them to stay, you will have none of it. What Paul advises here does not negate what God said first in verses 10 and 11! There is nothing in this passage that gives the Christian the okay to re-marry.

The general principle is that insofar as possible every effort is to be made to maintain the status quo at the time of becoming a believer, 12-24. Applied to the marriage union, it means the saved partner is to do everything possible to maintain the union, and win the unsaved partner to the Lord. The children are privileged to be in a circle of Christian instruction when even one parent is saved, 14.

Ibid., p.493.

Now, there is biblical grounds for separation (such as with an abusive husband), but the end goal should always be reconciliation (get him some help, pray for his salvation, charge him with assault if need be, and restore what God joined together). Otherwise, you are commanded to remain single for the rest of your life, or until your spouse dies.

With regard to Moses, there exists in the King James Version a translational error from the Hebrew that, when read, seems to imply the instituting of divorce. S. R. Driver says with reference to this passage:

"The rend. of A.V., R.V., is not here quite exact; v. 1-3 form the protasis, stating the conditions of the case contemplated, v. 4 is the apodosis."

S. R. Driver, The International Critical Commentary,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, p. 269.

However, if you read this passage in the New American Standard Bible or the English Standard Version (or in an Interlinear Bible) you will see that it is a regulating of divorce. Consider what Hebrew scholars C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch had to say concerning this passage:

"In these verses ... divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died. The four verses form a period, in which vv. 1-3 are the clauses of the protasis, which describe the matter treated about; and v. 4 contains the apodosis, with the law concerning the point in question."

Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary On the Old Testament, p. 950.

Likewise, to the same effect, Joseph Reider comments:

"The chief concern of the law is to prevent remarriage after divorce. Consequently vv. 1-3 must be construed as the protatis and v. 4 alone as the apodosis."

Joseph Rider, Deuteronomy with Commentary, p220.

Because of their hardness of heart, they were already divorcing; so Moses wrote to regulate their actions. Compare the three translations below:

¹When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. ²And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. ³And 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; ⁴Her 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.

(Deuteronomy 24:1-4, KJV)

¹When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, ²and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, ³and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, ⁴then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since 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 gives you as an inheritance.

(Deuteronomy 24:1-4, NASB)

¹When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, ²and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, ³and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, ⁴then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

(Deuteronomy 24:1-4, ESV)

John Murray had this to say concerning the above observations:

"These observations with respect to construction are of primary importance because they show that this passage does not make divorce mandatory in the case of the indecency or uncleanness concerned. It is not even to be understood as encouraging or advising men to put away their wives in such a case."

John Murray, Divorce, p. 6.

Let us look again at those passages pertaining to divorce. Many people fail to pay any attention to this, but the Bible informs us that re-marriage after divorce is actually adultery. You do not believe me? Let us allow Scripture to speak for itself:

³²Everyone who divorces his wife . . . makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

(Matthew 5:32)

⁹Whoever divorces his wife . . . and marries another woman commits adultery.

(Matt. 19:9)

¹¹Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.

(Mark 10:11-12)

¹⁸Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

(Luke 16:18)

As you can see, adultery is taking place after the divorce. The grammar of the Greek word translated “commits” in these verses is in the middle voice, meaning that it is present tense continuous, which is a constant state of adultery. For every minute they remain in their re-marriage, they are committing adultery. Why? Because the covenant has not been disavowed. Malachi 2:14 says, “Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.” Do you see that? She is your companion and your wife by covenant! Every covenant in the Bible is until death, and marriage is no different, as is evidenced by our vows: “Until death do us part.” With regard to vows, examine Ecclesiastes 5:4-5.

⁴When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! ⁵It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.

When we marry, we declare vows and enter into a covenant (not a contract) not only with our spouse but also with God, and we do so before God and our witnesses (friends and family). The marriage covenant is entered into by three people: God, the husband, and the wife. Only death can abolish the marriage covenant (murder does not count), enabling a person to re-marry. The fact that this is true is verified by Scripture:

²For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband. ³So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

(Romans 7:2-3)

³⁹A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

(1 Corinthians 7:39)

If we marry an unbeliever and they leave us, we are still bound by our vows and by our covenant. Why? Because two of the three covenant parties still remain locked in that covenant—God and the believer. If we value these things and desire to honour and glorify God, we will remain single for the rest of our life or until God restores that relationship or until that spouse dies. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, which are Paul’s words, not God’s (although they are still inspired by the Holy Spirit), he never says that the Christian is free to re-marry—ever. In fact, doing so would contradict what he just admitted God has said in verses 10-11.

Let us dummy-down what we have just looked at. You have A married to B. Then A divorces B. According to Matthew 5:32, A causes B to commit adultery because A has divorced B. If C marries B, C commits adultery. According to Matthew 19:9, if A marries D, A commits adultery. D would also be committing adultery for the same reason that C would be, even though D and C could be said to be “innocent.” According to Mark 10:11-12, if A divorces B and marries D, A commits adultery against B; and if B divorces A and marries C, B commits adultery against A. According to Luke 16:18, if A marries D, A commits adultery, and if C marries B, C commits adultery. The only person not directly said to be committing adultery in these passages is D. But if C is held to commit adultery for marrying the “innocent” divorced party, then D must be held to commit adultery for marrying the guilty divorcing party. All four individuals who could potentially be in this scenario are said to be committing adultery. Paul makes things abundantly more clear for us when he says that your options, if you divorce, are simple:

1. remain single for the rest of your life,
2. reconcile with your spouse, or
3. wait until your spouse dies before you can legitimately re-marry.

According to Scripture, Bathsheba is never referred to as David’s wife, but always as Uriah’s wife (Matt. 1:6). When Herodias divorced her husband Phillip and married Herod, John the baptizer referred to her as “Phillip's wife” (Matt. 14:3-4; Luke 3:19). In God's eyes, you are the husband/wife of your divorced spouse because He never annulled that marriage.

With regard to the supposed “exception clause” found in the book of Matthew, further help in discerning what Matthew was saying can be gleaned from the original Greek when we look at the words that he used. This is what John Piper had to say from his study on the subject:

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, why does Matthew use the Greek word πορνεια (porneia, “sexual immorality”) instead of the word μοιχεια (moicheia) which means adultery? Sexual immorality in marriage would naturally be adultery. But the word Matthew uses to express Jesus’ meaning is one that usually means fornication or sexual immorality without reference to marital unfaithfulness. Almost all commentators seem to make the assumption again that porneia refers to adultery in this context. The question nagged at me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery (moicheia), if that is in fact what he meant.
Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in Matthew 15:19 where it is used alongside moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as, in some sense, different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that in Matthew’s record of Jesus’ teaching he is thinking of porneia in its more usual sense of fornication or incest or prostitution that does not denote marital unfaithfulness, that is, adultery?
The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I noticed the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume that his mother Mary had committed fornication and that Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20.

The word for divorce (απολυσαι) is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. but most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her assumed porneia, fornication. In other words, this “divorce” was permitted according to Matthew.
Only Matthew has told that story of the crisis Joseph faced in whether to marry his betrothed even though she, as far as he knew at first, had committed fornication (πορνεια). In handling this crisis he called Joseph “just” in the plan to “divorce” her. That means that Matthew, as a follower of Jesus, would not consider this kind of “divorce” wrong. It would not have prevented Joseph (or Mary) from marrying another.
Since only Matthew had told this story and raised this question, he was the only Gospel writer who would feel any need to make clear that Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce followed by remarriage did not include a situation like Joseph and Mary’s. That is what I think he does with the exception clauses. He records Jesus saying, “Whoever divorces his wife—not including, of course, the case of fornication [πορνεια] between betrothed couples—and marries another, commits adultery.”
A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage, not betrothal. The point is pressed that “except for fornication” is irrelevant to the context of marriage. My answer is that this irrelevancy is precisely the point of the exception clause. Whether it sounds irrelevant in the context depends on how you hear it. I don’t think it sounds pointless if you hear it the way I just suggested or if Matthew 5:32 goes like this: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife—excluding, of course, the case of fornication [πορνεια] during betrothal—makes her commit adultery.” In this way Jesus makes clear that the action his earthly father almost took—to “divorce” Mary because of πορνεια—would not have been unjust. It would have been right. That is the kind of situation the exception clause is meant to exclude.
This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages:

• It does not forces Matthew’s Gospel to disagree with the seemingly plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke.
• It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia.
• It squares with Matthew’s own use of porneia (for fornication) in distinction from moicheia (for adultery) in Matthew 15:19.
• It fits Matthew’s wider context concerning Joseph’s contemplated “divorce” from Mary (Matt. 1:19).

John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, pp.313-316.

John Piper is correct. If Jesus (and Matthew’s record of it) meant adultery, then the word for adultery—moicheia—would have been used, just as it appears after the so-called “exception” (5:32; 19:9). But it is not. The word used is porneia, which refers to sexual immorality without reference to marital unfaithfulness. The fact that these words are not synonyms of each other and are not interchangeable is seen within the multiple passages that use them side-by-side: Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Hebrews 13:4. If porneia includes adultery, then why not simply use that word alone? To use moicheia alongside it is redundant if porneia refers to all sexual sins including adultery.

The joining together of two people is more than merely physical joining. Through sexual intimacy, you are joined to the other person physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. That is why the book of 1 Corinthians warns, “Do you not know that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid! Do you not know that He which is joined to a harlot is one body? For He said, ‘two shall be one flesh’” (6:15-16). In the movie Vanilla Sky, with Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, Cameron’s character, Julie Gianni, asks, “Don’t you know that when you sleep with someone, your body makes a promise whether you do or not?” That is putting Paul in contemporary lingo. Once a relationship becomes a unit, God intends it to remain that way. In her excellent book Wait For Me, Rebecca St. James uses this illustration:

If you take one piece of paper and glue it to another piece of paper, both pieces tear when you pull them apart. It is impossible to wind up with two papers that are as flawless as when you started. Because of the glue, each piece of paper is forever left with some parts from the other paper.

Rebecca St. James, Wait For Me, p.59.

This is precisely how God designed sex, and He designed it for within marriage. If you go back to the beginning, which is where Jesus and Paul always directed their audience, you will notice that it says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

Is there just cause for Christians to divorce today? No! It is unbiblical, not to mention entirely saturated with selfishness. Despite Gomer’s unfaithfulness to Hosea, did Hosea ever divorce Gomer? No. Despite Israel’s unfaithfulness to God, did God ever divorce Israel? No. Despite our unfaithfulness to Christ, does He ever divorce us? No. So why, after you have vowed those sacred vows of unity, “to love, honour, and cherish each other for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse”, do you divorce your spouse? Why, after you have joined yourself to your spouse physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually through sexual intimacy, do you divorce your spouse?

As a Christian, there is never a just cause for filing for divorce. Marriage is a picture of the Gospel. The Gospel teaches us that despite all our sins we can have forgiveness through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14) and reconciliation to God the Father (Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:18). If we, as Christians, divorce, what does that tell the world about the Gospel of Jesus Christ if we cannot forgive and be reconciled to each other? What does it tell the world about Christ and His Church? Ask yourself, “If Jesus Christ forgave all of my iniquities, when they were great and heinous acts of rebellion against Him, why can I not—being made in His image and conforming to His likeness—forgive my spouse of his/her iniquities against me?”

If your spouse commits adultery against you, there is no doubt that you would indeed be hurt, you would indeed be angry, and it would indeed be difficult for you to trust him/her again—but not impossible. As much as his/her adultery would hurt you, if you consider all the heinous sins you have committed against Jesus, minute after minute, day after day, year after year, how much pain did you cause Christ? How much pain did He feel on His way to the cross because of your sins? How much pain did He feel when God’s wrath was poured on Him because of your sins? If Christ can forgive you of all your sins against Him, then surely you can forgive your spouse for committing adultery against you. If you are to be anything like Christ, you must.

Jesus said that if we have anything against our brother, we need to go and be reconciled to him (Matthew 5:23-24). In order to be reconciled to him, there must be forgiveness. If there is forgiveness, there will be reconciliation. The two go hand in hand. Jesus said that we must forgive 70 multiplied by 7 times (Matthew 18:22), which means there should be no end to our forgiveness. If we are genuinely forgiving, then there will be reconciliation because that is what forgiveness does—it reconciles.

When Jesus forgives us, we are reconciled to the Father (Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:18). If we were not reconciled to the Father, then we would not truly have forgiveness. The same is true within marriage. If either spouse commits adultery against the other, genuine forgiveness would and must result in reconciliation. Genuine forgiveness requires reconciliation. If we are who and what we claim to be—Christians, and if we desire to be like Christ, then this is a command for us. We need to think of Christ, think like Christ, and act like Christ.

Even with the sin of adultery, husband and wife can forgive and be reconciled and the marriage can be healed and prosper. Harmony can be restored and the home can be rebuilt. These are the works of God. This is the power of God. If we are Christians and if we are Christ-like, these are our works because we are the image of Christ. Even if adultery took place, we are commanded to forgive and to be reconciled because of what marriage pictures and represents.

Hebrews 13:4 says, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the fornicator and adulterer.” Not just among Christians, among all! Marriage is a serious matter; a serious institution to enter into. It is not to be entered into or taken lightly! We need to guard our hearts and protect the sanctity of our marriage, not allowing ourselves to be placed in compromising situations (1 Thessalonians 5:22) that could open us to temptation and lead us into sin (James 1:14-15), thereby defiling the marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4; Proverbs 6:32). The problem today is that most parents are no longer preparing their children for marriage and most people do not know how to be married. Nobody takes marriage serious any more; they think it is just a game. Most think the Hollywood-ized version of marriage is normal. God sees it quite differently, I assure you.

With regard to God judging adulterers, let us see what Scripture has to say:

⁹Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

¹⁹Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, ²⁰sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, ²¹envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Galatians 5:19-21)

Perhaps you are a Christian and you have had a divorce. Please do not feel as if I am judging you or condemning you. You need to realize that your actions were wrong and you need to kneel before the throne of God and confess your sin of separating what God joined together for life. He will offer you forgiveness, but only if you humble your heart enough to admit you sinned against Him and wronged your spouse, and you repent of your sin.

If you have divorced, whether having children or not with your first spouse, and there is still opportunity to reconcile with the other person, please obey God and seek to restore what He meant for life. If you seek to honour what God has joined together, He will bless you for it. Otherwise, realize that you are commanded to remain unmarried, for re-marriage is disobedience and is to commit adultery.

If you have re-married, you need to realize that your actions to divorce and re-marry were wrong and that God does not recognize this unsanctioned second union as a marriage. He will not bless it. You need to kneel before the throne of God, confess your sin of separating what God joined together for life, and repent of your sin by leaving this second union. It may mean that you will have to pay child support, but it is better to be in God's graces than to be in a constant state of adultery for which you have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Heb. 13:4). Only after doing this can you take hold of God's forgiveness. You may have divorced and re-married in your unsaved days, or you may have done so as an ignorant Christian thinking the Bible supported such things. Either way, now that you know the truth, honour God by doing what is right. God does offer forgiveness. Take hold of it and live it out.

With that being said, I must now issue a warning. As a Christian who knows the truth about marriage, divorce, and re-marriage, never presume on the forgiveness of God. In other words, if you know it is wrong to divorce your spouse and re-marry, planning to do so anyway because God will forgive you is a presumption upon His forgiveness. I would not presume on His forgiveness when you are deliberately pre-meditating the committal of sin. You may find out that you do not have His forgiveness after all. Remember, God wants your obedience.

People often ask where grace comes in if you are not permitted to divorce and then re-marry. Do you honestly want to know where grace comes in? Do you? Grace comes in when you are able to forgive your spouse for having committed adultery against you and reconcile with her, strengthening your marriage more than it has ever been. People understand the sin perfectly well, yet are always trying to find some loophole that enables them to commit the sin. These people need to read and understand Matthew 19:12.

Re-marriage Is Adultery

Dear Christian Believer,

"Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die'; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he shall die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself." Ezekiel 3:17-21

According to that passage, would you say that I have a responsibility to warn others about certain things? I would agree. We do have responsibilities to warn others. Whether or not they heed our words (or those from Scripture) is between them and God, but we are responsible nonetheless. So, having said that...

Do you believe in divorce? Do you believe that Jesus gave an occasion for divorce? Well, guess what? You are dead wrong in your belief regarding divorce and remarriage. If you are humble enough to listen to someone else (but more specifically to the Bible), I will prove it to you quick and easy.

First of all, in Malachi 2:16 it says, "'For I hate divorce' says the Lord, the God of Israel." Do we honestly think that Jesus, Who is God, Who never changes, Who hates divorce, would contradict Himself and turn around and allow divorce? Of course not!

Second of all, in Matthew 19:3-9, the Pharisees came and asked Jesus if it was lawful to divorce for any reason. Jesus' response is found in verses 4-6. Note that he did not give them an occasion for divorce, but said, "What God has joined together let no man separate."

Third of all, according to the Bible, when does adultery take place? According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Romans, it takes place after divorce. Let's prove it, shall we?

1. "Everyone who divorces his wife...makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matt. 5:32
The person who marries a divorcee is committing adultery.

2. "Whoever divorces his wife...and marries another woman commits adultery." Matt. 19:9
The person who divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery.

3. "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Mark 10:11-12
The person who divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery.

4. "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." Luke 16:18
The person who divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery, and the person who marries a divorcee commits adultery.

5. "So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man." Rom. 7:3
Again, being married to another while your spouse lives is committing adultery.

6. "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." 1 Cor. 7:39

7. "But to the married I give instructions (not I, but the Lord), that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife." 1 Cor. 7:10-11
You are to remain single for the rest of your life or be reconciled to your spouse. The only out is if your spouse dies.

8. "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews 13:4
Not just among Christians, among all! Marriage is a serious matter; a serious institution to enter into. It is not to be taken lightly!

Every covenant in the Bible is until death. When we marry, that is part of our vows: "Until death do us part." Speaking of vows, what does Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 say? When we marry, we are making vows and entering a covenant, not only with our spouse but also with God.

According to the Bible, remarriage after divorce is committing adultery. In fact, the Greek word translated "commits" is in the middle voice, which is present tense continuous, meaning a constant state of adultery. For every minute they are remarried while their spouse lives, they are committing adultery. The only way to repent and receive forgiveness for this sin is to get out of that remarriage and obey 1 Cor. 7:10-11. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal. 5:19-21 make it clear that adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So there you have it. The Bible itself has proven you in error with your beliefs/teachings regarding divorce and remarriage. There is never an exception! There is grounds for separation, but it must follow 1 Cor. 7:10-11. If your husband beats you, separate from him, get him help, charge him if need be, but remain true to him, pray for his salvation, and your end goal must be to be reconciled to him. Otherwise, you are commanded to remain single or wait until he dies to be free from him.

Bathsheba is never called David's wife, but always "Uriah's wife." When Herodias divorced her husband, Phillip, and married Herod, John the baptizer referred to her as "Phillip's wife." In God's eyes, you are the husband/wife of your divorced spouse because He never annulled that marriage. You made your vows and entered into your covenant...so keep it!

Remarriage (except where your spouse has died) is committing adultery!