Restricting the "Never-Bound" (by Aubrey Belue)

Intro:

A continuing area of disagreement among otherwise “conservative” brethren is that of Bible teaching regarding the matter of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Several positions taken expand – in one way or another – the borders of God’s permission to include people who have been party to divorces and subsequent second marriages that God clearly defines as involving adultery in the second relationship. Some of these:

1] Marriages entered before baptism are not under the same “law” as those entered after, and divorces from them do not result in adultery in a second marriage.

2] After the sin of divorce, both the guilty party and the innocent party are free to remarry without committing adultery.

3] Divorce is not final with the civil ceremony, but those who are forced to divorce may maintain the marriage in their mind until the ex-partner enters sexual relationships with a third party, upon which they can then mentally “finalize” the divorce from him/her with divine approval to marry a second time.

On the other extreme, there are positions taken which restrict those who enter into second relationships even more than can be proven by Scripture.

1] There are no grounds upon which one can divorce and acceptably remarry. (There is no exception for the one who divorces “for fornication”.)

2] Every divorce (except for fornication, where only the guilty party is stigmatized) involves “adultery” as the result upon the part of both, in any second marriage.

It is important to point out that NONE of the above positions can be taken without the potential of either “binding” where God did not bind, or “loosing” where God did not “loose”.The consequence of the unscriptural expansions to include more than God does is that men “loose” from a relationship to which God has “bound” its parties. The consequence of over-zealous restrictions is to “bind” those whom God has not restricted. Neither can be undertaken with impunity.

It is also only stating the obvious to acknowledge that taking or denying any of the above positions raises questions that even serious Bible students have trouble resolving. Lacking a final resolution of ALL aspects of the question does not excuse us from teaching what we can know for sure from Scripture about it.

Regarding terminology:

All the above positions employ a common terminology. Terms like “marriage”, “divorce”, “adultery”, “bond”, and “authority” are used in support of any and all of them. Lacking the availability of other terms, each error depends upon a unique definition of the ones that are used – this is generally true of ALL false teaching on ANY subject.

As suggested by the title, the position under study now involves an effort to restrict (by accusing of adultery in any subsequent marriage) those who have never been “joined together” (or “bound by the law of the “husband”) with another. Even while those who espouse this teaching admit that not all marriages are the same (there is a “scriptural marriage”, which has a covenant bond associated with it; and a “legal relationship created and dissolved by men”), they say that in assigning consequences God treats all marriages alike.

(An assertion which is NOT based on Bible teaching, and is contrary to it!)

Some preliminary considerations:

1. The issue Jesus dealt with was primarily that of “divorce” – not “remarriage”. He was asked, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?” (Mt 19:3; Mk 10:3). His answer must be understood from that context.

2. “Divorce” is the dissolution of “marriage”.

If all “marriages” are not the same, then all “divorces” are not the same! There are some divorces that God demands, and some he forbids. Significantly, it is only from those divorces which He forbids that “adultery” is assigned to the parties who contract a further marriage.

3. The way Christ identifies the “divorce” which He forbids is by accusing the parties to THAT divorce of committing adultery in any further relationship.

4. The ONLY way Christ restricts those who unscripturally divorce is by assigning “adultery” to them in a subsequent marriage.

5. One way Jesus establishes “authority” is to describe a general category as “lawful” and then restricting certain specific conduct within that category as forbidden.

Cf. “Women teachers”...He “generally” commands and allows women to teach (2 Tim 2:2; Titus 2:3, etc.). But he “specifically” restricts them from teaching in certain circumstances (1 Cor 14:34,35; 1 Tim 2:11,12)

6. ALL the teaching on the question of “divorce” is the “teaching of Christ”. When Paul spoke, unless he specifically offered his advice (which was no less inspired, incidentally), he must be seen as giving the “teaching of Christ” – which everywhere supplements the whole, and does not contradict itself.

Unwarranted and arbitrary assumptions:

If a position requires certain claims that are basic to its validity that cannot be proven by Christ’s words, it must be considered invalid. The very heart of the claim that Christ “restricts the never-bound” involves unproved assertions without scriptural support. When studying with those who contend for it, it is appropriate to ask for Bible proof that it is a valid assumption.

1. That everyone has a right to one marriage, and if they “mess that one up”, they do not get another chance.

2. “Marriage” is merely a “legal relationship created and dissolved by men”.

Make no mistake about it – this goes much further than realizing that we must all comply with civil law. By this definition of “marriage” (since, to them God defends “marriage”) they claim God treats “merely legal relationships” by accusing those who get out of them as sinning (committing “adultery” in further marriages) in so doing.

3. God restricts ALL marriages by assigning “adultery” (when making a further marriage) as a consequence of ALL divorces (“for fornication” exception noted).

4. “Adultery” can be committed in relationships where neither party is “bound to another” (belongs to another).

5. That the “covenant bond” has no significance in the assigning of “adultery”.

6. Application of divine “authority” demands that none but those that God specifically grants permission are authorized to act.

7. The breaking of a VOW (specifically, the vow of marriage) , even if it is a vow that God says must be rescinded, must be punished by demanding celibacy on the part of those who do.

Absent these assertions, the doctrine of “restricting the never-bound” is not even plausible. Factually, there is no “proof” for any of them, and each deserves the most serious scrutiny.

It should be obvious from the above comments that man can make anything complicated, even when it should be simple. God’s teaching on the subject is much more understandable, and much simpler. Average minds can readily comprehend it when they are not cluttered with excessive human reasoning and presuppositions. The need in putting forth unique definitions and explanations to maintain a position should be a “red flag” for us.

Christ’s Teaching on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

A proper understanding of what Scripture teaches us in this area must begin with the underlying fact that “marriage” is of God! Christ clearly implies this when He goes all the way back to “from the beginning” to answer the question of “divorce” (Mt 19:3; Mk 10:3). Whatever men may have thought since then (and even in the “permission” that Moses allowed), His concern for and regulations about “divorce” involve that original state introduced in Eden.

God is speaking of HIS “marriage” when he states in Heb 13:4 that “marriage is honorable in ALL, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” It should be obvious to all that this is not the “marriage” in which men “commit adultery” – it is stated in opposition to that relationship!

This is a marriage that:

- involves a “covenant of God” Proverbs 2:16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words 17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.”

- is “made” by God Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 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.

- is “joined” by God Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

- in which husband and wife are “bound by the law of the husband”

Romans 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

- which involves a bond that outlasts “divorce” (for the woman who is “bound to her husband by the “law of the husband”, even in another “marriage”, the bond persists until his death. (Rom 7:2,3)

- which is “honorable, and the bed undefiled” (Heb 13:4)

- from which divorce is not an option (“let not man put asunder”)

There is another “marriage”, which is truly created and dissolved by men. This is a marriage that:

- can involve men with men; women with women (and soon, polygamy!)

- has no continuing “bond” past divorce; according to the strictly human definition of marriage, it is impossible to commit adultery in a subsequent relationship (the mate no longer “belongs to another”!)

- which MUST be divorced from!

Actually, the question to be resolved is simple, and the answer can clearly be demonstrated by an appeal to the scriptural context. The question is: DOES GOD DEFEND BOTH THE SCRIPTURAL MARRIAGE AND THE MERELY LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BY ASSIGNING “ADULTERY” AS A CONSEQUENCE OF DIVORCING FROM EITHER, OR DOES HE ONLY DEFEND HIS “HONORABLE” MARRIAGE?

In the marriage context, including material on “adultery of the heart”, there are these passages: Matt 5:28; 5:31,32; Matt 19:3-9; Mark 10:3-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7:1-40; Rom 7:2,3; Heb 13:4. While ALL of these passages (Mt 5:28 excluded) involve the consequences of “putting asunder” a marriage which MUST NOT be divorced from, perhaps the clearest and most comprehensive is Matt 19:3-9, and surely all must agree that none of the others will contradict it.

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The question raised in v. 3: “is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?”

While the “legal” and the “spiritual” law was the same under Moses, we can be sure that the question is not seeking the “legal” status of divorce, but how GOD regards it, according to Jesus. Just so, in his answer, He does not simply forbid “divorce”, but “Divorce” from a relationship God “hath joined together” (there are divorces God not only does not forbid, but actually requires). In such cases, “let not man put asunder”! Unless we believe that God joins men with men, or those who “belong to another”, this context is NOT dealing with all marriages! His restrictions are in cases of divorce from a “marriage” that was “from the beginning” (the “scriptural marriage” described earlier in this discussion). If a man divorces from THAT marriage, in a later marriage either he or his divorced wife will be guilty of adultery (unless he divorces “for fornication”). Not only that, but a third party who marries one divorced FROM THAT MARRIAGE will be guilty of adultery because he has “unlawful sexual intercourse” with one who was “the spouse of another” (divorced from a marriage in which she was “joined” to the first husband. )

Notice in particular v. 9:

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In v. 6, he had defined the relationship which must not be “put asunder” as the relationship “God hath joined together”...In v. 9, he assigns the consequences for so doing. The “puts away his wife” is not just ANY “putting away”, but the putting away from what “God hath joined together”. It is from the wife to which he had been “joined” by God. If he puts HER away, and marries another (unless he puts away “for fornication”), he (who was joined to her) commits adultery. If the woman who was “joined” to him remarries, she commits adultery. If a third party marries her (the one put away from a “joined” marriage”) then HE commits adultery. It is important to recognize that the third party commits “adultery” because he marries one from a “joined” marriage – she “belongs to another”.

The current stage of this position acknowledges the definition of adultery given by the lexicons: “unlawful sexual intercourse with the spouse of another (one who belongs to another)”. Some have tried to do violence to this definition but it is obvious that the lexical meaning is consistent here with the circumstances Jesus describes.

What is lacking in this context is the assignment of FURTHER adultery upon the part of the third party (should he remarry) after he gets out of the adultery he was committing because he married one who was “the spouse of another”. He himself was not and never had been “joined”, and nothing in the context assigns adultery to such a one if the person he marries has also never been “joined”. Again, this is consistent with the lexical meaning of “adultery”.

Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This passage addresses the same fallacy dealt with in Mt 19, and legislates from a relationship which must not be “put asunder” (God, by assigning adultery, teaches that some “marriages” MUST be “put asunder”. Breaking up the subsequent adulterous marriage–getting OUT of “adultery”–is as important as maintaining the “joined” one.).

Mk 10:3-12

Is a virtual repetition of Mt 19:3-9. In it Christ legislates from the marriage that was “from the beginning” (the one God “joined together”). This context strengthens the lexical use of adultery by teaching the one who divorces from that “joined marriage” and remarries commits adultery against his “joined” wife. (v. 11) There is nothing in this specific context which specifies the status of the third party, other than as a partner with one “joined to another”.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

This deals with a marriage that God forbids “putting away” from. WE know this because He assigns “adultery” in further marriages. Some are teaching that God condemns (by assigning adultery) the breaking up of a relationship He requires to be broken! They do this by teaching that God assigns adultery to those involved in the breakup of ALL marriages, if they remarry. Factually, the third party is assigned “adultery” in his marriage to a “joined” (to another) wife (she was in a marriage God forbids divorcing from).

The above shows that Luke 16:18 is NOT a departure from the general marriage context which only assigns “adultery” as a result of dissolving a “joined” marriage.

1 Cor 7:1-11

Deals with a relationship God requires men to maintain and nurture, not one he commands divorce from. Thus, this is the “joined” marriage of Mt 19 and Mk 10. This “joined” marriage is further identified as retaining a connection BEYOND divorce. V. 11 requires the divorced woman to “be reconciled” to “her husband”. There is no “her husband” beyond the dissolution of a merely civil contract.

Rom 7:2-3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

This passage offers further explanation of the “joined marriage” of Mt 19 and Mk 10 (and all the other gospel references). The REASON God assigns “adultery” in forbidden second marriages is because of the “law of the husband”! One is bound TO the mate by the “law of the husband” as long as the mate lives. Because of this (“so then”, or “accordingly”) God considers her “bound” to her husband, while married to ANOTHER man, and assigns adultery! In defiance of this plain fact, some deny that the “Bond” has anything to do with the assigning of “adultery”.

Again, here, “adultery” is only assigned when a “joined” (or “bound”) relationship is “put asunder” , and another formed. Man’s “putting asunder” (the woman had to divorce in order to be married) does not have the power to dissolve the “joining”.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

It is obvious this refers to “God’s marriage”, which DOES involve an “undefiled bed”; not the “civil contract only” which HAS a “defiled marriage bed”!

The question of “authority” has been raised.

Some say, God must specify those he permits to remarry.

Two things:

1) God did not even specify the “divorcing for fornication” man as having the right to remarry. What he said was that this man was excepted from the accusation of adultery if he did. In effect, when he assigned “adultery”in certain second marriages, he left this man off the list. That is the authority!

BUT, this is also the case of the “never bound” man! He did not “specify” that he had the right to remarry, either. But, like the “divorcing for fornication” man, God left him off the list of those that incur “adultery” in remarriages. This is the entire marriage context, as we have seen in every text.

2) God not only authorizes by direct instruction, He also authorizes by sanctioning a given general action, and then restricting some from being included in it. God generally authorizes “marriage” – it is “honorable in ALL”. But he restricts those who divorce unlawfully from being included in it. The “marriage” in Heb 13:4 includes both first and second marriages. The widow is not restricted from entering a second marriage; nor is the man who divorces for fornication, NOR is the man who was never joined to another!

As we have pointed out, only when human reasoning, and unwarranted assumptions, govern the discussion, can the “never bound” man be restricted. It requires ignoring the entire marriage context, and picking out parts of verses to extend God’s restrictions beyond the general context. AS we know, the context should inform our view of any part of it! Below is the “context” this position demands:

The BLUE is the Biblical context of marriage, which deals with the consequences of “putting asunder” a “joined marriage”. The RED is ALL that is offered as proof of the issue raised.

The “restricting the never bound” context:

Mt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

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

Mt 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Ro 7:2 - For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

1Co 7:39 - The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Heb 13:4 - Marriage is honourable in all, andthe bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

It is not our point that God only says it “once” or “twice”, and he says the other many times. It is that the entire context of the divorce passages is at odds with this position, and these few isolated excerpts, with a disregard for the fundamental basis on which God’s restrictions rest, are clearly taken OUT OF CONTEXT!.

Incidentally, the material in Rom 7:2,3; 1 Cor 7:1-39; and Heb 13:4, are as much the “teaching of Christ” as is that which we find in the gospels! We must not study from a “red letter edition” of the Bible!

ALL the material in blue is demonstrated to be considering a “joined” or “bound” marriage and its implications. The ONLY passages which are directly claimed to include those NOT joined are the ones in red...Obviously, they cannot refer to such without being taken out of context.

CONCLUSION:

There are some “straw men” raised to defend the above claim.

1. That the refutation of the above claim demands that one married by civil contract only is not married, much as do those who teach the “mental divorce” idea. As can be seen, this is not true. God, even as recognized repeatedly above, acknowledges ALL marriages, either “joined” or merely civil contracts, but condemns some by teaching through His use of the word “adultery” they must be abandoned. In reality, regarding the assignment of “adultery”, the “mental divorce” position claims that civil contracts mean nothing; the “restricting of the never-bound” position claims that civil contracts mean everything! (The “bond” of marriage–“joined marriage”– is not taken into consideration by God in assigning adultery, but the mere fact that a civil contract has been entered is the basis for so doing. The above discussion of God’s teaching on the subject covers that.)

2. That there is no authority offered for denying that the never-bound is restricted.

Again, we point out that God generally authorizes marriage in all, and then restricts some from second marriages (or the first marriage to one “joined” to another). We show that the “never bound” man is authorized in the same way the “divorcing for fornication” man, is – by not including him in the list of those who commit adultery in a second marriage. That is a valid appeal to authority – it simply does not meet the contrived demand of this position. It is in order for us to ask WHICH PASSAGE restricts him? The entire Bible marriage context deals with the consequences of “putting asunder” a “joined” marriage. Both positions admit he is not and never was party to such a marriage. What is needed by the position being discussed is a passage that shows that God assigned adultery to those correctly abandoning an unscriptural, “unjoined” marriage!

A DANGER!

It is not up to us to decide the means that God uses to defend His marriage, nor to close perceived “loopholes” that we see as allowing abuses to occur. Rightly, God alone is both qualified and designated to make the law! Our personal conclusions as to what is “fair”, or what “works” should never be given standing when they cannot be found in God’s law. No matter how seriously we regard ANY divorce – and sin is always present in a divorce – we must not assign consequences that God does not. No matter we do not perceive God’s law as covering all the eventualities, we must not “help” him by closing a loophole we think we see.

SUMMARY:

Let us clarify the one referred to as “never bound”

1. It is not the same as one who is “never married”. It is obvious both by definition and scripture that the bond is different than the marriage. One can be married and not bound, or bound and not married (Rom 7:2,3)

2. The “never bound” person may or may not be married.

3. If married, he/she has never been in a “God joined marriage”; has never been “made one” by God; has broken no “Covenant of God” (Prov 2:17); has never been “bound by law TO a husband/wife.”

4. What made him/her guilty of “adultery” is being married to one who was “joined to another” (Mt 19:9b; Lk 16:18; Mt 5:31-32)

5. Since “adultery” involves an “unlawful sexual relationship with one who is the spouse of (belongs to) another”, he will be guilty as long as he/she remains in that connection.

6. From Mt 19:9, we have three parties:

--the man who divorced other than for fornication; he is in “adultery” because as a “joined” partner, he is married to another than the one to whom he is joined.

– the woman who is divorced by this man; she is in “adultery” because, as one who has a partner to whom she was “joined”, she is married to another than he.

– the man who marries the woman divorced from this “joined” marriage; he is in “adultery” because he is married to one who “belongs to another”.

Regarding the third man (the man against whom this unscriptural restriction is levied), who by repenting and divorcing from this relationship is able to “get out of adultery”. Since “adultery” is the sole grounds for scriptural restriction, and since he has never been “joined to another”, once this is done, what “joining” or “bond” renders a further marriage by him as “adultery”? He is NOT the “spouse” of another; he has NEVER been “God joined” to another; he has broken NO covenant of God; has NEVER been “bound by law to a wife”.

As we have pointed out, ONLY BY EXTRAPOLATING (without justification, and despite the entire marriage context) the restrictions of adultery – which by admission ALWAYS are made against those who AS a “joined” mate, or WITH a “joined” mate – to those not “joined”, or those not “with a joined mate”. There is absolutely NO scripture offered for this extension of such a restriction! This is not a question of “fairness” or our view of justice and obedience – it is a matter of authority, and “book, chapter, and verse”. We KNOW God is “fair”, what He demands is “just”, and our obligation is, WHATEVER the commandment is, to “obey”! The only way we can know HIS requirement is to accept HIS word. What does HE say about the “never bound” man? What are HIS limits regarding him? Any needed objections or corrections in the above material are welcomed!

Aubrey Belue

220 Rebecca Lane

Columbus, Ms 39702

Ph 1-662-241-6821 (cell 1-662-889-5580)

ASSIGNING “CONSEQUENCES” or,

“ROBBERY BY FALSE PROMISE”

There are several ways to consider the Scriptural teaching on divorce and remarriage. One constant is that this is God’s arrangement, and He both knows and demands the best way to deal with it in all of its aspects. This includes both the arrangement itself, including the standing of all parties in all initial and following relationships, and the consequences of failing to follow divine guidelines. In both of these areas, man must be careful not to usurp the place of God. He GIVES the rules; we FOLLOW them. Other discussions involve the arrangement itself; in this writing, we offer thoughts on “assigning consequences”.

I. The ultimate source of all consequences is God.

Gal 6:7 - Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

This includes both those consequences that naturally follow because of the way God has protected his principles and “laws” (even natural laws like electricity and gravity), and His determination of the penalties associated with certain activities men “sow”. A way of describing these two aspects of consequences might be “natural”, and “legal”(this study is not concerned with “criminal penalties”, but those which God demands when HIS law is broken). .

Natural consequences are to some degree uncertain. They deal with results which generally follow certain actions, but which may not always follow.

As an example, consider the drunkard.

We know that God forbids “drunkenness”. This is intended to guard against both “natural” and “legal” consequences of that conduct.

-- But, the drunk may get into his car and zigzag home without any harmful accident. (This despite the general consequence of crashes, injury, or vehicular homicide.)

– His physical constitution may fortify him so that liver disease may be slow in coming, or absent (This despite the general consequence of failing health and early death).

–If he is a Christian, the congregation where he worships may not properly discipline him (1 Cor 5:10,11) (This despite God’s intention that they do so treat him.)

Legal consequences are inevitable and appropriate.

The drunkard “cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. Gal 5:19

But, these “legal” consequences may be set aside, if the offender repents of his conduct, and accepts God’s way out. (1 Cor 6:9-11), and God will then treat him as though he had never sinned!

We may think that one should suffer OTHER consequences. Some of us will be too lenient on the “legal” end (“God is too harsh for denying such a one eternal life”), Or too harsh on the “natural” end (In the aftermath of a ruinous accident where a drunk had caused a crash that had killed two of God’s good children, as well as himself, as I stood by crying, one part of me wanted him to keep living so he could suffer more physically. He did not, though I am sure the “legal” consequences of his actions “made up for it”. –But, the reality was, it was “God’s call”, not mine!)

As another example, consider those who murdered Jesus.

All of us would consider such an act as deserving of the severest of consequences – both “natural” and “legal”. As Christ said of the one who betrayed Jesus to be murdered.. “it were better for that man that he had not been born...”

–Judas. As an “accessory before the fact”, he suffered the “natural” consequence of remorse and suicide. All believe he also suffered the “legal” consequence of final separation from God (he went to “his own place” – Acts 1:25)

– The people who either urged the murder, consented to it, or actively participated in it.

As part of a nation which rejected Him, they suffered the “natural” consequence (which also involved those innocent ones not responsible in any way for Christ’s death), of the end of their identity as a nation, and permanent stigmatism as misfits among humanity.

As individuals, some among them may also incurred similar consequences to those experienced by Judas – remorse, guilty conscience, etc. But some no doubt did not. They may have lived subsequent lives of relative ease, comfort, and being accepted among their friends.

They may have thus escaped the “natural” consequences of their crime (these only “generally” apply, and are often escaped by some).

Again, as individuals, the “legal” consequence of death in sin, and the certainty of hell fire, was stipulated, and they deserved it. But, the grace of God allowed many to escape this “legal” consequence. “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. ALL were offered forgiveness, some accepted it.

This, too, was “God’s call” , not ours. We may have required a harsher end for all, without considering “leniency”.

Of course, the individual perception of “consequences” on the part of a mere man is always subject to either INCLUDING irrelevant factors, or EXCLUDING pertinent ones.

That is why such things are claimed by God, and should be left to Him.

2. The making of the vow of marriage.

First, and foremost, the consequences are determined by God, not man.

The ONLY way we can know the “legal” consequence is to learn it through God’s word.

Some, though lacking any instruction from God, have made the taking of a vow of marriage a factor in the way we assign subsequent treatment of those who may have unlawfully done so.

It becomes obvious as this issue is discussed that some have decided what consequences are appropriate, and legislate according to OUR perception of what is right.