I Do.  I Don’t!  Why Not?

(Revised)

 

By J. Rob Hutto

 

 

Introduction

 

A couple decides to get married.  They make their plans.  Nothing goes exactly as planned, but the important thing about the wedding is the part where they say the words, “I do!”  After some months of marriage, all is not so rosy and warm as it was in the early days.  This isn’t a date, and it sure isn’t a honeymoon.  “I do” turns into “I don’t.”  Many people live together many years before they make the decision to divorce.  But the terrible fact is that all too many people choose this path. 

After the divorce, many who have been in this position decide to try again.  They find someone they think they love and they decide to get remarried.  For most people, this isn’t hard, though past experience certainly should and often does cause a great deal of caution as they enter the process.  But in the Church of God of Prophecy and a few other churches, when a divorced person seeks to remarry, we tell them they can’t and they ask, “Why not?”

 

A Time for Questions

 

At present there is a buzz in the church.  It has to do with the divorce/remarriage/fornication issue.  Interest in this topic isn’t new, but the attention being given this issue has increased.  There are several reasons for this.  I will give three of them here.  First, some simply don’t understand the teachings we have regarding marriage.  Second, some who do understand them disagree with them.  Third, many local churches have seen new couples come to church who claim to be saved.  However, over time it has been discovered that certain of these couples are in a state of adultery.

 Honest questions have arisen.  They all seem to boil down to the following:

 

1. Can a person be saved, married to their second spouse, and have a previous spouse who is still living?

2. If a person bears the fruit of salvation, should we still deny them church membership based on what we have termed an adulterous marriage?

3. Is our definition of fornication correct and/or inclusive enough?

4. Should a person who gets saved after entering into a second marriage have to return to their first spouse?

5. Should the “innocent party” in a divorce have to remain single, even if their former partner remarries and appears to have a happy home?

 

            While I cannot answer for families in other countries, I know that few families in the United States are untouched by divorce.  Most of us have a family member who has been divorced.  Naturally, this makes this issue an emotional one.  It has touched my own family in several ways.  I have close friends who have been affected directly or indirectly by divorce.  I understand to a degree the feelings that affect us.  With this matter being so personal for most of us, it is easy for us to have reasonable opinions that are nevertheless opposed to the stand the church has taken over the years.  

            It is probably safe for me to say that most of us see divorce as a bad thing.  We wish it were not a part of our culture.  Some even continue to give nominal respect to the notion of the marriage covenant.  But the fact of the matter is that divorce has permeated our society to a very deep level.  Many no longer view subsequent second marriages as out of the ordinary.  It has become an accepted thing in the world for two people to leave an unhealthy marriage and unite to form a new couple and start a new family.

            It has also become very common for couples involved in a second marriage to feel accepted by society and therefore wish to observe religion in the way normal families do.  They expect to be able to attend church, participate in the worship, support the church with their finances, and feel like they are a part of all that being in church involves. 

            This has created a dilemma for churches experiencing a significant number of worshippers who are in their second marriage.  Pastors have had to rethink how to deal with this issue.  After all, no one wants to run new converts off by telling them they cannot join a fellowship until they have reunited with their first spouse.  There is pressure to include these people in all that goes on in the church.  And while it isn’t always about the money these people give, it is hard to not allow them to join the church even though they are making a difference in the budget and offering good suggestions for the administration of the church.  Of course, in some cases it is absolutely about the money, but often enough it is simply about the dignity of the would-be members and the ability to disciple them.

            So, we have questions.  What do we do?  I have heard different arguments on this issue.  Of course, there are good arguments on both sides of the question.  These arguments are occasionally even offered in a mature matter.  Recently, I attended a meeting where questions on this topic were discussed openly.  Though no consensus was reached, it was nevertheless refreshing to see the good spirit that prevailed among those who spoke either for or against changing the current doctrinal stand of the church.  Obviously, we had no power to change anything, but the atmosphere was encouraging.  Having had this experience, I believe it is possible to find a solution without arguing.

            I have asked questions myself.  I have tried to find suitable answers.  I have prayed.  With the recent emphasis being given to the issue, I have tried to reevaluate even those things I have felt certain about.  I believe this is appropriate.  I want to be open-minded.  I want to be open to whatever God has to say on the subject.  If I have missed something, God can let me know.  If what I believe is right, then it will still be right after I ask my questions.

            I’d like to address certain scriptures that relate to this issue.  I do so with a desire to help us in the search for more light.  I have not received everything we need to hear on this subject, but I feel I have received some things from the Lord that might be of help to others.  Please accept this with much prayer.  Also, receive it with the understanding that I am simply someone who wants to help the Church of God in any way possible.  I love the church.  If I can offer something of value during this season of uncertainty, I will be more than gratified.

 

To Divorce or Not to Divorce

 

            As I have already said, hardly any of us truly feel that divorce is a good thing.  But this isn’t enough.  In order for us to approach this subject with any authority, we need more than good feelings or sound logic.  We need Divine logic.  Often, God’s logic doesn’t match mine.  Therefore, I must always defer to His.

            First Corinthians 7:10-16 reads as follows:

 

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

 

            First, in these verses Paul is speaking to the married.  He is writing this chapter to encourage the unmarried to remain unmarried, if possible, so that they may devote themselves more fully to the Lord.  However, he recognizes that this is difficult and not always possible.  Therefore, he wants those who are married to have clear direction regarding their marital relationship.  He tells them unequivocally that the husband and wife should remain together.  In fact, he says this in four different verses.  He even goes so far as to say that if one of the members of the church at Corinth are married to an unbeliever, they should not seek to divorce that spouse.

            But verse fifteen gives us pause.  We look at this verse and are struck with what seems to be an escape clause.  He says that if the unbelieving spouse is determined to leave the believer, then the believer is not “under bondage.”  What does this mean?  Does it mean that the believer is then free to remarry?  Does it mean, as someone recently related, that the believer isn’t under the bondage of Divine judgment if they have been divorced against their will? 

            We must ask the question, “Why would Paul go to so much trouble to tell the family to stay together, only to turn around and tell them they aren’t under bondage to stay together if they really don’t want to?”  I believe there is a perspective that is reasonable and helpful. 

            Let’s suppose that in a particular marriage, John and Mary are married.  John is a Christian, but Mary is not.  They have married in spite of the differences in their spiritual standing.  John serves the Lord, but Mary is restless.  She decides that she isn’t happy in the marriage.  She tells John she wants a divorce. 

            John is faced with a dilemma.  On the one hand, he knows that 1 Corinthians 7 says he should remain married.  But Mary isn’t concerned with 1 Corinthians 7.  She isn’t concerned with doing what the Bible says.  John may even explain to her that he feels they should remain together and try and make the marriage work.  But Mary is adamant.  She wants out!  John’s dilemma is seen in the question, “Do I keep the Word of God and refuse the divorce, or do I let her go knowing that this isn’t God’s will?” 

            If John persists in accepting the Biblical view and refuses the divorce, what happens to Mary?  More than likely, she gets so mad that she leaves anyway.  She decides she will leave with or without John’s blessing.  But this isn’t the end of the story.  Because of John’s determination to keep her at home, he actually drives a wedge between them.  Mary becomes so embittered by his stand that she vows never to return, and she remains true to her word.  What has John accomplished?  He has succeeded in turning Mary so against him, the marriage, and the Lord that there is no hope whatsoever of them ever being reconciled.

            But what if John says to himself, “I know what God’s will is, but she is determined to go.  I will let her go as peacefully as possible, continue to love her, and continue to serve God.”  What is likely to happen in this case?  There is a much greater chance that Mary will always look back on the separation as a peaceful one with the possibility of her returning always present.  Of course, she may never return, but she is much more likely to do so if she sees John living a life before the Lord and before her that shows he is determined to please God.  Paul shows the possibility when he says, “How knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”  He realizes that if the man demands that God’s will be done, it could be disastrous.  But God is not a God of bondage.  He wants there to be peace above all.  This is the only way the door to reconciliation will ever be kept open. 

 

 

Out in the Cold, or Changing Tactics?

 

            It is clear from the above illustration that once the marriage is dissolved the innocent party still has a responsibility.  While they were together, the man (or woman) had to live the example of Christ-likeness in order to have any hope of winning the lost spouse to the Lord.  Under the current circumstances that example is still important, but it not only has as its goal the salvation of the spouse, but the reconciliation of the marriage.

It is true the believer has a hard road ahead.  But his or her example may become even more important at this juncture.  The unsaved spouse no longer has the day-to-day example to follow.  It is hoped, however, that on the occasions when the two come into contact with one another that the believer can leave an indelible impression.  This comes when Christ is Lord of the believer’s life.

Should the believer, the innocent party, remarry?  How can they?  While they cannot make the unsaved get saved, they can certainly make themselves available to God so that He can work through them on behalf of the lost partner.  To remarry would certainly distract form this, both in the eyes of the believer and the unbeliever.

But shouldn’t the believer have the right to remarry, especially if the unbeliever has remarried and tried to start a new family?  From the perspective of logic, the answer is undoubtedly “yes.”  But that is human logic.  Human logic is concerned with the happiness of the Christian.  Divine logic, on the other hand, is concerned with the salvation of a lost soul.  This is more important than anything else, even the happiness of faithful Christians. 

Let me say it plainly.  The innocent party has a responsibility, especially in light of the marriage covenant, to do all that is possible to facilitate in the salvation of the soul of their former spouse.

            If the innocent party has already remarried, should they then leave their second spouse in order to reach the first one?  I have heard stories of people who have done just that.  It seems hard, but individuals have seen that their first obligation is to God, and their second obligation is to their first spouse.  They have separated from their second spouse and become an example of the grace of God to the former spouse who is otherwise headed for hell!  What if the second marriage has produced children?  I know of cases where the Lord has provided for the children of the second marriage once the father or mother has begun the long road back to reconciliation with a wayward spouse.

            I think it is interesting that we think it is important for missionaries to face whatever dangers they encounter, but then we feel marriage partners are entitled to ease.  We are quick to feel that some are supposed to suffer for the sake of the Gospel while others are treated unfairly if they do.  The stand I have presented here is very hard, but in the end, God blesses the person who recognizes their marital responsibility and fulfills it even after being divorced.  He blesses these people with peace!

 

 

 

 

 

Judging

 

            But are we to judge those who are in a second marriage but who now claim salvation?  If they refuse to accept their responsibility to their first spouse, are we to approve of this?  Matthew 7:1 and Romans 2:1 are fixed indelibly in the minds of many Christians.  We are told to “judge not.” 

But we often fail to discuss the passages in 1 Corinthians five and six.  These passages deal with sin in the church at Corinth.  First, there is the issue of at least one man being married to his father’s wife.  Paul lets the church know he knows what to do with this individual.  But then in chapter six he points out that there was a need for the church to actually appoint a judge to preside over the resolution of certain things that were taking place in the church. 

Jesus said the following in Matthew 18:15-18:

 

15  Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.

18  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

            Jesus is actually telling the church to take an action that is based somewhat on a judgment.  But I know that many of us think of judging as being harsh.  We can see the judge sitting on the bench handing down harsh sentences to criminals.  We also hate the idea of having to confront publicly anything in the way of sin and negative behavior. 

            We must always avoid the abuse of the authority to judge, but we are under scriptural mandate to make judgments when it comes to the souls of people.  In the case of those in a second marriage, we don’t want to tell them they are in sin.  We don’t want to rebuke them, or even redirect them.  We fall back on Matthew seven, but we forget (maybe conveniently) 1 Corinthians five and six.

            How should we handle those in a second marriage.  I must confess that I am extremely uncomfortable with confronting people, and have avoided confronting adultery.  Yet, if we are to be true to the Word of God, for the good of the souls involved we must occasionally confront this sin.  Do we run these people off?  Absolutely not!  But we must be upfront and honest about what the Bible says, while encouraging the couple to seek the Lord as to how they should handle their own situation.  We must give clear guidance and allow the Lord to work the situation out.  He can!  He has done so too many times.  The tendency to not bother these people is understandable.  But the fear of running these people off must be replaced with a desire to do the will of God and speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

 

But What About Grace?

 

            I have witnessed some wonderful teaching and preaching on the topic of the grace of God.  There has truly been some anointing as some have shared what the Lord has given them.  My eyes have been opened to things I never knew before. 

But there is a snag in some of the teaching on grace.  The idea is that grace is only the unmerited favor of God.  But it is so much more than that.  It is true that it is unmerited favor, and it is true we can never earn or keep salvation by our good works.  When God saved me (and you) He did not do so because of our connection with a particular church, family, activity, etc.  He saved us because He said “Come” and we said “Yes.” 

But God did not just save us and leave us.  There is a verse that I think gives a fuller picture of grace.  Of course, we could pick and choose which scriptures we want to use to make our point.  But this passage has truly touched my heart concerning what happens to the new convert.  It is found in Philippians 2:12, 13, and it says:

 

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

 

This passage says some things about the Christian experience.  First, Paul calls for obedience to the Word.  Next, he emphasizes the importance of personal experience.  But in verse 13 he tells the believer that God works in the believer.  This is important because we need to know that God has not left us after conversion, but rather is working in our lives.

But why?  What does God hope to accomplish in us?  There are two things listed in this verse.  First, God wants to work on us so that we want the same things He wants.  He works on our will.  He wants to will through us, not in the sense that we need to be robots, but in the sense that we need to be in harmony with Him. 

But He doesn’t just help us to will what He wills.  He also helps us “to do of His good pleasure.”  He could simply give us a new way of thinking, but that would be useless without being backed up by action.  The life of the Christian is a life of action.  It must be a life of action that synchronizes with God’s will. 

Simply put, grace not only places us in a place of favor with God, but it provides the necessary tools for Christian living.  John wrote in John 1:16, “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.”  The last part of this verse points out that we receive “grace for grace.”  What the writer is saying is that we receive grace when we get saved, but we do not yet have everything there is to receive in Jesus Christ.  Yet, in our immature spiritual state we are unable to receive deeper things without the grace of God enabling us to do so.  In other words, God gives us grace so we can receive more grace.  This is grace to live, to learn, and to grow in the Lord.

            Now grace does not free us from doing the will of God.  It enables us to do the will of God.  In the case of marriage, God does forgive unfaithfulness and adultery.  But grace does not enable us to live in sin.  It enables us to make the tough decisions that the flesh cannot or will not make.  It enables us to do what the flesh cannot or will not do.  If returning to a place of responsibility with my former spouse is hard, and if it is God’s will, then God has given me the power to fulfill what is required.

 

Moses Faces the Pressure

 

            In Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5-9 we find Jesus responding to those who were asking questions about divorce.  Moses had allowed the Israelites to divorce.  However, it seems he did so, not because it was what God wanted, but because of pressure from the people.  Read the following verses:

 

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.  (Matthew 19:8)

 

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.  (Mark 10:5-9)

 

            While it is certainly appropriate for us to reexamine scripture and view it in the context of contemporary needs, we must understand that sometimes we reevaluate because of social pressure.  In the case of Moses, the people were dead set on allowing divorce.  Their hearts were hard, so Moses made an allowance for divorce.   To not have done so could have resulted in much confusion among the people as some began to find ways around the law.  It was better to do something that would allow a peaceful, if less than perfect, resolution to bad marriages.  Anarchy and chaos could have resulted had Moses refused to offer the solution he chose.

            “BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO.”  This was what man chose, not God.  The argument could be made that in the beginning, which Jesus refers to in both Matthew and Mark, Adam and Eve were both perfect.  When marriage was instituted, it was done so in an atmosphere much different from that of today.  Therefore, so the argument goes, living in an imperfect world we must make allowances for imperfect marriages. 

But Jesus did not stop by simply referring to the good old days of the garden.  He goes on to say that because of how it was in the beginning, or “for this cause,” a man and woman “shall” leave father and mother and cleave to each other.  The word “shall” means “will happen in the future, or intended to happen”[1]  In other words, Jesus isn’t talking about how things used to be.  He is talking about the plan, which is still relevant and expected, for marriages in the future. 

From this we can deduce that God’s will is for a man and woman to stay together once they are married.  These passages are referring to how marriage ought to be in an imperfect world.

 

Remarriage- Right or Wrong?

 

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 

(1 Corinthians 7:25-28)

 

            I recently heard a very compelling argument from a man whom I believe to be a man of God.  The argument was an attempt to explain from the Bible why it is permissible for a man or woman with a living spouse to remarry.  The argument was that in verse 27 above, it was advised for a man not to remarry, but then in verse 28 he is told, if you DO marry, or remarry, you haven’t committed sin.

            On the face of it, this seems to be a valid argument.  But I want to look at this passage again and give some additional perspective on what Paul is saying.  First, we must remember that Paul has actually shifted to a different, but related, topic from that discussed up to this point.  He has begun talking about men and women who have not been married and who have had no sexual relationships.  He is encouraging these people to remain unmarried, if at all possible, so that they can give themselves more fully to the cause of Christ.  He feels the need to have dedicated Christians who can take on the work of the Body of Christ without being encumbered by earthly hindrances. 

            But Paul wants these people to understand that being married is not wrong.  He tells them, if you are bound, don’t try to get out of the relationship in order to devote yourself to God more fully.  But, and this is important, if you are “loosed from a wife…,”  then consider remaining unmarried.  Verse 28 will come into play in a minute, but we need to understand whom Paul is talking to here, and exactly what he is saying to them.  He is talking to those who want to be involved in the Gospel, be they married or unmarried.  To the married, he wants them to know they should not seek a divorce.  With the unmarried, he knows that the flesh has a powerful pull.  The sexual desire is strong and sometimes overwhelming.  To remain unmarried, or in our day to remain a virgin even out of marriage, is extremely difficult.  It has been said that Origen, the Christian scholar and apologist, wanted so much to please God without this overwhelming passion interfering in His spiritual walk that he castrated himself.[2] 

            Paul wanted to let these people know that being unmarried was a good thing.  He wanted them to know that if they had been loosed from the desire for sex or a spouse that they should remain so.  The word “loosed” is used to describe “divorce,” a method of dissolving marriages.  But the word “divorce” can actually be used to describe the dissolution of any type of union.  Webster gives this definition.  Divorce is “any complete separation or disunion;  to separate;  disunite.”[3]  (Italics added.) 

            Since Paul is talking to virgins here, it seems he is telling them that if they have become separated from the desire for marriage, then they should remain unmarried.  Verse 28 goes on to say that if they have married, they have not sinned.  He wants them to know that marriage is not a sin.  “If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn (Verse nine.)”  Therefore, he is not telling those who are re-married that it is okay to remain married.  He is talking to those who have married rather than remain a virgin.

            But he doesn’t use the word “virgin” in either verse 27 or 28.  Why is that?  We know he is talking to virgins because, again, in verse 25 he says “Now concerning virgins….”  I would also like to bring something else to your attention.  It seems that Paul uses the word “virgin” to describe women who have not been married or had sexual relations with a man.  But he doesn’t seem to use this word to describe men who are in the same state.  Perhaps it was uncommon for a man to be referred to as a virgin.  Therefore, the lack of this word in either verse 27 or 28 is simply the result of the way of speaking in their day.  But Paul is still talking to virgins, whether male or female.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Covenant

 

A covenant is “a solemn agreement that is binding on all parties.”[4]  This is true of a covenant no matter what the underlying issue is.  It certainly applies to marriage.  But the problem is that today a person’s word doesn’t mean much.

We live in a very cynical age.  We don’t trust politicians, we don’t trust preachers, we don’t trust churches, and we don’t trust each other.  A person’s word means very little except in a very few exceptional cases. 

A divorce has become too easy to obtain.  It used to be difficult, but so many people have wanted a divorce over the past fifty years that pressure has been put on lawmakers to make the process easier.  Of course, it has often been treated as a fairness issue.  “Let’s change the law so that both spouses can be treated equally.”  But the changes have in fact made it much easier to obtain a divorce than it has ever been. 

It is so easy to forget how this all started.  It started with a covenant, witnessed, in most cases, by many witnesses.  It is a contract.  It is because of this that the legal system even has to be involved.  But we turn our head the other way over the issue of the binding agreement.  Just get a divorce, and it will all be over soon.

Unfortunately, it isn’t all over soon.  The fact that the covenant is binding means that it can’t be broken.  The legal system says it can.  Society says it can.  But God does not.  God has made covenants with His people throughout history.  The only way these covenants could be broken was through sin.   

            The marriage covenant is valid even though the parties go their separate ways.  “What if one leaves because of sin?”  They have still made the promise.  In the Bible, when a covenant is broken, there is a penalty to pay (Leviticus 26:15, 16.) 

Ecclesiastes 5:4 says, “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.”  The marriage oath is an oath made before God.  It is also made before man.  The reason  we get married “before God and these witnesses” is to have someone who can later verify that the vow was indeed made.  These days, we are all too apt to forget the marriage vow that we witnessed.  But God does not forget!

 

Should Membership be an Option?

 

            The church is described by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 as follows:

 

…the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

 

            The church is the place where the truth is to be understood and displayed.  Being the pillar of the truth gives us the feeling that we uphold the Word.  We do, but not in the way that some may imagine.  Wade Phillips wrote the following passage, which is instructive:

 

Obviously Paul does not mean that the Church forms the foundation for the very essence of the Word:  for the Word of God is Jesus Christ, and Christ is self-existent and self-sustaining.  He possesses the ground of His existence in Himself;  He needs no external support.  Indeed, Christ is the pillar of the Church in this sense.  Then Paul must mean rather that the Church serves as a pillar upon which the Written Word is displayed…much like a post or pillar upon which a written proclamation is displayed.[5]

 

            In former ages, when there was no radio and there was no television, other methods of getting the word out to the population had to be found.  One method was to nail proclamations to pillars in town so that the greatest number of people could read them.  The church is to be the place where the Word of God can be displayed so that the greatest number of people can see it.  The world needs to see the Power of God in the lives of real people.  It isn’t enough to read about Martin Luther and John Wesley.  People want to see people who are alive today, people they can talk to, and people who display the grace of God in every day life.  The church is the place where this takes place.

            So, should we then take in to our fellowship those who are still in a second marriage?  Some argue that we should.  Some say we should not, and this has been our official stand over the years.  But if the person claims to be saved, shouldn’t we let them join?

            If the church is to have such a pivotal role in the demonstration of the Gospel, then how can we extend membership to those who are in a second marriage?  If being in a second marriage is wrong, then the person involved can get their life straightened by the grace of God.  Shouldn’t we allow them time to get straightened out, but join on a provisional basis?  In the case of some forms of sin, no open reproach to the truth of the Word is evident.  These people can have time to change without us seeing the sin or being aware of it.  These people must make necessary changes, but there sin isn’t always known to us, and indeed can often be worked out in private.  But some sins are so open and well known that we cannot seem to  give approval to the sin itself.  We must give the erring soul time to work out these reproachful issues, and then offer them membership.  Thus, the example of the Living Truth isn’t compromised in any way.

            Again, we must use love when dealing with these people.  We don’t want to run them away.  But, if they intend to change a sinful marital status, we can give them room to do so without fearing they will run away.  If they do not intend to get straightened out, then they certainly shouldn’t be taken into the church as members.            This is a hard stand.  I understand that.  But remarriage is a very visible state of existence.  It is open reproach.  The person involved in a second marriage must make some difficult decisions in order to get in the position where God wants them.

 

Fornication

 

            There are some questions about fornication that we need to ask.  The following is the definition accepted by the General Assembly of the Church of God of Prophecy:

 

Fornication is not merely marital unfaithfulness or adultery, but…is the state of being in a marriage which God disallows, such as, being married to another’s wife or husband.[6]

 

            The scripture passages we have relied on primarily for this definition are listed below:

 

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.  (1 Corinthians 7:2)

 

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.  (1 Corinthians 5:1)

 

            Based on the premise that we are bound to our first spouse until death regardless of whether we physically remain together, the church has stated that, if you have never before been married, but you marry someone who has been, they are an adulterer and you are a fornicator.  You are a fornicator because you don’t have your own wife or husband as 1 Corinthians 7:2 directs, but you have someone else’s.

            Let’s look at another passage of scripture.  Galatians 5:19 says,

 

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.

 

            This passage makes it clear that adultery and fornication are not the same thing, as some affirm, or they would not be listed separately.  I have accepted this.  But in reviewing the scripture, I have come across something that I did not initially understand, at least in light of the passages of scriptures listed in this section so far.  Let’s look at Matthew 19:9 which says,

 

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.

 

If we apply the definition recognized by the church as correct, we understand that the first part of this verse means, “If you are married to someone else’s spouse, you should leave them.”  But look at the last part of this verse.  It says, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”  Our current definition of fornication would likely render this verse to say, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit fornication.”  But Jesus used the word “adultery” to describe what we refer to as fornication.

            After letting several different people review this document in its un-revised form, I got some feedback that I thought would help us on the issue of fornication.  I know it has helped me. 

The first person to offer feedback on the section on fornication directed me to Jude 7, which reads,

 

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

            This person seemed to be saying that fornication being listed here referred to the sin we all know was prevalent in Sodom and Gomorrah, that of homosexuality.  Since the word fornication was used here to describe the sin of these two cities, it must mean, in his view, that fornication can have a broader meaning than we have given it. 

This minister had taken this article and begun a study on fornication to try and solve the apparent dilemma I had introduced.  He was not someone who was desirous of disproving what the church has traditionally taught.  Rather, he held the same opinion we have for years.  But he felt this verse had caused him to see fornication in a different way.

As I pondered this, I continued to share the original article with others.  One minister read it, and then called me to share his feedback.  The ensuing conversation was interesting and enlightening for me.  When I shared with him the passage in Jude 7, he explained that in Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuality was not the only sin in town.  In fact, if homosexuality was evident, then it is very likely that unmarried men were becoming intimate with married men, and unmarried women were doing the same with married women.  This would explain the presence of fornication, albeit in a very strange form.  Unmarried people were engaging those who had living partners in unlawful sexual practices.  This would, of course, show an agreement with our view on fornication.

The second point he made was even more revealing.  Matthew 19:9, where Jesus discussed those who were previously unmarried marrying those who had living companions, calls the previously unmarried person an adulterer.  As I pondered this, I was making the assumption that the words adulterer and fornicator meant exactly the same thing.  But actually, this friend pointed out that fornication is a type of adultery.  Adultery is not a type of fornication.  So, if an unmarried person marries a previously married person, they are committing adultery, or marital infidelity, by committing fornication.

If I tell you I am going to Disney World, you will immediately know I am going to an amusement park.  But if I say I am going to an amusement park, you will not automatically know I am going to Disney World.  One is a type of the other, but not vice versa.  If a person marries someone who has a living spouse, the condition they are in is a type of marital infidelity (adultery) known as fornication.

This actually makes sense to me.  Jesus was referring to adulterers who had committed a certain form of adultery, fornication.

 

Conclusion

 

            I still believe we need to hear from the Lord on this issue.  It isn’t wrong to question any of this.  It isn’t wrong to make adjustments along the way.  If what I was taught by my forefathers is true, then I can have a revelation of the truth I was taught just like they did.  Reevaluating the issues in question is a time when I can seek the Lord for truth.  My generation needs to be taught, but we also need Divine Revelation just like A.J. Tomlinson’s generation did.  Just hearing the doctrine from human teachers is not enough.  There must be a corresponding move of the Spirit in our hearts.  Therefore, we need to keep our hearts open as well as our Bibles so that we can make a clear judgment on this issue.  This is true whether we change the official view of the church or reaffirm it.

            I have presented this manuscript to be helpful, not to be controversial.  I am not trying to defeat anyone’s argument.  I am not trying to support a side.  I am simply trying to report what the Lord has given me.  I also want to be honest about questions I have.  This is a time of reexamination.  Let us be very careful to submit to one another, but also to God.  We could easily prepare intellectual arguments without ever hearing from God.  I hope that we will seek Him and love one another.  May God bless you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

 

 

Important Bible Truths.  Cleveland, TN:  White Wing Publishing House and Press.

 

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. Microsoft Corporation, © 1993-2001.

 

Phillips, Wade H.  God, the Church, and Revelation.  Cleveland, TN:  White Wing

Publishing House and Press, 1986.

 

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language.  New York:  Simon and

Schuster, 1982.

 

Woodbridge, John D., Great Leaders of the Christian Church.  Chicago:  Moody Press,

1988.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7/27/03