The Preacher's Diary

21. Desertion

Apart from death by one partner, Paul provides another possible ground for remarriage after a divorce.  If one partner should choose to depart from the marriage for fundamental differences in spiritual perspectives, the other was freed from the marriage obligation, as two cannot “walk together, except they be agreed” (Amos 3:3).  Paul says, “in such cases,” the other is “not under bondage” anymore to the marriage, implying that the person is ‘free’ to remarry (1 Corinthians 7:15).

That passage does not say, “WHEN the unbeliever departs,” but “IF,” which means that although such departures should not be the rule, they are a possibility.  Whereas in 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul addresses himself to the believer in the condition where his or her unbelieving partner might strongly wish to depart, in the verses before, he shows that even the believer might be obliged to make the same decision of departing or putting away, in the same circumstances of a relationship with an unyielding and implacable ‘unbeliever’ (1 Corinthians 7:12).  In other words, in the given circumstances, not only the unbeliever but also the believer could be the initiator or the departer “in such cases” where mutual peace is threatened.  All the same, he appeals to the believer that such drastic steps should not be hastily taken, because they might become the means of salvation to their partner.  He makes it clear that it is a possibility, although not a guarantee.  Some have stayed and saved the other at last, so also have others been lost trying to save the other.  In the end, they lost themselves and lost the other too, saving none (1 Corinthians 7:12-14).

12 Here I want to add some suggestions of my own. These are not direct commands from the Lord, but they seem right to me: If a Christian has a wife who is not a Christian, but [by her actions and general lifestyle] she wants to stay with him anyway, he must not leave her or divorce her. 13 And if a Christian woman has a husband who isn’t a Christian, and HE wants her to stay with him, she must not leave him. 14 For perhaps the husband who isn’t a Christian may become a Christian with the help of his Christian wife. And the wife who isn’t a Christian may become a Christian with the help of her Christian husband. Otherwise, if the family separates, the children might never come to know the Lord; whereas a united family may, in God’s plan, result in the children’s salvation.

15 But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian is eager to leave, it is permitted. In such cases the Christian husband or wife should not insist that the other stay, for God wants his children to live in peace and harmony (1 Corinthians 7:12-15, The Living Bible).

According to verse 12, the Christian can do either of two things: “leave her or divorce her,” given the stated conditions.  He can leave, or she can leave.  Again, the fact that the husband may “put away” or the wife may “leave him” (vv. 11-13) says more about roles and rights in the marriage, about powers and places, about who ‘has’ where, to be able to do what.  They both have the power to leave, but only one has the power to put away what he brought in, implying authority and powers in the space from which he puts away, but that is a different topic.

 

22. The Unbeliever

Certain interpreters are persuaded that 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 addresses only the case where one partner becomes a Christian and the other is not; where the not-yet-believer (or non-believer) opposes the now-believer’s new faith and decides to end the marriage by leaving or sending the other out.  That argument does not take the full context into consideration, so it is not a perfect position.

Just as any one of two unbelieving partners can become a Christian, any one of two believing partners can become an unbeliever, unless we are to say that a believer is never likely to backslide.  Paul addresses himself to the Christian partner because the believer is more reasonably disposed to Scriptural counsel, to which the other might be vehemently disinclined and therefore unprepared for that kind of help.  In other words, where one partner is staunchly unreachable with scriptural truth (whether they go to church or not), that partner qualifies as an unbeliever, and may not be restrained or compelled to stay.  To insist that they stay could be at the risk of the very crises against which Paul advises when he says, “God wants his children to live in peace and harmony.”  That is to say that some peace may only be achieved not by the continuing theologically forceful cohabitation of two combatants but by the exclusion of one.  The equation for such a peace, therefore, is not believer + unbeliever (at all costs), but believer – unbeliever = peace.  Paul advises the Christian to take the option that makes for peace; peace to themselves and to the other, by letting them go, and in the process freeing themselves also from the painful belligerent bond.  That means that proper and godly peace sometimes could mean the removal of the volatile element (the enemy of peace) from the conjugal equation, because every kind of combination does not make for peace.

Does ‘unbeliever’ mean someone whose name is not in the church register?  No.  Can a Christian qualify as an unbeliever in certain relational respects?  Yes.  For example, Jesus said that if there was a breach between two brothers (note, brothers), the godly of the two should reach out to make peace.  If that effort should fail to achieve reconciliation, the peace-seeking brother should proceed to take a witness or two and make a second move.  If that should also fail, he should involve the church, that is, the larger community, thus increasing the company of witnesses.  Any ‘brother’ who remains adamant after all the escalated entreaties for peace, becomes “an heathen man and a publican” while he might still retain the religious or relational tag of a ‘brother’ (Matthew 18:15-17).  So, can a brother or sister, by their attitude, scripturally qualify as an unbeliever?  According to Jesus, yes.   In other words, being a believer or unbeliever is much more than a religious tag or some church membership.

Some have argued, “He/she was not an unbeliever when you married, therefore this clause does not apply to you.  Stay until one of you is dead.”  That is faulty logic.  Paul’s point is, two people agreed to start a journey, which got to a point where one party is prepared to sink the boat unless they go or are allowed to go, because they are unwilling to accept a new state in the relationship.  Rather than sink the boat, Paul says, let them go, or you can go.  The point is not about how or where they started but where they had got to, and the vehement position of the other or oneself.

In Acts 5:3, Pastor Peter publicly confronted a church member thus: “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie?”  That was a ‘brother’ in title, with his name apparently on the church roll, but with the throne of Satan in his heart, to the point of his becoming a fearless public liar – even in church.  He died by the strong anointing on the service that day.  Was that still a brother indeed?  By the nature and circumstances of his death, can we say that he went to heaven, being a ‘congregational’ brother?

Being an unbeliever of any kind is bad, but, according to Paul, there is something much “worse” than becoming an unbeliever, even “worse than an infidel,” who has altogether “denied the faith,” that is, when a professed believer lives as certain negligent lifestyle that disposes their family to danger through avoidable lack (1 Timothy 5:8).  So, a Christian in name can become an unbeliever in conduct, or even worse; they can qualify in spiritual terms even as an “infidel,” who has denied the faith.  Therefore, ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ are mere titles where lifestyle does not match creed.  To that extent, 1 Corinthians 7:15 would refer to much more than someone who does not profess faith.

In the context of Paul’s counsels in that passage, a sinner who is committed enough to the sanctity of marriage to the point of willing to remain, and working to remain with their partner, despite a change in religious perspectives, is more righteous than a ferocious church-member partner who can no longer be kept, who resolves vehemently to depart or manipulates events to achieve that end.  In other words, it takes a certain kind of ‘unbelieverness’ to work against the marriage and seek to end it.  The underlying principle is that it is better to be at peace without a toxic person like that, than keep them by force of a religious or cultural creed and risk perennial wars in the home, in the name of a marriage that is not.  The marital relationship should be held together by love, mutual commitment, and fear of God, rather than by fear of cultural and other sanctions, even though, sometimes, such traditions and beliefs have mediated long enough to save a marriage until the partners were maturer for love and commitment to steer their ship the rest of the way.

This is probably the uncomfortable balance that is lacking.  Sacred as marriage is, important as it is for partners to be encouraged to patiently bear one another in love, grave as divorce has been in several cases, it is spiritually and relationally unhelpful to insist on one good extreme of a truth to the tragic detriment, in some cases, of those being guided by that truth.  Paul states that sometimes the precious pearl of peace is not to be sacrificed at the altar of an ungrateful swine who could turn around to devour the other, making them the unfortunate victims of their own goodwill (Matthew 7:6).  Peace is not to be negotiated, not with who is unprepared for it.

If we read that passage again, Paul does not prescribe that any must stay or go in the cantankerous condition where one insists that they would go, or where the other feels unsafe enough to wish to go.  He leaves the decision to the discretion of the parties, making a concession to their personal choice. He says, however, that it’s a choice that should not be hastily made, but a possible choice all the same, with its probabilities and implications.  Properly in these matters, wisdom does not force a decision on either of the parties.  It shows them the implications, gives them the options, and leaves them to make the choice, lest when crises should come afterwards, an Adam would blame God for making him the victim of a choice that was made for him without consulting him – “It was the woman YOU gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it” (Genesis 3:12, New Living Translation).  A third party does not ‘agree’ for two others to “walk together.”  It is the two that are intent on the mutual ‘walk’ that should so agree with themselves – “… except THEY be agreed” (Amos 3:3).  They can only be guided in the process.

It cannot be denied that patience and perseverance have won many a partner after a long godly endurance, but it does not also deny that some have shortened their lives in regrettable ways for staying when they should have fled, often because they wished to please other opinions.  Jesus called us to be prepared to be persecuted for righteousness’ sake, but He also warned, “when they persecute you in this city, flee ….”  In other words, use your initiative to save your life when you can, rather than hope foolishly for a ‘vindicating’ spectacular intervention by some heavenly chariot of fire when you could have used your legs to do the same (Matthew 5:10; 10:23).  All deaths do not glorify God.  Some persecution is for righteousness’ sake; some is regrettable destruction from a lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).

 

23. Paul’s Self-contradictions?

If our interpretations of Paul’s clauses so far are as we have presented them, was he contradicting himself in such passages as Romans 7:1-3 where he quotes the Master’s teaching on the subject, as offered in Matthew and Mark and Luke, that one partner cannot have a justifiable remarriage after a divorce, while the other partner is still alive?  How could Paul say to the Romans that a remarriage while the other partner is still alive could be tantamount to adultery, yet provide grounds to the Corinthians for that to occur in other cases?  I wondered about that myself, and came to the resolution that one condition was the ideal situation being presented, as Jesus declared it; the others were the options where the ideal was unmet.

For instance, to “sin not,” is the ideal Christian counsel, yet because sometimes even the strong falls, but should get back again to their feet and continue the race, we are told, “If any man sin…” (1 John 2:1).  Was the apostle not thus contradicting himself?  Why should he say in one place, “sin not,” and in another, “If we confess our sins…” (1 John 1:9)?   Was he expecting us to be sinning, after telling us to not sin?   When he says, “If we confess OUR sins” (including the speaker), was he not implying that his other exhortation for the Christian to “sin not” was unrealistic, and thus self-contradictory?   No.  Both writers were making a distinction between the ideal, yet recognising the unfortunate possibility that mortals might sometimes fall in aiming at that ideal, but should not stop there.

From The Preacher’s diary, 

July 20, 2021. 

• A link to the e-book version of these posts shall be provided in the last three ‘Parts’ of this series.
• A collection of all remarks to these posts (received online/offline) shall be the last ‘Part’ of the series.

If the posts from The Preacher have been a blessing to you, please share the blessing.  Help us to reach more, and kindly also leave your comments in the provided section.

NOTE:

We shall take a brief pause from the present posts, to avoid information overload. At Part 10 now, it is our perception that readers need time to better interact with the message so far presented.  Besides, other readers need time to catch up.

Whereas, hitherto, the posts have been every other day, with the remaining section (Part 11-18), we shall increase the interval to five days or less, so that the meat be properly chewed.  Thanks.

The Preacher

Watch out for:

• Obeying Paul or Christ?
• Resolving The Samaritan Puzzle
• The Old Testament of Jesus
• God Hates Divorce
• Hardness of Heart
• What God has Joined Together

 

19.  Between Divorce and Putting Away

Deuteronomy 24:1 presents the process of a legal divorce, three clear steps to a proper divorce between a man and his wife:

When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (Deuteronomy 24:1, World English Bible).

For the process to be complete and the divorce technically valid, based on the preceding marital breach (porneia, `ervah, etc.) warranting the process,

• “he shall write her a bill of divorce” – legal documentation
• “and give it in her hand” – witness, evidence, consent or concession of the other
• “and send her out of his house” – physical separation

The “bill of divorce” in her hand was the legal or official document on the dissolution of the union between the two; it was the evidence that there was a valid divorce; it was the woman’s license to be

Read more

FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage?

(Part 8 of 18)

 

17. The Perspectives of the Gospels

Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees on divorce and remarriage is recorded only in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matthew 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-12).  St Luke’s Gospel provides no context to the declaration it makes.  It states in just one verse: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16: 18).   It also makes no mention of the exception clause that Jesus gave, based on marital infidelities.  It makes no mention of the wife’s equal powers to seek the same redress.

The book of Mark, like Matthew, provides a context to the discussion as arising from a query by the Pharisees.  The account in Mark well matches that in Matthew, except for two details: 1) it omits the fact that “fornication” could be grounds for divorce, and 2) it states the possibility that the woman also can put away.

It is noteworthy that both Mark and Luke were secondary reporters, who were not eye- and ear-witnesses of their reports, not having been disciples of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4).  Even though that does not

Read more

16. Revision or Reinstatement?

Some Bible teachers are of the view that, in answering the Pharisees on the question of divorce, Jesus re-instituted the ‘original order,’ for the two to be one flesh without the option of divorce at all.  The evidence of Scripture, however, is that He revised the old order, and that was not the only instance of His doing so. In His first sermon, generally called the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for example, Jesus declared several times, “It hath been said … But I say; …. It hath been said … But I say ….”

For instance, whereas the traditional ‘definition’ of adultery was a sexual act between a married person and someone who is not their spouse, Jesus revised it to include lustful looks and thoughts (Matthew 5:27-28).  Murder used to be defined as the act of killing somebody, but Jesus revised the concept to include causeless anger with a brother (Matthew 5:21-22).  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: that used to be the law, the Scripture; but Jesus revised that, too, saying, “But I say unto you … resist not evil” (Matthew 5:38-39).  In Matthew chapter 5 alone, that revisionary phrase, “But I say unto you …,” occurs as many as six times

Read more

14. What “Uncleanness”?

The Hebrew word rendered as “uncleanness” in that passage is `ervah, which is sometimes translated euphemistically as “nakedness” and sometimes as “uncleanness.”  In Leviticus 18:6-19, the word occurs repeatedly, warning that one should not (sexually) ‘uncover’ the “nakedness” (`ervah) of one’s daughter or daughter-in-law or stepmother or aunt or granddaughter, etc.  The figurative usage of that word as a reference to sexual uncleanness is clearer in such passages as Leviticus 20:17, which states that “a man” should not uncover or “see” the nakedness (`ervah) of his sister, his daughter, or his niece.  Leviticus 20:18 uses the word in a way that more clearly connects the reference to sexual relations: “if a man shall lie with a woman … and shall uncover her nakedness…” – `ervah.  People uncover their nakedness or that of their partner to

Read more

10. Was it a Parable?

If the encounter with the woman of Samaria had been a parable, we might have had theological pathways to ease the puzzle, but it was a real-life encounter with an actual woman who had had FIVE HUSBANDS – one, two, three, four, and five!  It was a real encounter with an actual woman at an authentic location witnessed by all twelve disciples of Jesus as well as the villagers, especially the men whom she invited to “come see.” 

If the story had been of a man who had had five wives, we might also have bothered differently, even in that New Testament passage.  What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:32 about legitimate divorce strictly on grounds of fornication, that did not seem to apply in John 4:18 with the Samaritan woman and her five legitimate ex-husbands and five apparently legitimate divorces from each of them?

If it had been a disciple or a Pharisee who had called those men “husbands,” one would have

Read more

8. Was it Fornication?

If consecutive deaths was not the likely cause for the termination of each of the five previous marriages, was it fornication, as apparently provided for by Jesus in His discourse with the Pharisees who had asked if it was okay for a husband to “put away his wife for every cause” (Matthew 19:3)?  Did someone commit fornication (or “sexual immorality,” as some Bible translations put it) in all previous marriages, to warrant the lawful divorces that legitimised the subsequent remarriages, according to the apparent terms of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9?

Read more

6. How the Separation?

The passage does not say how the separations with the five ex-husbands came about, and whose fault it was.  Whatever the case, they were consecutive divorces: one, two, three, four, and five.  If any of the previous partings of ways had not been a valid divorce but a mere separation, the subsequent relationship could not have been called a marriage and the man a “husband.”  It had to have taken one legal divorce for the subsequent relationship to be called a marriage, and the partners “husband” and “wife.”  If each of the five ex-men was at one point legitimately a husband, and Jesus called them “husbands,” then Jesus recognised as valid and acceptable both the processes by which each man was engaged to that woman, and those by which he got later divorced from her; He recognized each of the five as valid consecutive marriages and valid consecutive divorces.

If Jesus would say on one hand in Judea that divorce and remarriage was adultery while one partner still lived, except the divorce had been based on “fornication” by one of the parties, then in Samaria seem to endorse divorces and remarriages which did not appear to have been based on the condition declared in Judea, there must be something more to what Jesus had said, than is apparent from a simple reading of what He said.  My worry is, what was or were the legitimate grounds for the Samaritan divorces, as they did not seem to tally either with the exception clause in the related discourse with the Pharisees in Judea or with Paul’s exception clauses based on death or desertion by the unbelieving partner (1 Corinthians 7:15)?

7. Was it Deaths?

In answering the Sadducees during one interrogation, Jesus gave a hypothetical parable about a woman consecutively marrying each of seven brothers after the previous brother had died, from the eldest to the last (Mark 12:19-22).  Was consecutive deaths the reason and license for the Samaritan woman’s marriage to each next man?  Did each of the consecutive husbands die, thus warranting and legitimising her next marriage, and validating the subsequent man’s title as “husband” rather than “adulterer” – and she “no adulteress,” according to Matthew 19:9?

It is very unlikely that consecutive deaths was the cause of all five previous dissolutions of marriage.  No matter her feminine attractions or other qualities, I wonder how many men would so easily have risked marrying a woman with her graveyard of ex-husbands, a woman who ‘killed’ every man that married her!  Even if Man No 2 and Man No 3 had been too romantic or too bewitched to care about the previous graves, I am not sure that Man No 4 and Man No 5 would have followed so quickly in their trail.  Who wants to sign their death warrant in the name of marriage?  “She should keep her witchcraft-beauty and her graves to herself,” they might have sworn.  Such a killer-wife would have earned an unenviable devilish name in her little community, unless she possessed occult powers by which her victims were hypnotised and zombie-ed irresistibly one after the other into their graves through her conjugal sorceries.  But nothing in Jesus’ interaction with her suggested that, otherwise He might also have been casting out those devils from her. It is not impossible, but very unlikely, that death was the cause of all five previous dissolutions of marriage.  In other words, it was not the death of one husband that permitted her recognised marriage to the next man, as apparently prescribed by Jesus in Judea.

 

From The Preacher’s diary,
July 20, 2021. 

Note:

If you wondered about the initial post mentioned in the “Preface” in Part 1, note that that first message is Part 1 and 2 of this series. Thanks.

The Preacher

4. A Hostel or a Home? 

In the King James Version, we read: “he whom thou now hast” ….  In the Complete Jewish Bible, the New Living Translation, and a couple of other Bible translations, that expression is rendered as “the man you’re living with now.”  In other words, the woman was already living in with Man No. 6, probably checking out if, at last, that was going to be the man of her dreams and her joy; if that relationship would ‘work out’ at last, after five failed cases – which must have been quite traumatic for her.  Whether she moved in with him or he moved in with her, we cannot say, but given that orthodox culture, it is more probable that it was she who moved in with the man.

When Jesus said that the man she ‘had’ at the time was NOT a husband, not HER husband, He probably meant that she was dating a married man – another woman’s husband, or that the man had not yet done the customary rites to make her a wife, and make him her husband, as in each of the past five cases.  Or was it a polite rebuke that the present relationship was adulterous (or one of fornication), unlike the previous five?  Whatever Jesus meant seemed clear to her, and she had no queries about it.

Secondly, and of more serious concern, Jesus seemed to have been saying that to have ‘had’ a man; to be ‘living with’ the man; to have moved in with him, did not mean marriage.  The reverse would also be true, that to ‘now have’ a woman in the house, to be “living with” her, does not make her a wife.  In other words, residency is not marriage – no matter how long the stay and how intimate the care.  Living long in a flashy hostel or hotel does not make it home, despite the paid care shown; and marriage is much more than consensual cohabitation.

In that conversation, Jesus was addressing two kinds of relationships: marriage and cohabitation.  With the previous five, it was marriage; but with Man No. 6, it was cohabitation, which neither society nor God had recognised as marriage.  Jesus, who was Man No. 7 in her significant encounters, knew what marriage was and what it was not.  The woman knew, too, and did not argue.  There was no ambiguity about what was meant, so she never asked for clarifications as she did about the other topics during their long afternoon discourse (vv. 9, 11, 12).

5.        Five New Testament Husbands? 

The next point is what bothers me: five husbands!  Did Jesus really call all those ex-men “husbands”?  Wasn’t it He who said, in the same New Testament, that if ANYONE divorced and remarried while the other partner was still alive, it was adultery, unless there had been a case of “fornication” (Matthew 5:32; 19:9)?  If only the first marriage was valid, according to the passages quoted, then the subsequent relationships would have been adultery, and the men should not have been called “husbands” but “adulterers,” or more politely, “concubines.”  If Jesus called them “husbands” and not “adulterers,” can it be logically assumed

Read more

Monday 28th – Wednesday 30th April, 2025.

Fast daily according to your time zone, break when you would, later in the day. We meet online daily to pray together in the Spirit, iron sharpening iron…

PRAYER TIMES:
– Nigeria/UK: (WAT/GMT) 11:45 PM
– Montreal, Canada: 6:45 PM
– New York, USA: 6:45 PM
– Brasilia, Brazil: 7:45 PM
– Nairobi, Kenya: 1:45 AM (next day)
– Johannesburg, South Africa: 12:45 AM (next day)
– Sydney, Australia: 8:45 AM (next day)

Corporate global fasting and prayers for yourself, family, the Church and the nations. We have had encouraging testimonies in the past, yours is next …

Venue: Zoom
Kindly click on the link below to join:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83040745485?pwd=eE5aeVFBWXBNZm9pMWhHSm9jRGlRQT09Meeting

Meeting ID: 830 4074 5485
Passcode: Jesus

Enquires: (SMS/email only)‪+234 803 5115 164‬; info@thepreacher.info