Reader's Question - Is Remarriage a Sin?

Reader’s Question –

Jesus said, whoever divorced his wife and married another commits adultery. When I married my husband (who has been in a previous relationship) I knew this. But I shrugged it off. And I thought that it probably didn’t count in our situation. But it’s pretty cut and dry. And honestly, I’m scared to death I’m going to hell for being an adulteress. What are your thoughts?

The first thing we have to do is look at what the Bible has to say about divorce. We know that God made provision for it in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In Malachi 2:16 we are told that God hates divorce, and this is one of the most quoted verses about divorce out there. However, if we are going to quote it we need to read it in context and pay attention to what is and is not being said. God does not say it is a sin, he says the reasons for the divorce are a sin and he hates that his people are acting in violence, hurting one another.

This brings us to Jesus’ teaching in Mark 10:1-10

First, there is a set up. The Pharisees ask Jesus a dumb question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Jesus doesn’t take the bait, and points them back to the passage in Deuteronomy mentioned above when he asks them, “What did Moses command you?” In other words, he was saying, “Of course, it is lawful for man to divorce his wife. God already addressed that when he gave Moses the law. And then Jesus explains why the law was given, and it was given because people have hard hearts.

Think about this with me for a while. What would cause anyone to do the things that lead to divorce? What causes someone to cheat, to abuse, to control, to be insensitive, to deliberate choose to do things that hurt another human being – particularly a person you have vowed to love and who has vowed to love you? If you answered a hard heart, then you win the prize. (Go buy yourself a cookie and enjoy!) God knew that people are lousy at keeping their promises to him and each other, and that no one can force another to be true to their word. So he gave us an out for when someone breaks their promises to us and allow us to stop being hurt. That is how much he loves us!

He desires that marriages remain intact and that we grow through this intimate union, but he set a boundary in place. He said you don’t have to be the victim of another person’s harden heart. You can be free, and you can put an end to the violence committed against you.

Before we go any further, let’s back up and take a look at what was really going on in this conversation. We have already shown how the whole thing was a set up with misleading question the Pharisees asked, but a set up for what? In Jesus day there were more than one type of Jew. There were the liberal and the conservative Jews, each interpreting the law according to their own bias. The liberal Jews said that divorce could be had for any reason and still be lawful, all a man had to do was establish that his wife was displeasing to him. (I don’t know about you, but my morning breath is pretty displeasing to everyone, including my husband, but I don’t think that is grounds for divorce.) The conservative Jews said that divorce was only allowed in cases of adultery. The whole point of this question was to get Jesus to declare whether or not he was liberal or conservative. It had absolutely nothing to do with the right and wrongness of divorce – that debate had already been settled along party lines.

So Jesus, being the brilliant person he is, sidesteps the whole issue of party politics and cuts right to the heart of the matter – if you divorce then you are causing another person to sin. This was particularly true for the women whose only options were to remarry or to become prostitutes in order to support themselves. Men could decide not to marry again and carry on with their lives.

And if we go back and read Matthew 19:1-12, we get pretty much the same break down of the issue, but it is interesting that if go back a page from that to Matthew 18: 5, 6, you will see that the person who causes another to sin is held to be the guilty party – even more so than the one sinning! And the consequences are severe. Jesus is driving home the point that divorce is not to be taken lightly, but he never renounces the Torah’s provision for remarriage. Remarriage was not only allowed, it was expected under Jewish law.

If we turn on over to 1 Corinthians 7:1-16, we find that while Paul encourages married people to remain together, he recognizes that it is not always within the believer’s power to keep it from happening. He goes to say that if an unbelieving spouse leaves the believing spouse is “not enslaved.” I believe that Paul is saying that the vows of marriage no longer bind the divorcee. And it is important to note that he never renounces the provision for remarriage offered under the Hebrew law. How do we know that remarriage was expected under Jewish law? Two reasons: Deuteronomy says that a woman who was divorced and remarries a second man cannot return to her original husband if she divorces him. Notice that the second marriage is taken for granted, and there is no decree that the second marriage was wrong. Two, it is recorded within the Rabbinic teachings that remarriage is encouraged after divorce.

Now, back to the reader’s question, is she going to hell for being an adulteress? No. I don’t believe so, and here is why. Even if I thought I remarriage was a sin, I still have to believe that God is big enough and loving enough to keep his word to forgive all sins we may ever dream up. He is not a liar, and he does not break his promises.

I also cannot imagine where breaking our promises or vows within a new marriage is the right thing to do. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if we dissolve a second marriage we are merely compounding our folly. If the original relationship was ended for reasons that are not Scriptural, then repentance is the correct response, and forgiveness needs to be sought with God. However, once that has been carried out then we need to accept God’s grace and trust in his loving nature so that we may live holy lives now. Now is the time to not only embrace God’s mercy, it is a time to become a living example of how God’s love changes our lives and brings new blessings in the midst of our brokenness.

Who Were The Nephilim? Part 3 Or "But Jesus Said..."

This is part three of an ongoing series. Go here to start at the beginning. Who Were The Nephilim? Part 1

In the past two posts, we have tried to establish a Scriptural basis for determining the correct understanding of the title “Sons of God.” We have examined both how the phrase is used in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. The problem is that if we accept the “Sons of God” as referring to angelic or divine beings then we have to come to terms with the Bible tells us they did. And this is where most people start feeling just a bit squeamish.

…the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Genesis 6:2

We don’t like the idea of angels feeling attraction, at least not sexual attraction, towards human women. It’s a little freaky. And marriage, wait, didn’t Jesus say they didn’t do that?

I am so glad you asked, he did. Here’s the verse.

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. Matthew 22:30

Now breathe a sigh of relief, we need to talk about some of these terms. Let’s start off with marriage. We all know what this means. It is a covenant relationship between a man (or angel?) in which sex is an integral part. I want you notice something here, Jesus said the angels do not marry. Marriage and sex are not synonymous. They are two entirely different things that frequently coincide, but are not identical. If you do not believe me, then I suggest turning on a TV, reading a magazine, going to the movies, or hanging out on some social media sites for a while.  And we should assume that just because this is in the Bible or because it is Jesus talking that he is trying to be polite. Neither the Bible nor Jesus was squeamish about sexual issues – read Song of Songs, Leviticus, Matthew 5:27-30, Matthew 19:4, or John 4.

We should note that Jesus adds a qualifier to his statement – “but are like the angels in heaven.” Where are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6? I am pretty certain they are on earth. And where is that angels do not marry? According to Jesus, that would be heaven. Why would he add this qualifier unless it was important? Why not say that angels do not marry? Isn’t that simple enough?

Not if you believe that the angels did, at least at one time, take wives here on earth.

Jesus’ audience knew angels on earth operate according to a different standard than those in heaven. Angels in heaven have fierce and fantastic forms, (Ezekiel 1 and 10, and Isaiah 6). They also knew that angels could appear as mere men or in fear inducing splendor depending upon the need and the circumstance, (Genesis 16, 22, 28, 32; Numbers 22; Joshua 1; Judges 6, 13; 1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 2; and so many Psalms I will not even try to list them).  Jesus audience also knew that angels were capable of doing some very human things, like eating, (Genesis 18), and the inhabitants of Sodom also seemed certain that their angelic visitors were capable of being sexually assaulted, (Genesis 19).

We need to be very careful that any limitations we place on angels is in keeping with what is revealed in Scripture and not the product of tradition or our sense propriety. And we need to be holding the multiple threads of revelation in tension, drawing from the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures for a fuller understanding of who angels are and what they are capable of doing. Jude says this:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:6,7

Notice what he is saying about the angels. He is tying their behavior to sexual immorality, and they are able to do so because they left their “proper dwelling.” He is calling their actions the result of unnatural desire, and indicating that is worthy of punishment by eternal fire. We will be spending some more time in Jude, but for now, it is enough to note that Jude deliberately links his words to the
Genesis account through quotes from the Book of Enoch.

The word for “proper dwelling”, or οἰκητήριον in the Greek is significant. It is only used twice in the Christian Scriptures. Here in Jude and in 2 Corinthian 5:2:

For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling …

If you read that entire passage in 2 Corinthians, you are going to realize that Paul is talking about the difference between our earthy bodies and our heavenly bodies. We long for these new bodies, but Jude tells us these are the bodies that the angels left behind so that they could pursue their lust. Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be like the angels, and I think it is safe to assume that the bodies we inhabit in the resurrection would be the ones that Paul says we long for.

I don’t even pretend to know how this done. I don’t even think I want to, but I think that when we pull all the threads together we see angels are not confined to their heavenly form. They can assume a form that allows them to interact with our world in very human way. In all of the years I have studied this topic, I have yet to find a single convincing argument drawn from Scripture that would refute the identity of the Sons of God being anything other than angelic. To the contrary, I have come to believe that in denying the plain truth of Genesis 6, we have hindered our understanding of the Bible as a whole. I think that in order to offer up any Biblical objection, we would have to ignore a mountain of textual evidence, and read our own comfortable presuppositions into the words of Jesus, and level of disrespect towards my God makes me squeamish.

To read part 4, click here: Who Were The Nephilim? Part 4 The Jude-Enoch Connection

Picking And Choosing - Why Levitical Law Matters To Christians

If you haven’t been accused of picking and choosing the parts of the Bible you choose to believe then you have probably been wise enough to avoid any online debates concerning our faith. However, if like me, you have a hard time keeping your big mouth shut then you have probably been hit with the “picking and choosing” argument a few times.

If you are not familiar with it, this is how it usually goes:

“Everyone picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe, or you wouldn’t be wearing the poly blend shirt.”

“No one really believes all the Bible, or you wouldn’t be eating bacon.”

“All you Christians are a bunch of hypocrites because you only believe the parts of the Bible you like and ignore the rest.”

The basis of the argument is that since Christians do not follow the entirety of the Levitical law we have negated the right acknowledge the authority of any of it. Therefore, eating pork, shaving your beard, or gathering eggs improperly automatically means that you cannot be against sexual sins or offer Biblical correction for Christians who commit them. For many Christians this argument is the equivalent of hitting a brick wall.

Most of us know that we are no longer under the whole of the Levitical law, but apart from a few Biblical scholars, few us know why we still adhere to some of the law while disregarding the rest. Allow me to save you the cost of seminary education, and help you understand why we can indulge in a great lobster dinner while still maintaining that sexual standards laid out in Leviticus stand without being hypocritical in our faith.

Fortunately, you don’t have to accept my word for it as the answers were written down by Luke in the Book of Acts and then reaffirmed by Paul. As always, grab your Bible to double check me as I will just be hitting the highlights.

We arrive at Acts just in time to see the ascension of Christ and hear his last words to those gathered around him that day. From there the Church is formed, the message is preached, and the message is resisted sometimes violently by those who find it too radical to be true, but this does not stop the Apostles and those who joined them. Instead of continuing to preach among the Jews, they take the message into the realm of the Gentiles. The response is staggering, and God confirms his inclusion of these outsiders in the New Covenant through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon those receiving the message of Christ, (Acts 10:44-48).

This amazed the Jews (or the circumcised) and for good reason. The Gentiles, while believing in Jesus, had not fulfilled the requirements of the Jewish Law, and yet here was irrefutable proof that God accepted them despite this. For a people whose whole life and relationship to God was manifest in the keeping the law, it almost seemed too easy. Besides that, Christianity was not seen as separate and distinct religion from Judaism, but rather it was viewed as a movement with this ancient religion.

So now you had problem: If Christianity was a part of Judaism then it would follow that all converts to Christianity should be required to uphold Jewish law. If, however, it was not then what were the requirements of law for these new believers?

The issues were hashed out at what would become known as Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. I will not take the time to rewrite the meeting notes here, but after some debate and the presentation of evidence by Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, James the brother of Jesus declares;

“Therefore my judgement is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God.”

His words became the basis for the letter that Paul and Barnabas would carry back to the Gentile Believers in Antioch. It stated:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourself from these things, you will do well. Farewell.” Acts 15:28,29

The first three are simple to understand and define, as these things were all part of the rituals of pagan worship. What trips us up is that phrase “sexual immorality”, after all, if we look at the practices of various cultures we find that sexual morality can be seen as relative. So are we to understand these words?

I think first we have to look at the men who spoke them. They were Jewish with Jewish educations ranging from the most basic knowledge of Torah taught to all Jewish boys of believing families to Paul whose education was of the highest order as he studied that feet of one of the greatest Rabbis of his day, Gamaliel, (Act 22:3). Given this information, we can only conclude that their definition of sexual immorality must be based on their understanding of the Levitical law. The fact that this was not even a point of debate at the counsel confirms that a basic understanding of what these entailed was held by all present. Further discussion was not needed as they all derived their definition from a common source, and if we are to know the definition today then we must return to that source for understanding and application.

Furthermore, we find in Paul’s letter to Timothy a commendation for Timothy’s education in the sacred writings he has studied since childhood as they are “able to make you wise for salvation in Christ Jesus.” Paul concluded this section with these words:

“All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for the training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”                                                      2 Timothy 3:16,17

We must remember that at this time there was no New Testament. Therefore, Paul must have been referring to another set of sacred writings and the only known Scripture of his day, the Old Testament, and he is confirming their importance in our lives as Christians. Notice what he is not saying, he is not saying that we are obligate to follow the ritual law, nor are we disregard what these passages have to teach us in the light of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Both revelations must be held in sacred esteem and tension serving to illuminate our understanding of each.

If we dive further into Paul’s teachings, we find that he demonstrates this sacred tension in his writings. He rejects salvation through the keeping of the law and celebrates salvation through faith that inspires us to righteousness as revealed in the love of Christ and frees us from the yoke of slavery. He explains how the Spirit guides in life opposed to the flesh and in a life that exceeds the demand of the law by inspiring us to love one another. However, this love is informed by the dictates of the law so that we can know if we are following the Spirit or our own hearts as the definitions of holy and unholy things can only be found in the pages of the law. (Galatians, really just read the whole book. It’s only six chapters you can do it.)

It is a thin line, I know, but a necessary one if we are to walk in righteousness as God has called us to while avoiding the pride that comes with performance and personal achievement. The law should never be the basis for pride, but a revelation of our own inability to please God in our own strength or in the obedience to our base impulses. It should ignite and fuel our love for a Savior who gave us this precious gift of his life and love so that we could walk in unity with our God. We would never know how desperately we needed that love if were not for the revelation of our own inability to faithfully fulfill the demands of the law.

So back to our original quandary: Do Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe?

Yes and no, we believe that the debate over which parts of the Hebrew Scriptures we should follow has been settled. We believe that the picking and choosing was done for us at the Jerusalem Council and if we are to be faithful to this new revelation in Christ that we must abide by the principles laid out for us in Acts 15. In doing so, we neither reject the right of the Levitical laws to inform our faith, but neither are we dependent upon the Levitical law for our salvation or the joy of knowing the love of our God.