Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight we're going to talk about what the early Christians believed about divorce. This is undoubtedly the number one question I get asked by my readers. What did they believe about divorce and remarriage?
And I know you've got to be tired of hearing me say this, but once again, like I say in most of my messages, if you want to know what the early Christians believed on almost any given subject, simply look at all of the New Testament passages that deal with that subject, apply those passages very literally and very seriously, and you will arrive at what the early Christians believed about them. And divorce and remarriage is no exception.
Now, in most of my messages, I usually begin by reading to you passages from the early Christian writings to demonstrate what they believed. And then I take you to the scriptures to show that what they believed is biblical. And the reason I do it in that order is that so often our preconceptions blind us to what the Scriptures are actually saying.
So if I read the Scriptures first, and the Scriptures are our final source of authority, it may be that you won't hear what the Scriptures are saying because as we're reading those verses, what's going to pop into most of our minds is all of the things that our church, our favorite commentary, has told us what those passages really mean. And so we don't get to look at the words themselves, what the Bible itself is saying. Nevertheless, tonight, we're going to do it in reverse order.
We're going to look at the scriptures first and then see what light the early Christian writings shed on these scriptures. And one reason I'm doing it in a reverse order tonight is because we're not dealing with a theological subject. We're dealing with a lifestyle issue, divorce. And so I'm guessing that we probably don't have as many layers of human thinking that we're going to have to unpeel to get back to the scriptures.
Now, before I start reading these scriptures, I want to mention that there are several things I'd like you to do with me as I read these. The first one is, if you have your Bible with you, please open up and follow along with me as I read these passages. Now, with a few exceptions, I'm going to be reading from the New King James version. And if your version reads a little different, then you should take note of that and do some checking to see why it reads differently.
Secondly, I'm going to ask you to take what I call a title lawyer approach to looking at these verses. As probably most of you know, I'm a title attorney by profession, and I read and examine lots and lots of documents every week. Now, as an attorney, I've been trained to do three things when I read a document. First, I read each sentence for exactly what it says. Not reading something into it that's not there, not supposing that the person really meant to say such and such.
In fact, I don't make any assumptions at all. In title law, what a sentence says is exactly what it means. Okay, so that's step number one. Step number two is I take note of any word or sentence that could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way. Actually, number two is a corollary of step number one, because since I don't make any assumptions, I'm not allowed to guess what the person meant.
And my clients are paying me to be able to spot words and sentences that can be interpreted reasonably in more than one way. The third and final step is I read the totality of the instrument. I'm not allowed to proof text a deed by picking out the sentences that will produce an easy way to interpret the instrument. I can't delete or ignore any words or sentences that create problems. I have to take the entire instrument.
So I'm going to ask you to, along with me, use this same approach as we look at these verses tonight. I'd like to begin by reading some of the Old Testament verses that shed light on the subject of divorce. Now, we're going to get our teaching from the New Testament. But as we're going to see, some of the New Testament passages quote from the Old Testament. So it will be helpful if we read those passages first in the Old Testament.
The first one is right at the beginning in the book of Genesis, right after woman was created and given to man. Genesis 2:24 says this, " Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. " Now, that's an interesting statement for where it appears because at that point in the book of Genesis, nobody has a father and mother. There are only two humans, and they were both directly created by God.
And so obviously, this is a statement inserted by the Holy Spirit intended to address readers through the ages because, like I say, it doesn't exactly fit Adam and Eve themselves. But the principle there would of the two becoming one flesh. Now, something I notice a lot when I read Christian books and magazines about marriage or hearing somebody teach on the subject, a word that I hear a whole lot these days is partnership, the marriage partnership, or your marriage partner.
But you know, you will never find that word in the Scriptures relating to marriage. The Bible doesn't refer to marriage as a partnership. It refers to an entity that is one. It says, " The two become one flesh. " Now, in a partnership, you've got two people always involved. You cannot have a partnership with just one person, one flesh. There has to always be at least two people. And traditionally, in a partnership, the two always remain somewhat independent of each other.
For example, our tax laws, and it may be different right now, but at least to the history of our tax laws, the partners in a partnership all report their income separately. The partnership is not taxed as a partnership. Rather, the individuals are taxed as individuals. But the concept given in Genesis is one flesh, not two partners. All right. Now let's go to another passage, Deuteronomy chapter 24 verses 1 through 4. Now, the first passage dealt with marriage and what it represents. This one deals with divorce.
It says Deuteronomy 24:1 through 4, " When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. And he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house.
When she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for this is an abomination before the Lord. So what does this passage tell us about divorce in Old Testament times?
All right, let's just take it a phrase at a time. It says, " When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. " And he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house. Okay. So there was a procedure allowed for divorce in Old Testament times. Now, don't jump ahead of me to Matthew. We're going to get to the New Testament in a little bit.
But just looking at the Old Testament, what we see up to this point. Now, we didn't see anything in Genesis about divorce. All we saw was being one flesh. But here, there is an allowance for divorce that we see. Now, on what causes could a man divorce his wife? Well, it says, " And it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. " So it doesn't say for any cause, a man could divorce his wife.
It only gives one cause and that would be if he found some uncleanness in her, and as a result of it, she has no favor in his eyes. Is there anything there that is ambiguous or that could be interpreted in more than one way? Well, I would take that word uncleanness. What does that mean? He found some uncleanness in her? Does that mean adultery? Does that mean immorality before he married her? Does it mean some other thing? Well, that's a question. The text doesn't explain any further.
So we have something there that I think we need to make a note of. What does this mean uncleanness in her? When we read the other scriptures, do they perhaps clarify that? All right. Now, did God make a provision whereby a wife could divorce her husband? Well, what does the passage say? It says, " When a man takes a wife and marries her. " Nowhere in the document, in the phrase, I mean, thinking documents so used to examine documents.
Nowhere in this verse does it say anything at all about a wife divorcing her husband. So the only time that God allowed divorce, based on what we've looked at so far, was a very narrow situation. If a man found uncleanness in his wife, he could divorce her. It says nothing about her divorcing him. Now, a lot of people are very prone to read something into a sentence that is not there.
And like I say, this is what we have to guard against doing is adding things that aren't there because we think they should be there. Now, why would God make this one-sided that he could divorce her, but she could not divorce him? Well, he doesn't explain, does he? God doesn't have to explain anything to us, and usually he doesn't explain. But quite possibly, this has something to do with headship. Because if a husband can divorce a wife and a wife can divorce her husband, then he's not really the head, is he?
It would be like the President of the United States and the Secretary of State. They both are positions of honor, both very responsible positions. Now, the president, however, has the power under our Constitution to fire the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State does not have the power to fire the president.
If he did, then he would have the same authority as the president because if they clashed on any given view, the Secretary of State could say, " Well, if you don't do it my way, I'm going to fire you and you're out of there. " Now, the Secretary of State can resign and walk away from his position, but that's the most that he could do. So likewise, in the Old Testament, if a wife was living under some very cruel situation, she could flee go back to her parents or something.
But God gave her no right to divorce her husband. You notice something else that's very different from today's laws, and that is it says he puts a certificate in her hand. That was the only formality required. They didn't go before a court or anything. And he said, " He sends her out of his house.
" And today, it's nearly always the exact opposite that the wife sends the husband out of her house, that she's, by the effect of our laws, has essentially become the head of the home because if they can't agree, she can send him out and she retains the house. So our society, our laws today are almost topsy-turvy of what we see in the Old Testament. All right, let's move on. Malachi 2:16. We read here, " The Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth with whom you have dealt treacherously.
Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did he not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. " Therefore, take heed to your spirit and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. For the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce. " So it's sort of a different twist here.
If we read Deuteronomy 24, verses 1 through 4 to mean that it's fine with God if a man divorced his wife, we are apparently misreading it because Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 through 4 only states a procedure. And I forgot to comment on the fact that really the point of it, what it's all getting to there when you get to the end of verse 4 is that a husband cannot take his ex-wife back if she has then later become married to another man. Whether the other man divorces her or dies, he cannot take her back.
That would be something unclean in the Lord's eyes. But here we see that God says He hates divorce and that people were divorcing husbands were divorcing their wives for apparently causes other than uncleanness because he says you've dealt treacherously with her. Maybe you found a woman you liked better and so divorced your original wife and took on somebody else. So that's what we see in the Old Testament. And you'll notice again in Malachi, does it say anything about wives divorcing their husbands?
No, nothing is said. But I'm going to say, God provided only one instance of allowing divorce, and that involved a man divorcing his wife. He never created the other power where a wife could divorce her husband.
Now, I realize this is terribly politically incorrect and religiously incorrect, but I assume you're listening to this message because you're wanting to know what the early church believed, what the truth of the matter is, not because you want me to say something that's going to tickle your ears, that's going to make you happy and all of that because I'm certainly not going to do that.
In fact, I can almost guarantee you that by the end of this message, I'm going to have everybody mad at me because it's not going to fit what anybody wants to hear. And I'm not presenting this for the purpose of saying, " Now, your church has to conform to what David Bercot says. As the business of each church, the responsibilities that elders have before the Lord because they're going to be held accountable. And they need to weigh all of the facts and make a decision from there.
And hopefully, this message would be one of the things to weigh. But I'm not purporting to dictate to others what their church should do, how they should handle this, other than they need to handle it in a way that is going to be pleasing to God and that's going to show respect to His commandments. All right, now let's move on to the New Testament. Actually, we just get a few pages into the New Testament, and right away, we see discussion of the subject of divorce.
This is in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:31 and 32, where Jesus says, " It has been said whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. " Now, those words should sound familiar because we just read those in Deuteronomy 24. And that's what he's quoting from. He says, " But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, for any reason except sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Well, we had said when we read Deuteronomy 24 that there was something there that perhaps wasn't clear. It talks about a man divorcing his wife because he has found some uncleanness in her. Well, Jesus clears up any possible ambiguity there because he makes it clear that even if Moses had not intended that to be limited to sexual immorality, that God did. And he hands down the law that if a man divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality, then he causes her to commit adultery.
He's going to be responsible for her adultery. And he goes further, " Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. " Now, we're going to talk about this a little bit more later, but let me just clear up two words here. You may notice that I'm reading from the New King James. He says, " If a man divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality, the Greek word there is porneia, " and that's exactly what it means. Sexual immorality. It's a very broad term.
It can mean unlawful sex relations between two unmarried people, between a married person and an unmarried person, between a married person and another married person who is not their spouse. It can mean prostitution. It can mean bestiality. It's a very broad word. And he says, " If she commits sexual immorality, " a very broad term, then well, he says, " If a husband divorces his wife except for that, then he causes her to commit adultery. " And adultery is the Greek word. It's a verb there.
Commit adultery is a verb what he uses there. And it's a different Greek word that is normally limited in scope to a married person who has sexual relations with somebody other than their spouse. Now, let's look at what Jesus taught here. And as I said earlier, let's look at this like you would if you were a title attorney, not reading something into it that it doesn't say. Let me ask you a question. Does Jesus there say anything about a wife divorcing her husband? Well, the answer is no.
He doesn't say anything about it, does he? A lot of people and I grew up in a sect that was one of them somehow take his words there and change them to say that if a woman divorces her husband for adultery, or I should say, they change it to say, " If a woman divorces her husband for any reason other than adultery, she causes him to commit adultery. " In other words, this would mean Jesus was expanding the scope of divorce.
I mean, we've seen looking at the Old Testament that in Genesis, no allowance is made for divorce. It says the two become one flesh. Then in Deuteronomy, we see that God permitted a husband to divorce his wife if he found uncleanness in her, did not permit a wife to divorce her husband if she found uncleanness in him. God would have to deal with him directly.
Now we come to Jesus and you know either he left things the way they were, which he didn't because he narrowed the scope, or at least he defined uncleanness to mean only sexual immorality. Or else he expanded it, then he's saying, " Well, I want to tell you this. Not only can a man divorce his wife for sexual immorality, but a wife I'm going to authorize to divorce her husband for sexual immorality. " He didn't say that.
And yet people put that in there when it was neither said, nor would it have been understood by his hearers. He was sitting there talking, it says, to I mean, as a sermon on the mount, he was talking to a group of primarily Jews, and they certainly wouldn't have heard his words to mean, " Oh, he's expanding divorce, " nor would the women there listening come away saying, " Oh, now he says we can divorce our husbands. " I mean, nothing like that is said.
And he does say whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Does he give any exception there? No, he gives no exception whatsoever because a woman who is divorced, either she was divorced lawfully, that is, she was an adulterer. And Jesus is saying she is not free to ever marry again. Or she was wrongfully divorced by her husband, but he's saying in God's eyes, " She's not free. And if a man marries her, he is going to be committing adultery.
" Now, I realize, again, this is terribly politically incorrect. It's terribly religiously incorrect. It goes against what nearly all churches practice today. But it does not go against what Christians practiced for about 1,800 years. But we think because in our modern times, we have altered things and thrown out verses we don't like in the Scriptures that somehow we can change God's eternal plan, but we can't. All right, now another passage where Jesus discusses this is Matthew 19:9. Let's read this one.
It's a little bit longer. It says, " The Pharisees also came to him testing him and saying to him, " Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason? " And he answered and said to them, " Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female? " And said, " For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. " So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate. So Jesus goes back to the beginning and says there was something very important meant when it gives that interjection there in Genesis about the two becoming one flesh. This is something that has great spiritual dimensions that in God's eyes, he doesn't see two units there. He sees one unit, one flesh. And no man is to separate them because God has joined them together. All right. Now, the Pharisees respond.
It says they said to him, " Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away? " He said to them, " Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning, it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
All right, let me ask you, in that passage, does Jesus say anything different than he did back there in Matthew 5:31 and 32? Well, I would say no. His instructions are exactly the same, but he has explained a little bit more that God's purpose in the beginning was for one man and one wife, and that Moses permitted a broader practice of divorce to husbands because of the hardness of their hearts. But that was not pleasing to God.
And again, Jesus limited, he says, " Except whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery. " So he says, " You married her if you divorced your wife for any of these other reasons and you got remarried, you're committing adultery. " But then again, when he talks about a divorced woman, he gives no exception. Whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. So this is fairly serious. Now, again, it brings me no joy to discuss what Jesus said there.
And I know this is going to put a number of people. Jesus ' words have put a number of people in very awkward and difficult circumstances. And my heart goes out to them. But I would certainly be doing you no favor to tickle your ears to tell you something other than what Jesus said. Now let's move on to Mark chapter 10, verses 3 through 12. And here we find very similar to what we just got through reading in Matthew.
It says, " The Pharisees came and asked him, " Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife testing him? " And he answered and said to them, " What did Moses command you? " They said, " Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and to dismiss her. " And Jesus answered and said to them, " Because of the hardness of your heart, He wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate. So either this is a little different wording of the same situation or this is another situation involving the Pharisees with a similar question. But Mark goes on to say this. In the house, his disciples also asked him again about the same matter.
So he said to them, " Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. Okay, now here there's something a little bit different than what we read in Matthew that could be extremely significant. In Matthew, he said, " Except for sexual immorality. " Here he doesn't say, " Except for sexual immorality. " He just says, " Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
" There is no exception given. And here, it makes it clear if a woman divorces her husband, which she could not do under Jewish law, but that was allowed under Roman law for a woman to divorce her husband. It says, " If she does that, taking advantage of the law of the Romans, she commits adultery. No exception is given. " So now we do have something that's unclear. Matthew gives an exception, " Mark doesn't.
" So this is something we're going to see if the early Christian writings help to clear this up, an uncertainty that we have. There's two now we want to look for. One is the significance of the word porneia, sexual immorality. And why does Mark not give an exception in Matthew does? Luke 16:18, very short, it says, " Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. " So he basically repeats what Mark said.
And again, no exception is given. Now, there's another passage we're going to look at later. That's 1 Corinthians 7:10 through 13. But right now, I want to take you to the writings of the early Christians to see how they understood the passages that we just read. But first of all, I want to make clear that divorce was very common in ancient Roman society, that is, during a time period of the early church. Let me read to you one quote from Tertullian concerning this.
This is in volume three, page 23 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. He writes, " Where is that happiness of married life ever so desirable that distinguished our earlier Roman manners? " As a result of that, for about 600 years, there was not among us, he's talking about Romans, a single divorce. Now women have every member of the body heavy laden with gold. And as for divorce, they long for it as though it were the natural consequence of marriage.
In other words, the early Christians had to face the same issue regarding divorce that we face in our society today. So let me read to you their beliefs on divorce. And I've already told you they're not going to be anything different than what we just read in the Scripture. So I'm not going to read all of them. I'm going to read you some just very representative samples.
Athenagoras, who was an apologist writing about the year 175, writes this, " A person should either remain as he was born or be content with one marriage. " For a second marriage is only a specious adultery. Jesus says for whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. He does not permit a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. That's volume two, pages 146 and 147.
Tertullian in volume three, page 404 writes, " Christ prohibits divorce, saying, " Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is put away from her husband also commits adultery. In order to forbid divorce, he makes it unlawful to marry a woman who has been put away. Again, Origen, volume 10, page 511 writes, " A woman is an adulteress even though she seems to be married to a man if the former husband is still living.
" Likewise, also, the man who seems to marry the woman who has been put away does not so much marry her as to commit adultery with her according to the Declaration of Our Savior. And finally, the Apostolic Constitutions, Volume 7, page 503. If a layman divorces his own wife and takes another, or if he marries one divorced by another, let him be suspended. That means banned from communion. Now, hearing those quotes, you may be thinking, " Well, what about the exception clause for porneia?
" Well, the early Christians took note of that. And let me read to you now from some of those same writers that I just read to you from what they have to say. Now, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, following the example of the King James version, translates porneia by the word fornication. But as I've mentioned, porneia was a broad word that referred to any sexual immorality. And I think you'll see that as we read here. And I'm going to just leave it untranslated, porneia.
The first one in volume 4, page 45 from Tertullian, says, " The Lord holds it more pleasing that marriage should not be contracted than that it should not rather than that it should at all be dissolved. " In short, he prohibits divorce except for the cause of porneia. That was written about the year 205. Again, from Tertullian, from about the year 207, you can find this in volume three, page 405. He says, " I maintained then that there was a condition in the prohibition that he now made of divorce.
The case at hand was that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. That is, she was put away for the reason for which a woman should not be dismissed to obtain another wife. Permanent is the marriage that is not rightly dissolved. Therefore, to marry while marriage is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since therefore, his prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, he did not prohibit it absolutely.
And what he did not absolutely forbid, he permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why he gave his prohibition. So as strict as Tertullian always is on everything, he understood there to be an exception. And that was on the grounds of porneia. Origen, who we just read from earlier, volume 10, page 511, and this is from the year 245, thereabouts. He says, " Our Savior does not at all permit the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than porneia alone when detected in the wife.
" But someone might ask if he allows a man to put away a wife for any other reasons besides her being caught in porneia. For example, what about poisoning her husband? Or what if during the absence of her husband from the home, she destroys an infant born to them? Or what about any form of murder, whatever? Sins of such heinousness seems to be worse than adultery or porneia, to endure them would appear to be irrational.
However, on the other hand, to add contrary to the design of the teaching of the Savior, everyone would acknowledge to be impious. Novatian, writing about the year 235, and find this in volume 5, page 589, says, " When being inquired of, Christ gave this judgment. He said that a wife must not be put away except for the cause of adultery. Laws are prescribed to married women who are so bound that they cannot vence be separated. " Finally, Lactantius, volume seven, page 190.
This is from somewhere between the year 304-313. It says, " He who marries a woman divorced from her husband is an adulterer. So is he who divorced a wife for any cause other than adultery in order to marry another? " So the early Christians did recognize a limited exception just as Jesus gave there in Matthew. And that was limited to a husband divorcing his wife for porneia for sexual immorality.
And I think you could tell from the quotes that I just read that the early Christians who spoke biblical Greek as their normal language, this was their everyday language, that they all understood porneia to not simply mean sexual relationships before marriage, but to mean any sexual immorality. And when you're dealing with a spouse, that it would be the equivalent of adultery.
But that, in other words, porneia is broad enough to include both fornication, that is premarital sex, and adultery, and again, any other kind of sexual perversion. For example, I'll read to you a passage from Irenaeus, volume one, page 445 that says this, talking about the Samaritan woman at the well. He says, " That erring Samaritan woman did not remain with one husband. Rather, she committed porneia by many marriages.
" So Christians today who say, " No, that word means premarital sex alone just don't have their facts straight. It's very clear from reading the people who lived in that era spoke that language that it was a broad term that included adultery. " Now, one of the things that might surprise you is that the early Christians didn't simply teach that a man could divorce his wife for adultery, but rather that he had an obligation to. Not for a wife who committed a sin of adultery and repented and came back.
But if she were a loose woman and this would probably be more common back there in pagan Rome than it might be today, say, in America. But a woman who was just sleeping indiscriminately with men or carrying on an ongoing relationship with another man because if the husband knew it and didn't do anything about it, then basically he was agreeing to wife swapping. Let me read to you some of these quotations. And I said to him, " Sir, this is from Hermas. This is written about the year 150, maybe earlier.
You can find it in volume two, page 21. And this work called the Shepherd is an allegory, and these are some of the figures in the allegory speaking. Suzanne, I said to him, " Sir, if anyone has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detects her in adultery, does the man sin if he continues to live with her? " And he said to me, " As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her.
" But if the husband knows that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent but persists in her fornication or porneia, and again, you can see that it applied there to adultery. And yet the husband continues to live with her. He is also guilty of her crime and a sharer in her adultery. And I said to him, " What then, sir, is the husband to do if his wife continues in her vicious practices? " And he said, " The husband should put her away and remain by himself.
But if he puts his wife away and marries another, he also commits adultery. " And I said to him, this is still from Hermas, " What if the woman who has been put away should repent and wishes to return to her husband? Shall she not be taken back by her husband? " And he said to me assuredly, " If the husband does not take her back, he sins, and he brings a great sin upon himself. For he should take back the sinner who has repented, but not repeatedly, for there is one repentance to the servants of God.
In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband should not marry another after he has put his wife away. In this matter, man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way. And I interpret that last sentence to be referring to the previous one, that just as a divorced wife cannot remarry, that the husband who has divorced her should not remarry so that hopefully she will repent and come back to him.
Now, Tertullian, this is volume three, page 405, writes, " This is a work against the followers of a heretic named Marcion. " He says, " Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, that is the Marcionites? If his wife commits adultery, shall he keep her? But your own apostle, " that is Paul, you know, does not permit the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot. Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even a defender in Christ.
So again, it was seen as an obligation if your wife is living in adultery, that as the head of the household, you are to do something about it and you cannot let this go on unchecked. Finally, the apostolic constitutions, volume seven, page 456, and these were compiled in the 300s, say this about both situations, about divorce and about the need to deal with an adulterous wife. Do not let it be considered lawful after marriage to put her away who is without blame.
For he says, " You will take care to your spirit and will not forsake the wife of your youth. " And the Lord says, " What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. For the wife is the partner of life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two, that body that has become one, he is the enemy of the creation of God and the adversary of his providence. Similarly, he who retains her who is corrupted that is by adultery is a transgressor of the law of nature.
For he who retains an adulteress is foolish and impious, as from Proverbs 18:22. Also, he says, " Cut her off from your flesh, for she is no longer a helpmate, but a snare, having turned her mind from you to another. " Well, we've got about 15 or 20 minutes left, and I'd like to use this remaining time to answer some of the questions that people have asked me over the years concerning divorce and remarriage and concerning the passages that we've read.
One concerns the theory that you harmonize Matthew's account about divorce with that of Mark and Luke by saying that Matthew's account only concerns the Jewish betrothal period. Now, under this argument, it said that the Greek word porneia is not always a broad word, but sometimes it can mean only fornication. And so in this passage, that's what it means. It means premarital sex.
And since in the Jewish system of betrothal, or at least the light that we have there in the gospels, it mentions that Joseph was going to put Mary away or divorce her because he thought that she was guilty of sexual immorality before they had actually formally been married. And so the theory goes, well, Matthew was writing primarily to Jews, and so he includes that to say, " Yes, it is all right to divorce your wife during the betrothal period, but no other time.
" And Mark and Luke, who are writing for Gentiles, don't mention it because the exception doesn't apply to Gentiles. Well, that's an ingenious theory. Unfortunately, there's a couple of problems with it. One is the Greek word porneia never had a limited meaning. It always meant sexual immorality, a general term. Nobody, hearing the words, " He who puts his wife away except for porneia would think he's saying except for unchastity before she was married.
" And we can see that from all the quotes that I've read to you from the early Christians. These were Greek-speaking people, spoke the same language as the Bible writers. Nobody ever said that. In fact, I don't think anybody ever put forth such a theory until either the late 19th century or the 20th century. It's a very modern hypothesis, and it has no historical support whatsoever.
I mean, if it's true, it means that for 1,800 years, the entire church was in darkness and didn't know what Jesus was saying, even the people who were personal disciples of His apostles. And I have a real problem with adding all of that to Scripture. When you pick up the Gospel of Matthew, does it say, " Now, this is written primarily to Jews? " When we read that passage, does Jesus say, " Now, I'm speaking to Jews here and telling you this? " No, that's not in there.
In fact, the only reason that we believe that Matthew wrote that gospel because he didn't put his name at the top, the Gospel of Matthew. It's an anonymous work. But it's the early Christians who tell us that Matthew wrote that gospel and that he originally wrote it in Hebrew for the Jews, but that then he later translated it into Greek to be read by the whole church.
Now, I cannot imagine anything more inconsistent than to say, " We're going to believe the early Christians that this was written by Matthew and that he wrote it for the Jews, " even though the book itself never says any of that. But then we don't believe them as to what the language there means. And the same way with Mark, it doesn't have his name on it. It's the early Christians who said that he had written that work and that he was a close companion of Peter.
And the New Testament tells us you know reading Peter's letters that Mark was his close companion. So we're having to add a lot of things to Scripture to go with that theory. And another problem I have with it is what a scary thing to think about that we could read a passage in the Bible in the New Testament. Oh, and that doesn't apply to us. That's talking about something else, even though the passage doesn't say that. How unjust and how unfair that would be to us if that were the case.
And yet the testimony of the early Christians reveals no such passages anywhere in the New Testament. It's written to all of us, Jew and Greek alike. And the last problem I have with it, Jesus said that Moses allowed the divorce to the Jewish men because of the hardness of their hearts. Now, does that mean he allowed divorce for any reason because of the hardness of their hearts, including porneia?
Or does it mean that he allowed them to divorce their wives except for porneia because of the hardness of their hearts? Now, reading it in the way that the early Christians seem to have read it, he's saying it was giving them the laxity, the permission to divorce their wives for grounds other than porneia and that that permission was given because of the hardness of their hearts.
Because if we interpret it the other way that any divorce was allowed because of the hardness of the husband's heart, what do we do with God Himself? Because in the Scriptures, He is spoken of as divorcing Israel his spouse. I want to read to you what Isaiah 50: 1 says or beginning there. It says, " Thus says the Lord, where is the certificate of your mother's divorce whom I have put away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you?
For your iniquities, you have sold yourselves, and for your transgressions, your mother has been put away. " So their God is portrayed as divorcing Israel, his wife, because of her unfaithfulness. Now, if it's wrong for a husband to divorce his wife for her repeated unfaithfulness, if this was allowed Jewish husbands only because of their hard-heartedness, then we're in the awkward position of saying God did something that he later says was allowed only because of the hard-heartedness of the Jews.
I don't think we want to make that accusation against God or that He set a bad example for the rest of us. And incidentally, it's pretty clear that in God divorcing Israel, it was not during their period of betrothal. He makes it clear that she was his wife, that they were married together with the Mosaic covenant. Now, what light do the early Christian writings shed on why Matthew mentions an exception and Mark and Luke don't? Interestingly, none of the early Christian writers ever talk about this.
It's fairly clear, I believe, from reading their quotations that the church did allow, in fact, even expected a husband to divorce his wife if she was practicing adultery. And they appear to just take it for granted that when Mark and Luke don't mention except for her unfaithfulness, that that's understood. I mean, God divorced Israel for her unfaithfulness. This is understood. Of course, that exception is understood because some of them say the same thing.
You can read passages in Tertullian where it says, " Divorce is unlawful. Any second divorce is adultery. " And then yet later, in another work, he makes it clear that he's accepting unfaithfulness on the part of their wives. Now, at first, the silence on this matter from the early Christians surprised me. But on reflection, I realized that there really isn't anything unusual about their silence.
They followed the natural practice that we all normally use in interpreting two written instruments where they both discuss the same subject, but one goes into more detail than the other. I think as a matter of course, we always give the more detailed writing precedence over the one that omits the details. It's so natural we don't even think about it.
For example, in my law practice, if I'm reading two contracts between the same parties involving the same subject matter, but one provides more details than the other, I naturally give credence to the details that are included in the one but omitted from the other. I mean, every court would follow that practice. It's simply common sense. I mean, how absurd it would be to give the abbreviated account precedence over the more detailed one. And that's all we have here in this situation.
Matthew gives a more detailed account than does Mark, although Mark mentions some details that Matthew leaves out. Mark mentions that the disciples asked him when they went to a house, apart from the Pharisees, Matthew doesn't mention that. Well, then do we go with Matthews on that account and say, " No, they didn't go to a house and ask Jesus because Matthew doesn't mention that. " Well, no, of course. If Mark adds some details that Matthew leaves out, we take those details as being true.
And similarly, if Matthew mentions the detail that Mark left out, we take that to be true as well. It's a fairly normal way of reading any two documents. In fact, let me just give you an example. Matthew chapter 21, verse 4 through 7. This concerns the donkey that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. It says this in Matthew, Matthew 21: 4 through 7.
All this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet, saying, " Tell the daughter of Zion, ' Behold, your king is coming to you, lowly and sitting on a donkey. " A colt, the foal of a donkey. The disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set him on them. All right. Nothing ambiguous there, nothing unclear. Now, let's go to Mark 11, verse 4 and 7 that described the same event.
It says, " So they went their way and found the colt tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and he sat on it. " Now, Matthew mentions a donkey and a colt and that they brought both of them to Jesus, and Mark just mentions the colt. Well, do we say, " Well, okay, now Mark is clear, and Matthew isn't.
" So we take the clear one, and then the one that's not clear, the one that provides more details, we have to find a way to harmonize it with this other one. No, we don't do that. We all know that's absurd. Obviously, there were two animals that they brought. Mark only mentions the one, apparently the one that Jesus actually sat on. But he doesn't deny that there was another one. He simply doesn't mention it. And I'll be honest with you. I'd read those four passages, the two from Matthew and then Mark and Luke.
Most of my life, I never saw any big problem because it's so natural that when you're reading two parallel accounts, if one adds more details, that those details become part of your final understanding of the event. And so I never saw it as, " Well, now Mark and Luke say this, and Matthew says something different. How do we harmonize them? " Will you harmonize them? It's very simple. Whatever details Mark adds, or rather, Matthew add, you put that in there.
The details that Mark add, that Matthew omits, you put that in there as well. You do this with all of the gospel accounts where the same event is mentioned in more than one gospel, and they don't say exactly the same thing. And quite often, there is a detail omitted in one that's included in the other one. All right, now I want to discuss 1 Corinthians 7, another question that is asked me a lot. And I'll read this, 1 Corinthians 7, verses 10 through 13.
And I'm reading this from the original King James version because of some word translations that I think the New King James translators took some liberties they didn't have the right to do. It says, " And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband. But if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.
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. And the woman who has a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart, a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. And then verse 39 of that same chapter 7, " 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. " Now, some persons have put forth an explanation of 1 Corinthians 7 that directly contradict Jesus Christ. He gave one exception and one exception only, and that was a husband divorcing his wife for sexual immorality. No others are allowed. But they say, " Well, okay, now here it says you can divorce your spouse if they're an unbeliever and they don't want to dwell with you. " And then that frees you to remarry.
Well, Paul says nothing of the sort. He says nothing about remarriage there. And he says nothing that Jesus didn't say, although he discusses a situation that Jesus doesn't address. But he starts off saying, " A wife should not depart from her husband, and a husband should not put away his wife. " And do you notice the different terms there? It's two different Greek words. And the King James translators did an admirable job here.
It talks about a wife departing from her husband, not a wife divorcing her husband, but a wife departing from him. And then it talks about a husband putting away his wife, which would be the equivalent of divorce. And so you can see that distinction in Paul's letter as well, that a wife does not have the authority to divorce her husband. And he says she shouldn't leave him. But in recognizing there might be dire situations where she does leave him, he says, " If you do, you're not free to remarry.
Either remain unmarried or be reconciled with your husband. " And then he addresses the situation, " Well, okay, what if it's an unbeliever and they leave? " Well, he says, " You're not under bondage. " He didn't say you're not married, that you're free from the marriage yoke. He just says you're not under bondage. You don't have to follow after them and beg them to take you back in. That if they make that decision, then you're not under bondage in that situation.
He never says, " You are free to remarry, " because he ends the chapter or at least towards the close of it, repeats that a husband is rather a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. And you notice he doesn't say a husband is bound to his wife as long as his wife lives. And this would fit, again, what we've seen with Jesus ' words in Matthew of a husband having the one exception of divorcing his wife for infidelity. And so all of the scriptures are in harmony with each other.
None of them contradict one another. And I've commented on this many times. When I look at what the early Christians believe, I find that it always takes into account everything in the New Testament. They don't have any problem verses that they have to hide away or come up with some big, elaborate explanation. It follows the natural meaning and it takes into account everything that is said. And I see that here. There aren't any problem verses. This doesn't in any way contradict anything else that we've read.
And just similarly, I'm going to read you Romans 7, 2, and 3, where Paul says something very similar to what he just said there in 1 Corinthians 7:39. He says, " The woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. " By what law? Well, certainly not Roman law because a wife could divorce her husband or he could divorce her and she was free from him, but God's law. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. See, that's the only exception.
If he dies, she is released. If he divorces her, she is not released. If anyone marries her, Jesus says, she commits adultery. And Paul says this too. " So then if while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. " So again, the only exception given for a wife is if her husband dies. If he leaves her, that does not give her freedom from the law of her husband.
It doesn't give her the right to remarry. Now, again, I know that's not popular teaching, but I think if you're honest and your heart is open, you can see that is what the Scriptures say. Well, I've got quite a few more questions I would like to comment on that people have asked me over the years. But I can see my time's about up. It's getting late.
But I would like to just say in closing that I do see the church today in a state of enormous apostasy that today, the divorce rate among professing Christians, professing Bible-believing Christians is the same or perhaps even greater than that of the world. That's an abomination to God. After the strong language we see in Scripture, for us to follow the lead of the world when they said, " We'll allow no fault divorce. " Well, that's just about what the church has done as well.
And that simply is not acceptable before God. He is not going to take a bride for Christ that is unfaithful to what Christ has taught. And hopefully, again, we could talk in a little bit more detail about some of the issues that Christians face today on this subject. Perhaps on another evening, we can address those.