The following is the audio version of the attached PDF document, Till Death the Biblical Covenant of Marriage, read by the author Ronald W. Johnson. There are occasional errors in reading that are corrected. The email in the PDF is incorrect. The correct email is capital l o v e t h y w o r d all one word at lowercase p r o t o n dot m e Till Death, The Biblical Covenant of Marriage Introduction The following paper explains why I have come to my convictions on marriage, divorce, and adulterous remarriage. I have not come to them without much struggle and study. I do not say this to give the impression that others who hold the different convictions have not also struggled with this emotionally charged and difficult subject. Far from it. Many of these different convictions are those that I once similarly embraced and labored to defend, despite what Jesus and Paul clearly teach on these subjects. Because of this, I thank the Lord for the truth of Proverbs 28, 13, with respect to this emotionally charged subject. He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. For, if I could with a clear conscience hold the position I once held, which is sadly the current, major, popular, and incorrect view in the majority of churches, I would. But going against conscience in what the Scriptures clearly teach is neither right nor safe. And to my shame and repentance, the prevailing incorrect view's popularity and ease was a major factor in my trying to support this popular incorrect view for far too long. The patience and forgiveness of the Lord is amazing. But the easy way is really not easy when you go against conscience and the clear teachings of the final prophet from God, the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. For, I now believe, due to an inadequate understanding of the relevant passages of Scripture, that my agreeing with the prevailing incorrect view within the Church today, was wrong. I do not say this to sinfully judge or condemn anyone who holds to what I now see to be clearly a wrong dividing of God's Word of Truth, the Holy Bible, on these subjects. I desire to speak the truth in love, since it is only the truth that the Spirit of Truth and Love will affirm. I will address this emotional minefield under eight headings, followed by a brief conclusion. 1. What is meant by a covenant bond marriage, an adulterous remarriage, and fornication? 2. Who creates the covenant bond marriage? 3. Who are joined in a covenant bond marriage? 4. Does divorce dissolve the covenant bond marriage created by God? 5. Difficult but biblical truth. 6. The meaning of the exception clauses in Matthew. 7. Desertion is not a reason for divorce and adulterous remarriage. 8. CELIBACY FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN'S SAKE 1. WHAT IS MEANT BY A COVENANT BOND MARRIAGE, AN ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGE, AND FORNICATION? These three questions are crucial questions. For without understanding what I mean by these three terms, you will not understand why I've come to my convictions as to what the Scriptures clearly teach. 1. A covenant bond marriage is the one flesh union created by God, not man, between a virgin man, or a widowed man, or a fornicating man who has never had this bond created. and is not presently in such a marriage, and a woman, who is a virgin, or a widowed woman, or a fornicating woman who has never had this bond created, and is not presently in such a marriage, who exchange marriage vows in the presence of human witnesses and God, where God creates this covenant bond between them. This covenant bond is created by God, not man, and can only be broken by the physical death of either the man, the woman, both, or the return of the Lord. If God can create this bond, as defined, the spiritual condition of the man or woman as believer or non-believer is immaterial. This is an act of God's sovereignty over all mankind, male or female. It is not a redemptive act of God. Incestuous unions, pedophile relationships, or bestiality are not covenant bond marriages. and neither are those between those of the same sex, male or female. They are perversion and need to be repented of and forsaken. This definition means it is impossible for a man or a woman to be in more than one covenant bond marriage with someone of the opposite sex, male or female, while they are physically living. For it is only the physical death of the husband, the wife, both, or the return of the Lord that breaks this bond created between them by God. God has not, does not, and never will create this covenant bond between those of the same sex. male or female. This is perversion. The fact that this covenant marriage bond is created by God is clearly and repeatedly taught by Jesus. For example, Mark 10 verses 6 to 9. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Emphasis, and they twain shall be two, shall be one flesh, so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. Unemphasis. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Paul teaches this as well in Romans 7 verses 2 and 3. For the woman which hath an husband Emphasis is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth, unemphasis. But if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. but if her husband be dead, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." And 1 Corinthians 7 verse 39, emphasis, the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. On emphasis, but if her husband be dead, She is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord. The fact that Paul is using the truth that only death breaks a valid covenant bond marriage made by God to defend the gospel in Romans 7 verses 2 to 4 does not change the truth that only physical death breaks a valid covenant bond marriage made by God. For since God is the only one who makes this marriage bond, he is the only one who has the right to declare what, if anything, breaks it. He is the only one who can break it. Only physical death or the return of the Lord Jesus Christ ends a covenant bond marriage created by God alone. Therefore, sexual activity by anyone where this God-created bond is not present is either adultery or fornication." Hebrews 13 verse 4. Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers or fornicators and adulterers God will judge. 2. An adulterous remarriage is the sinful marital union of a man and a woman after the exchange of vows in the presence of human witnesses and God while either one or both of their covenant bond marriage spouse or spouses is or are still physically living. For God does not create a new covenant bond during this adulterous remarriage ceremony. This is despite what the state, the church, or those exchanging these sinful vows think or believe. The reason for this is because a covenant bond, breakable only by death, still exists between one or both of those who are exchanging these sinful vows and someone else who is still physically living. For the still living husband or wife is still the covenant bond marriage partner, despite this adulterous remarriage. For again, you can only be in one covenant bond marriage with one living man or woman while physically alive. 3. Fornication is sinful and is sexual activity of a man or woman with someone or something else, male or female, with whom they do not have a covenant bond created by God between them. From the foregoing truths, it is impossible for two men or two women to have a covenant bond created between them by God. Such sinful activity is fornication, adultery, or both, and is perversion. What needs to be clearly seen by the above three definitions, and stated clearly again, is that a man or woman can only be in one covenant bond marriage at a time. It is not possible for a man to be in a covenant bond marriage with more than one living person of the opposite sex. For, the only thing that breaks a covenant bond marriage created by God is the physical death of the man, the woman, both, or the return of the Lord. Sadly, a covenant bond married husband or wife can commit adultery without entering into an adulterous remarriage. For if a covenant bond marriage partner engages in sexual activity with someone who is not their covenant bond marriage mate, they are committing adultery, even if they do not compound their sin by entering into an adulterous remarriage. The person they are engaging in this sinful sexual activity with is guilty of the sin of adultery or fornication. It is adultery in the case of a living covenant bond spouse or fornication otherwise. An example of both is seen in the sinful sexual activity of the man in 1 Corinthians 5. that Paul told the Corinthian church to put out from among them, 1 Corinthians 5.1 and 13b. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 13b. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. This man was committing the sexual sin of fornication. This man's stepmother was committing the sexual sin of adultery. The teaching presented in this paper, in light of the above definitions, is that many of the current marital unions, both within and outside the Church, are not covenant bond marriages, but sinful, adulterous remarriages that need to be repented of and forsaken as evidence of true repentance. Proverbs 28.13, He that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. For after a covenant bond marriage is created by God, as defined above, Those who enter into such a union become the covenant bond husband or wife of the other until the physical death of the husband, the wife, both, or the return of the Lord. Therefore, those who enter into another marriage, while their covenant bond husband or wife are still physically living, are entering into an adulterous remarriage and are, therefore, continuous adulterers until this sinful marriage is repented of and forsaken. This is because an adulterous remarriage does not destroy and cannot dissolve the covenant bond created by God in a covenant bond marriage as defined above. This God-created bond is dissolved or ended by the physical death of the husband, the wife, both, or the return of the Lord, and in no other ways. The scriptural support for these definitions and these comments can be seen from the following scriptures, to which emphasis has been added. The verses referred to above are repeated for emphasis and to show that the above definitions and teachings are not based on only one difficult-to-understand verse of the Bible. Genesis 2 verses 22 to 24, And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Malachi 2 verse 14, Yet ye say, Wherefore, because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant? Jeremiah Chapter 3, verses 8 and 14, And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. Verse 14, turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord, for I am married unto you, and I will take you, one of a city and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion. Matthew 19, verses 4 to 6. And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain? shall be one flesh, wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Mark chapter 10, verses 6 to 12. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain, or two, as in Matthew's references well, shall be one flesh. So then they are no more twain, or two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of this same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Luke 16 verse 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. And whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. Romans 7 verses 1 to 3. Know ye not, brethren, for I speak to them that know the law, how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. But if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband be dead, she is free from that law. so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." 1 Corinthians 7, verses 10 and 11. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. Let not the wife depart from her husband, but, and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife. 1 Corinthians 7, 39. The wife is bound by the law, As long as her husband liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. 2. Who creates the covenant bond marriage? The important thing to notice with respect to the creation of the covenant bond marriage by God is who the man leaves. He leaves his father and mother. He does not leave his wife. For if he leaves his wife in any other way than her physical death to enter into a sinful marital union with another woman, he does not create a new covenant bond marriage, because only God creates this type of marriage. Again, he enters into an adulterous remarriage that needs to be repented of and forsaken. See Proverbs 28 verse 13. For God does not create a second covenant bond marriage while one's covenant bond marriage spouse is still living. A new marriage entered into while the covenant bound husband or wife is still living is an adulterous remarriage. The scriptures quoted above clearly and repeatedly declare this truth. Remember, it is God who creates the covenant bond marriage. The state does not create it, neither does the church. Neither do those who are able to enter into a covenant bond marriage. This is true even if the state, the church, and those entering into an adulterous remarriage see it as a, quote, valid marriage, unquote. Such marriages are not valid covenant bond marriages, but continuing adultery. For it is God alone who creates the covenant bond between one man and one woman that he alone is able to create. Jesus declares this. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, Mark. Excuse me, Matthew 19, 6 and Mark 10, verse 9. Paul affirms the truth of this in Romans 7, 2. For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth. But if the husband be dead, she is loose from the law of her husband. Truth repeated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, 39. A wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. An important truth to remember is that the word translated bound in Roman 7.2 and 1 Corinthians 7.39 in the Greek is in the perfect tense and passive voice. The perfect tense means an action that has been completed and results in a new state of being from that time forward. The passive voice means the person involved is not performing the action. They are receiving the action. So when those who are able to enter into a covenant bond marriage do so, they are bound by God in that one flesh covenant bond from that point forward until the return of Christ or the physical death of one or both of them. Sexual relations do not create a covenant bond marriage. It is during the marriage ceremony that God creates this bond. It is this bond that enables the God-bound husband and wife to enjoy sexual relations in the marriage bed without committing the sexual sins of adultery or fornication, for all sexual activity outside of a valid covenant bond marriage is sinful sexual activity. It is either fornication or adultery, and includes the perverse forms these sexual sins can be engaged in. Examples? Bestiality, homosexuality, and incest. They are to be repented of and forsaken, not continued in, despite what the people engaging in them, society, or dangerous, quote, experts, unquote, teach and endorse. See Proverbs 28, 13. This is clearly declared in Hebrews 13, verse 4. Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. But whoremongers, or fornicators, and adulterers God will judge. For when Joseph took Mary, his betrothed wife, to be his covenant bondwife in the Jewish society's recognized public ceremony, they were bound together by God in a covenant bond marriage. This covenant bond enabled Joseph and Mary to enjoy the marital bed, although they did not partake of the pleasures of it until after Jesus was born. The biblical Joseph and Mary were not eunuchs, despite what the false church of Roman Catholicism dangerously teaches. See Matthew 1 verses 24 and 25. Jesus had step brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13, 55 and 56. 3. Who are joined in a covenant bond marriage? As long as the man or the woman are able to enter into a covenant bond marriage as defined above, the bond in this marriage is created by God. As mentioned above, this is regardless of the spiritual state. believer or non-believer of those entering into this covenant bond marriage. The idea that an unbeliever who is able to enter into a covenant bond marriage, as defined above, is not bound by God to their covenant bond husband or wife until physical death is wrong. For if only the marriage of two believers is a covenant bond marriage, then the scriptures would never refer to unbelievers as being husband and wife. But unbelievers are repeatedly referred to as husband and wife in the Bible. What does Jesus say men and women were doing prior to the global flood? Matthew 24 verse 38. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark." Those Jesus declares were marrying and giving in marriage were non-believers. For what would it mean if only true believers in Christ are in valid covenant bond marriages? It would mean that non-believers would be incapable of committing the sin of adultery. It would be a sin only true Christians could commit. But if this false idea was true, John the Baptist did not need to rebuke Herod, an unbeliever for his adulterous remarriage with Herodias, another unbeliever. He could have saved his head. John was able to rebuke Herod and Herodias because both Herod and Herodias had living covenant bond mates. See Mark 6, 17 and 18. Plus, Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 verses 12 to 14 about a believing man or woman remaining with their unbelieving spouse whom they had married prior to being saved by God would be wrong if the marriage they had entered into in unbelief was not a valid covenant bond marriage. Verses 12 to 14 of 1 Corinthians 7. 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 which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. God held Old Covenant Israel to the covenant they entered into with the deceptive Gibeonites even centuries after it was made. See Joshua 9 and 2 Samuel 1 verses 1 and 2. A believer who is able to have a valid covenant bond marriage created between them and another person has this bond created between them by God, even if they are ignorant of or disobeying the only in the Lord of 1 Corinthians 7.39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth, but if her husband be dead, She is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. The covenant bond marriage is created by God who instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2 verse 24, Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. God creates this bond between a man and a woman. He is able to create it between, regardless of the belief or unbelief of those being joined in a covenant bond marriage as defined above. The fact that a non-believer does not understand the full meaning and significance the marriage covenant he is entering into makes no difference. He may even deny the fact that God exists, but that does not change the fact that God creates this bond between him and his wife. For, again, it is not man who creates this bond, it is God. And again, if this covenant bond marriage was not created by God between two non-believers, it would not be possible for non-believers to commit the sin of adultery. But what do non-believers, sadly, repeatedly do? They sue out a divorce against their covenant bond spouse for the sin of adultery and the most popular reason, quote, incompatibility, unquote. But there is no greater incompatibility than that between a believer and a non-believer. But if the unbelieving husband or wife is willing to remain in the marriage after their former unsaved husband or wife is saved by God, the saved husband or wife is not to depart. 4. Does divorce dissolve the covenant bond marriage created by God? The issue is not whether or not a man or woman in a covenant bond marriage disobey the command of God not to divorce and then sinfully remarry. They do. But does God acknowledge these sinful actions and dissolve the covenant bond He created between the adulterer and their still-living covenant bond husband or wife? No. Does this act of sin dissolve the covenant bond marriage created by God? No. Why? Because God is the one who creates the covenant bond marriage, and since He alone creates it, He alone can declare what, if anything, can dissolve what He has created. Based on the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and His infallibly inspired Apostle Paul, the only thing that God says breaks the marriage bond He creates is the return of Christ or the physical death of the husband, the wife, or both. This is why the innocent husband or wife deserted or divorced by their covenant bond mate is guilty of adultery if they engage in one or many one-night stands or continuous adultery if they marry someone else while their covenant bond marriage spouse is still living. This new marriage may be declared a valid marriage by the state and have the endorsement of the church but it is an adulterous Marriage in the eyes of God. This is repeatedly declared in the verses quoted above. The exception clause, found only in Matthew's Gospel, does not contradict or nullify this truth. This will be seen when the passages from Matthew are dealt with below. The issue is not all the difficulties created by the many grievous assaults on a covenant bond marriage. They are numerous. heart-wrenching and difficult to correctly address. But they have been made more numerous and difficult by the almost universal acceptance of incorrect teaching on this subject. For God declares what he forms when those able to enter into a covenant bond marriage enter into it. He forms a one-flesh covenant bond that can only be broken by the return of Christ or the physical death of either the man, the woman, or both. As someone has said, Quote, what is a biblical marriage? Unquote. One man, one woman for life. Five. Difficult but biblical truth. The fact that men reject and rebel against the truth that there are adulterous remarriages does not change the sobering truth that there are adulterous remarriages. If a man breaks God's law against stealing, we call him a thief. Why? Because this is what he is. This is not to condemn him or sinfully judge him. It is his continuing thievery that condemns and judges him. Calling him a thief is simply declaring the truth of what he is. The hope is that he will face his true condition and, by the grace of God, repent and forsake his thievery. But for the Church, for the most part today, He's not willing to call what the Bible calls those who are married to someone else while their covenant bond marriage, husband or wife, is still living. The Bible calls them adulterers. See Luke 16.18. It is an adulterous remarriage that needs to be repented of and forsaken, not continued in. Now, saying this is not to condemn those involved in these adulterous remarriages or to sinfully judge them. It is their adultery that condemns and judges them. Calling them adulterous is simply declaring what the Word of God calls them. They exist in a state of adultery until such sin is repented of and forsaken. See Romans 7.3. The fact that the church and the state accept such adulterous remarriages does not alter the fact that they are adulterous remarriages and should be repented of, forsaken, and not continued in. But this clear biblical truth has been made more difficult to see because teachers in the church Myself included, to my repentance and shame, have sought to make such adulterous remarriages a unique sin that can be confessed but not forsaken. This is despite the teachings of Proverbs 28.13. He who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy. If the church is unwilling to call a thief who continues to steal truly repentant, why is it willing to call an adulterer truly repentant if he or she does not forsake their adultery or adulterous marital union? What about a fornicator? Or a sodomite? Would the church say that a fornicator continuing in his or her sin of fornication, or a sodomite continuing in in his sin of sodomy, have truly repented of their fornication or sodomy if they continue in it? The fact that adulterous remarriages are recognized by the state and the erring church does not mean they cease being sinful adulterous remarriages, not covenant bond marriages. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, the church did not recognize the remarriages of a man and a woman if their covenant bond marriage spouse or spouses was or were still living. They call them adulterous remarriages. For a covenant bond husband or wife to forsake their adulterous remarriage is not divorcing one's covenant bond mate, it is forsaking the continuing sin of adultery. Adultery is not the unforgivable sin, but it is a sin to which Proverbs 28, 13 applies. It is a sin to which the sobering warning of 1 Corinthians 6, 9, and 10 applies, if not repented of and forsaken. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, be not deceived? Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, emphasis, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 6. THE MEANING OF THE EXCEPTION CLAUSES IN MATTHEW. If all one had were Mark's and Luke's infallible records of the Lord's teaching on the subject of marriage into force, as well as that of the inspired Apostle Paul's teaching, you would or should come away saying that only physical death or the return of Christ breaks a valid covenant bond marriage made by God. But Matthew 5 verse 32 and Matthew 19 verse 9 appear to be teaching something different. They do not. This popular but incorrect teaching in the church today is based on an incorrect understanding of the Lord's teaching in these two verses. Matthew 5 verse 32, But I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery. And Matthew 19.9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery. And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. The popular but incorrect teaching based on the above two verses, is that the physical act of adultery breaks the covenant bond marriage created by God, and thus permits the innocent party, that is, the one not guilty of the sin of physical adultery, to remarry. But this is not what Jesus is teaching. Popular interpretations can be wrong. This is one of them. Now, Matthew is a biblical gospel for all the church, for all time. But the reason he wrote it was to show to his Jewish brethren that Jesus is the promised Messiah of God. His primary audience was to his Jewish brethren, whether believing the truth that Jesus is the promised Messiah of God or not believing this glorious truth. And it is this truth that must be kept in mind to correctly understand what have been called the, quote, the exception clauses, unquote, in the two verses above. For what Matthew records, Jesus saying in Matthew 5, verse 32, and 19, verse 9, does not negate the truth that only the return of Christ or the physical death of the husband, the wife, or both dissolves the covenant bond marriage and one-flesh union created by God, and this can be seen by three things. First, by the words Matthew uses, writing under the infallible inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. The popular teaching is that the physical act of adultery gives grounds for divorce and remarriage to the partner not guilty of the sin of adultery. This incorrect teaching is supported by teaching that this is what Jesus means when he says, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Matthew 19 verse 9. The popular teaching is that you can read verse 9 as, and I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife except for sexual immorality and shall marry another commit adultery. The one word in the Greek, pornea, being translated as sexual immorality and not the one English word fornication as in the King James Version. The words sexual immorality are to be taken as including the sexual sin of adultery. which the Bible defines as remarriage to someone else while one's covenant bond marriage, husband or wife, is still living, or sexual relations with someone who is not their covenant bond marriage, husband or wife, while their covenant bond marriage, husband or wife, is still physically living. The major problem with this popular but incorrect teaching is that Matthew, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not use the Greek word for adultery, mekeo, which he has already used in the verse. He uses the Greek word for fornication, pornea. Fornication is sexual activity of a non-married person. For if Jesus had meant or said adultery, Matthew would have used the word for adultery, which he had already used. But he does not. Matthew records Jesus as saying, except it be for fornication. The Greek word behind the English word fornication is pornea, and the English word adultery is mochea. These are two different sexual sins as defined above. Fornication or porneia is sexual activity of a non-married person. Adultery or moceo, excuse my pronunciation, is a covenant bond husband or wife engaging in sexual activity with someone or something which is not their covenant bond husband or wife. And when different words are used in scripture, you must allow the author to define how he is using them. When you are dealing with the intent of the author in the case of the scriptures, you are dealing with an infallibly inspired human author who is recording the words of the Lord Jesus Christ as he is infallibly guided by God the Holy Spirit. Now, if they differentiate fornication from adultery, you must allow them, the original speaker, Jesus, the inspired human author, Matthew, and the infallible author, the Holy Spirit, to do so. For words, even the infallibly inspired words in the Bible, have a range of meanings. Words can have a broad or narrow meaning in the Word of God. For example, the common Greek word for land can refer to the earth or to a specific area on the earth. Now, if the authors are showing that they are using a word in a narrow or broad way, we must grant them that liberty. The intent of the infallible speaker and teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ, the infallibly guided human author, Matthew, and the infallible and ultimate author, the Holy Spirit, must be kept in mind. It is not, what do you want the text to say? It is not, what do you think the text says? It is, what did Jesus mean and the authors, both human and divine, mean when they recorded what Jesus said and taught? Matthew clearly shows that Jesus differentiated the sexual sin of fornication from adultery. This can be seen here and in Matthew 15-19, where Jesus is not directly dealing with the subject of divorce and remarriage, but where he again differentiates these two words. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, emphasis, adulteries, fornications, unemphasis, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Now, since the Holy Spirit is the ultimate and infallible author of the scriptures, this differentiation, when the words are used together, belongs to Him. And this can also be seen, as well, by what Paul wrote under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6 verse 9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, be not deceived, emphasis, neither fornicators, unemphasis, nor idolaters, emphasis, nor adulterers, unemphasis, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. And Galatians 5, verse 19, now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, emphasis, adultery, fornication, on emphasis, uncleanness, lasciviousness. And Hebrews 13, verse 4, marriage is honorable in all in the bed undefiled, emphasis, but whoremongers, or fornicators, and adulterers, on emphasis, God will judge. This is not to dispute that the word adultery can have a broad meaning as well as a narrow meaning as will be shown below, but the important point to see is that they are differentiated by Jesus and by the Holy Spirit who infallibly inspired both Matthew and Paul. When they are used together, as they are in the above verses, they are not synonyms describing the same sexual sins, but words describing different sexual sins. Matthew's infallibly inspired intention in Matthew 5, verse 32, and Matthew 19, verse 9, was not to confuse, but to clarify things, which he did by using the word fornication, pornea, and not the word adultery, moceo. Matthew's Jewish readers and Jesus's original hearers would have understood the word fornication as a word defining sexual relations between those who have not been bound together by God in the one flesh union of a covenant bond marriage. They would have understood it to refer to sexual activity of non-married single people. sexual activity that used to be seen as sinful due to the absence of the covenant bond. How many see fornication as sinful even in quote churches unquote today? They would have understood adultery as the act of marrying someone while someone's covenant bond husband or wife is still physically living or having sexual relations with someone else while your covenant bond marriage husband or wife Who you have been bound to by God until death is still physically living. And once you see that fornication and adultery are clearly differentiated by Jesus, then you are faced with a legitimate question. Why does only Matthew record what he does? Or why does he record this exception and not Mark or Luke or Paul? The reason for this will be explained under my second point. Second, why only Matthew records the exception clause? Once you see that the word fornication refers to sexual activity between single people, you can understand why only Matthew records what he does and why Christ's teaching caused such a shock to his disciples. For Matthew includes the quote exception clause unquote not so the unbelieving Pharisees could try and trip Jesus up by their misuse and misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 to 4, but to explain why Joseph was thinking of putting Mary away privately because of what he was allowed according to his understanding of Deuteronomy 22 verses 13 to 20. Israel had lost its ability to carry out capital punishment for both fornication and adultery, due to being under the authority of Rome. See Genesis 49 verse 10. Therefore, because Joseph thought Mary was guilty of fornication, his only just but merciful action was to put her away privately. Matthew 1 verses 18 and 19. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise, when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Emphasis. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Unemphasis. Joseph was not applying Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 to 4 to this difficult situation. For Jesus declares why Moses wrote Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 to 4, because of the hardness of the hearts of the husbands toward their covenant bond wives. Moses was suffered to write this command because of hard hearts. Not a just and merciful heart. Matthew 19 verses 7 and 8. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, emphasis because of the hardness of your hearts. Unemphasis suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Joseph was a just and merciful man and was not displaying hardness of heart by what he was thinking of doing because he thought Mary had been guilty of fornication. And this would have been something it would have been easy to think she had been guilty of after spending three months with her cousin Elizabeth and coming home pregnant. See Luke 1.39 And verse 56, Joseph was going to put Mary away privately until the angel of the Lord cleared things up for Matthew. Excuse me, for Joseph. Matthew 1 verse 20. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. For Joseph, being a just and merciful man, was thinking of putting Mary away privately, because he incorrectly thought that Mary had been guilty of fornication during the Jewish betrothal period, prior to the covenant bond being created between them by God in the Jewish marriage ceremony. This betrothal period could last from nine months to a year to ensure that the bride, in this case Mary, was not guilty of what Joseph thought she had been guilty of, that is, fornication. And this was something that even the foolish enemies of Jesus not believing in the truth of his virgin conception, implied he was the result of. John 8 verse 41, You do the deeds of your father, then said they to him, emphasis, we be not born of fornication, on emphasis, we have one father, even God. Again, it is important to remember that Matthew's primary audience was Jewish, and he was seeking to show that Jesus is the promised Messiah of God. This is why Matthew records the genealogy and birth of the Lord Jesus Christ in the opening chapters of his Gospel. He does not go back to Adam like Luke does through Mary. He goes back to Abraham through David and Solomon to show that Jesus alone had the right to be the prophesied Messianic King. But because inheriting a sinful nature is through the man and not the woman, see Genesis 5.3, as well as God's curse on the kingly line of which Joseph was a part, see Jeremiah 22 verses 29 and 30, the virgin conception was required so that David, excuse me, so that Jesus received David's bloodline apart from sin through Mary and he would inherit the legal right to the throne of David through being the adopted firstborn son of Joseph, having been kept from the stain of original sin by being conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. But in recording how the virgin conception of Jesus overcame the problems of both original sin and the curse on the kingly line, you have Matthews recording the problem the virgin conception caused to Joseph. For in the Jewish marriage ceremony, Mary was Joseph's betrothed wife, but she had not yet been joined to Joseph in the covenant bond marriage by God in the one-flesh union created by God during the public ceremony. Therefore, because Mary was the betrothed wife of Joseph, but not yet the covenant bond wife of Joseph, it would have been possible for Mary to commit the sin of fornication, which Joseph had thought she had committed. From a public Jewish standpoint they were set apart as husband and wife, even though they had not gone through the public ceremony in which the unbreakable covenant bond marriage would be created by God between them. As said above, in Jewish marriage custom up to a year of time would transpire between the time they were viewed upon as being husband and wife and actually coming together in the public ceremony to be bound by God in the one-flesh covenant bond resulting in the covenant bond marriage. Now, if during this period of time fornication was committed, it would have been allowable for the public ceremony resulting in the establishment of the covenant bond marriage by God not to proceed, and this is why only Matthew records the quote except for fornication unquote exception, because he is the only one to record what Joseph was considering doing because of his thinking that Mary had committed fornication prior to the covenant bond marriage and that he had hoped to enter into publicly with Mary. And the fact that the unbelieving Pharisees tried to tempt and sidetrack Jesus into dealing with what Moses suffered hard-hearted men to do, as recorded in Matthew 3 verses 9, excuse me, verses 3 to 8. Matthew 19 verses 3 to 8. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning male made them male and female? And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. When therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? Emphasis. He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives. But from the beginning it was not so. Unemphasis. The Pharisees' foolish attempt to tempt Jesus was another testimony to their ability to wrongly divide the Word of God and not hear Jesus correctly. For Jesus did away with this teaching in his Sermon on the Mount. before the Pharisees foolishly tried to trip Jesus up with it in the above verses Matthew 5 verses 31 and 32 emphasis it hath been said on emphasis whosoever shall put away his wife let him give her a writing of divorce divorcement emphasis But I say unto you, unemphasis, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commiteth adultery. For Matthew did not introduce the exception clause, so the unbelieving Pharisees could use what Jesus taught to try and trip Jesus up, by what Moses suffered to be done, Jesus tells us why Moses suffered Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 to 4 to be written. It was due to the hardness of the hearts of the men wanting to put away their covenant bond wives, this being the very thing that the Lord God rebukes them for in Malachi And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand? Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee, emphasis, and the wife of thy youth, unemphasis, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, emphasis, yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant, and did not he make one, unemphasis, yet had he the residue of the Spirit, and wherefore one, that he might seek a godly seed, therefore take heed to your spirit, let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth emphasis for the Lord the God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away on emphasis for one covereth violence with his garment saith the Lord of hosts therefore take heed to your spirit that ye deal not treacherously this is truth that is sadly ignored or rejected by too many under the new covenant who use this, quote, suffered, unquote, command of Moses to ignore or reject the clear and repeated teaching of Jesus Christ on what marrying someone divorced from their covenant bondmate results in. It results in continuous adultery unless repented of and forsaken as declared by Jesus in Luke 16 verse 18. Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, emphasis, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her that is put away from her husband, emphasis, committeth adultery. So Joseph did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him Mary his wife in the public ceremony where they were bound together by God in the covenant bond marriage until the physical death of one or the other. Matthew records this because his primary audience being Jewish would have understood that Matthew was explaining what Joseph was thinking of doing because of Jewish betrothal marriage custom. He would have known that his Jewish readers would have understood for fornication as referring to sinful sexual relations such as Joseph thought Mary was guilty of. And once this is seen as the reason for what Matthew uniquely records, quote, except it be for fornication, unquote, it explains why he is the only one to record it. And it does not require the clear, absolute statements found in Mark, Luke and Paul to bend to the popular teaching that physical adultery permits remarriage. It makes all the passages fit together without any difficulties, all of them affirming and teaching the truth about what biblical marriage is, a covenant bond in one flesh union, breakable only by the physical death of either the man, the woman, both, or the return of the Lord. In contemporary terms, although modern engagement does not have the same legally binding aspects to it the Jewish betrothal marriage had in the first century Judaism, if an engaged couple today decided they were not to use the popular teaching today, quote, compatible, unquote, nothing apart from hurt feelings and canceled dates would result if they decided not to proceed with the marriage. but even revealed fornication. For a new covenant believer does not demand that the marriage not be proceeded with, for repentance and reconciliation are the clear teachings of the New Testament. But once the public ceremony takes place and the public vows are exchanged, and as long as that man and woman are not already bound together in a covenant bond marriage with someone else still living, God makes them one flesh until death. That this is the correct understanding of why only Matthew records the Exception Clause can be seen by my third point. Third, the support of the rest of the Scriptures, excuse me, the support the rest of the Scriptures give to this understanding of the Exception Clause versus the weaknesses of the incorrect popular teaching. This can be seen by six things. First, this explains why only Matthew has what is called the exception clause as explained above. He is dealing with a uniquely Jewish marriage practice that Joseph thought he needed to comply with until he was told by the angel that he need not be afraid to take his betrothed wife to become his covenant bond wife in the public ceremony. Second, the exception clause remains just that, an exception clause, and not an exception that every other passage dealing with divorce and remarriage has to bend to, and which has led to an epidemic of sinful remarriages in the church and society. The majority of the Christian Church today, regardless of denominational label, has ceased being salt and light with respect to adultery due to its almost universal acceptance of adulterous remarriages. Third, this understanding upholds the high view of marriage that Jesus teaches in all the gospel accounts. It does not involve Jesus in a contradiction. For in Matthew 19 verse 6, Jesus declares, But based on the popular teaching, only three verses later, Jesus teaches, but now here is a way men can separate what God has joined together. Just go out and commit adultery. Even though Jesus uses the word for premarital sexual activity, porneia, not adultery, moceo. Matthew 19, 9. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for for fornication, porneia, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, mocea, and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery, moceo. Despite the popularity of this view, there is no teaching in the New Testament that allows for remarriage of a covenant bond husband or wife due to the sin of their covenant bond husband or wife while they are still living, and Paul affirms and does not contradict what the Lord teaches when he writes in 1 Corinthians 7 verses 10 and 11, And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband, but, and if she depart, emphasis, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, on emphasis, and let not the husband put away his wife. Paul is painfully aware of the fact that sinful men will rebel against the teaching of the Lord, and there are situations where it may be legitimate for a spouse to separate from their sinning mate for a time, even for life. But again, notice what the Apostle Paul says. But, and if she depart, emphasis, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, unemphasis. But if adultery breaks the covenant bond marriage and one-flesh union, as is commonly and incorrectly thought and taught, it would be impossible for the woman to be reconciled to her husband, because adultery, based on the popular but incorrect view, breaks the covenant bond that makes them husband and wife. For how can you be reconciled to your sinning covenant bond husband or wife if their act of adultery has broken the one flesh union that God created? You could not be. For if adultery breaks the covenant bond, Paul could not say, be reconciled to her husband. Paul teaches, under the infallible inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, that the departure of a covenant bond mate, even if they commit adultery, does not give the one departed from the, quote, right, unquote, to remarry. They are to remain unmarried, or be reconciled, because if they remarry, prior to the death of their covenant-bond spouse they enter into an adulterous remarriage, which only complicates an already difficult situation caused by the sin of the departing covenant bond husband or wife. The truth that only physical death of the husband or wife breaks the covenant bond was almost universally accepted by all the churches of Christ until the 1500s in the introduction and acceptance of the humanistic teaching of Desiderius Erasmus. The popular view in the church today that the physical act of adultery, as well as many other worldly reasons, breaks a covenant bond marriage are based on an appeal to the difficulties and sufferings created by sin, to the emotions. It is not based on the clear teachings of Jesus and Paul. and that this is true can be seen by the reaction of many to this explanation of what Jesus and Paul are teaching. The response is not, quote, this is not what Jesus is teaching, and here is why he is not teaching it, unquote. The majority response is, quote, that's not fair. unquote, or quote, such teaching is too difficult, unquote, which is exactly how his disciples first reacted to Christ's teaching, as will be shown below. Jesus never said following him and confessing him would be easy, but the majority of the church today wants to make it easy with respect to adulterous remarriages. Fourth, This understanding of what Jesus teaches maintains the differentiation that Matthew and Paul and ultimately the Holy Spirit make between the words fornication and adultery. The popular view is that Jesus means adultery when he uses the word fornication as explained above. But a further example of the weakness and clearly untenable nature of this popular teaching can be seen by how Jesus defines what adultery is in Matthew 5 verses 27 and 28. You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Remember, Jesus is correcting the incorrect and inadequate understanding of the laws taught by the Pharisees. Jesus is not saying there is anything wrong with the commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery, but with the Pharisees' inadequate application and understanding of it. For the seventh commandment is simply a summary commandment concerning sexual sin. It would be an example of the word adultery being used with a broad understanding. But the Pharisees' false and inadequate understanding was that as long as a married man did not have sexual intercourse with someone who was not his wife, he was not guilty of breaking the seventh commandment. But Jesus crushes all of this false and inadequate teaching by striking at the heart of the physical act of adultery, heart lust. Just as there is such a thing as heart murder that makes you guilty before God of breaking the commandment, thou shalt not murder, there is such a thing as heart lust. Looking upon another person who is not your covenant, bond, marriage, husband or wife, and a lust for them is to commit heart adultery, as one is said. How many husbands have already committed heart adultery by lusting after some immodestly dressed woman he sees while walking down the aisle after having exchanged marital vows with his now covenant bond wife? This unbreakable bond did not last very long, based on the popular but incorrect teaching. For the popular view is that adultery breaks the covenant bond marriage and one-flesh union created by God in the public ceremony. But Jesus, infallibly and authoritatively, defines what adultery is. Adultery, according to Jesus, is not just the physical act, but heart lust. Therefore, take Christ's infallible definition of adultery and apply it to our adulterous society today. How many covenant bond husbands are no longer married to their covenant bond wives they think they are married to, because they have lusted after another woman by the myriad of ways this sin is fueled in our society today? For you have to define adultery the way Jesus defines it. This would mean that once a covenant bond husband lusts after another woman, he has broken the covenant bond marriage created by God, and he is no longer married to his covenant bond wife. This would be true whether the sinned against wife knew of her husband's heartlust or not. No. Adultery is not the grounds for divorce and remarriage. It is grounds for repentance on the part of the guilty party and forgiveness and reconciliation on the part of the one sinned against. For if you limit the right to divorce and remarry to the physical act of adultery, you are treating adultery and the Scriptures the same way the Pharisees did, and not the way the infallible, authoritative interpreter of Scripture, the Lord Jesus Christ, does. For if you say that adultery breaks the marriage bond, and apply Jesus' declaration about what adultery is, how many are really married today? Is anyone? Just think. All a wife who is in a difficult covenant marriage would have to do is to suggest that her husband watch some inappropriate movie with her, and once she sees him sinning with his eyes, she can say, I'm out of here. But what happens when the man she lusted after herself and sinfully remarries commits the same thing? excuse me, the same sin, then she is no longer married to him. Fifth, this understanding of what Jesus teaches adequately addresses both Jesus' disciples' shocked reaction to his teaching and his response to their shocked response. What was the disciples response to Jesus teaching? Matthew 19 verse 10. His disciples said to him, if such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry. What case are the disciples of Jesus referring to? The case that only physical death breaks the one flesh bond. For had Jesus simply been affirming the teaching they already knew was being taught by the Pharisees, they would not have reached the... they would not, excuse me, they would have not have react... They would not have reacted the way they did, thinking that it's better not to marry if only physical death separates you from the one you were first bound to by God. And the fact that Jesus is teaching that only physical death gives ground for remarriage is clearly seen by what the Lord says in response to their shocked response. He declares that those who are his disciples understand that following him and confessing him as Lord may be costly in this life, even in the area of marriage. Matthew 19 verses 11 and 12, But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb, And there are some eunuchs which are made eunuchs of men. Emphasis. And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. Unemphasis. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. What is Jesus saying? All men cannot receive. the truth that only physical death breaks a covenant bond marriage. For there is no need for a true believer to make himself or herself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake based on the popular teaching on divorce and remarriage in the churches today. Jesus is not introducing a new subject in verses 11 and 12 of Matthew 19. He is simply illustrating the cost of being one of his disciples. Taking up one's cross and dying to self may mean becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of God's sake after saying, quote, I do, unquote, because of the sin of the one who also said, quote, I do, unquote, but now doesn't want to. What does Psalm 15, 1 and 4b say? Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle, who shall dwell in thy holy hill? Verse 4b, he that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. Sixth, accepting what Jesus and Paul teach does not involve a believer in a legal fiction and false reality. How can something be a legal fiction and a false reality? They can't be. But in order to justify the popular teaching today, such legal fictions and false realities have been developed. Adultery is taken by the majority of the church today as giving grounds for divorce and remarriage. on the part of the innocent party, rather than repentance on the part of the adulterer, and forgiveness and reconciliation on the part of the mate sinned against. The teaching of Jesus about forgiving a person 70 times 7 upon repentance is not even considered today when the subject of adultery is mentioned. But in order to give support to this incorrect understanding, the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith came up with what I call a legal fiction and a false reality. They teach that the innocent marriage partner is to treat the guilty adulterous marriage partner as if he or she was dead, to justify the idea that it is now legitimate for the innocent party to remarry. even though their covenant bond marriage mate is still physically living. But I ask you, where in scripture do you read that you were to treat another physically living person as if he was physically dead? Nowhere in scripture are you told to treat someone who is still physically living and who has sinned against you as if they are physically dead. But adultery in the Old Testament was grounds for the death penalty, true. Therefore, since we are not applying that law today, I have the right to treat my adulterous mate as if they are dead. Where in the scriptures do you find such an idea? Nowhere. The New Testament teaching, when you are sinned against, is not treat them as if they are dead. It is hope and pray for their repentance and having the willingness to be forgiving and reconciled to the adulterer when it happens. Just think, if you were to apply this false reasoning to other sins that called for the death penalty under the Old Covenant. Example, Deuteronomy 21, verses 18 to 21. If a man of a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him will not hearken unto them, then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of this Place and they shall say unto the elders of his his city this our son is stubborn and rebellious He will not obey our voice He is a glutton and a drunkard and all the men of the city shall stone him with stones that he die So shalt thou put evil away from among you and all Israel shall hear and fear We don't put rebellious children to death today, just as we don't put adulterers to death today. But since we don't, we obviously do not treat them as dead. I am no longer your father. You are no longer my son. I am to treat you as if you are dead. What does a loving parent want, as far as their rebellious son or daughter is concerned, based on New Testament teaching? They don't want them put to death. They pray and hope that they would come to true repentance, as seen in the Lord's parable. on the prodigal son. For did the father in this parable in Luke 15 treat his rebellious son as if he was dead when he repentantly returned? No, he ran to him and wrapped his arms around him, even though he probably smelled worse than the pigs he had been feeding. Luke 15 verses 17 to 24. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and despair, and I perish with hunger. I will arise and go to my father and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. Make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said in him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet, and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it. and let us eat and be merry for this my son was dead and is alive again he was lost and is found and they began to be merry but what is almost universally accepted than churches today in the case of a man or woman who was sinned against but not broken their covenant bond by committing adultery the innocent party can treat the guilty party as if he or she is dead and they no longer need to concern themselves about the New Testament teachings concerning repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But the guilty party is not dead. He or she is very much alive. Treating the so-called guilty party as if they were dead would mean you would not take them to court. for who takes a corpse to court. You can only take a living person not a dead person to court. Treating the guilty part partner as if they were dead would mean not expecting any alimony payments from him or her because you can't receive alimony payments from a dead man. It would mean that any children produced from this marriage would not have to or be able to go and visit their guilty father or mother because they are to be treated as dead. For you do not give visitation rights to a dead person. What would people think if a mother dropped her children off at the cemetery for the weekend because she was giving visitation rights to her dead husband? Neither does a living person fight with a dead person over possessions. Plus, in the popular teaching, It is the act of adultery that dissolves the covenant bond marriage and one flesh union. But if it is the act of adultery that breaks the covenant bond, it breaks it from the moment the sin of adultery is committed, not after all the legal proceedings in which believers, despite what the Bible says, go to court to fight for their rights and half of everything from a fictitious dead person. And what this means is that there may very well be, right now, in the visible church, a woman sleeping with a man she thinks is her husband, but because he has committed adultery, even if only in his mind, unknown to her, he has dissolved the bond created by God between them. They are no longer husband and and wife, since the act of adultery, in the popular view, breaks the covenant bond." If adultery breaks the covenant bond, then they are not husband and wife. They are an unmarried man and an unmarried woman committing fornication. No! They are very much still married to one another. The adulterous spouse has sinfully assaulted the bond created by God. He has not dissolved it. As Jesus teaches in Mark 10 verses 11 and 12, And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another, she committeth adultery. And in Luke 16 verse 18, Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, commiteth adultery. And whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, commiteth adultery. For the covenant bond marriage, husband or wife still has to be physically living. for adultery to be possible. For if either of them are not physically living, the bond is no longer there. If both of them are living, the bond is still there, despite what the popular view is in the church today. It is only physical death that breaks the covenant bond of marriage created by God. not adultery or any other sinful action or activity by the husband or wife. And the awesome truth and significance of this can be seen when a believer realizes or comes to realize that the covenant bond marriage he or she has entered into is a picture of their relationship with Christ, as Paul teaches in Ephesians 5 verse 32. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Ask yourself, if you are a true believer in Christ, how often have you sinned against your covenant mate, the Lord Jesus Christ? Does he divorce you for your spiritual adulteries and unfaithfulness? Perish the thought. It is a covenant union that only death can break. But Jesus is risen from the dead. Death has no more dominion. over the risen reigning and returning Lord Jesus Christ. This means that the covenant, excuse me, this means that the new covenant in his once shed blood with a true believer can never be broken. Jesus is returning to present to himself his glorified bride, the glorified bride Jesus died to redeem and save for himself from every tribe, people, language, and tongue throughout time. A true believer's sinful acts of spiritual adultery against the Lord will lead to a grieving of the spirit and a sense of the loss of fellowship with him, even his chastening hand, but it will not sever the covenant bond he made with his church. when he purchased his bride on the cross. And this is why Jesus gives the reason for what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 to 4 as hardness of heart. See Matthew 19.8 in Mark 10 verse 5. A believer commits spiritual fornications prior to being joined to Christ by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and to his shame he commits spiritual adulteries after he has been bound to the Lord Jesus Christ. But a true believer's fornications prior to his regeneration and his adulteries afterward do not cause Jesus to say, I no longer want to be in covenant bond with my bride. A believer's fornications prior to being united with Jesus, Christ did not stop him from purchasing him or her, and a believer's adulteries after regeneration will not cause him to divorce his bride. He keeps his word even when it hurts. When is his church going to teach the same thing for those who profess to be part of his body? 7. Desertion is not a reason for divorce and adulterous remarriage. In light of all that has been shown above, Paul is not giving another reason for divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7 verse 15. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God hath called us to peace. by an unbeliever does not break the covenant bond marriage created by God, and therefore is not grounds for divorce and remarriage, regardless of what the Westminster Confession of Faith or any confession says on this subject. Confessions are not infallible. If they contradict the Bible, they are wrong, regardless of how popular they are. Paul is not giving a new reason for divorce and remarriage. in 1 Corinthians 7 15. He is telling the believing partner that they are not in bondage or a slave needing to do all the non-believer demands to keep them from leaving. They are to let the unbeliever go and be at peace knowing that the unbeliever's sinful demands and subsequent leaving was not their fault. But he or she is to remain unmarried with the hope that their sinning mate will repent and be reconciled with their sinned against husband or wife. For the unbeliever's desertion does not break the covenant bond marriage. This is seen by verse 16 of 1 Corinthians 7. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save, emphasis thy husband, on emphasis? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save, emphasis thy wife, on emphasis? Paul could not refer to the deserting husband or wife as the deserted partner's husband or wife if their desertion dissolved the marriage bond created by God. It doesn't. And the very fact that Paul tells the believer that he or she is not to divorce their unbelieving, deserting mate clearly shows that the marriage of unbelievers are marriages in God's eyes. 1 Corinthians 7 verses 10 and 11, And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband. But, and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. and let not the husband put away his wife." Plus, bondage in verse 15 and bound in verse 39 are translations of two different Greek words and mean two different things. The fact that the New International Version and sadly many more incorrect English almost Bibles translate both words as bound shows how dangerous modern quote translations unquote can be. People who use the New International Version and similar dangerous faulty translations of verse 15 as justification for their belief that they are no longer bound to their covenant bond husband or wife if deserted by their unbelieving husband or wife or basing this dangerous false idea on a grievous incorrect translation of one word in the Bible. One word in the Bible, the Word of God. A believer is not under bondage, as I said, to do all the non-believer wants, to keep him or her from leaving. For if their unbelieving mate deserts a believer, he or she is still in a covenant bond marriage with them until their physical death. Where is the willingness to forgive and the hope for reconciliation if the sinful path of adulterous remarriage is taken? Are you showing sacrificial love and pursuing? Such a course of action? Are you denying self and taking up your cross because of the teaching of Jesus on this subject by such an action? Has your mate become your enemy because he or she has deserted you? What are believers to do with their enemies? They are to love them. Is divorce and remarriage an expression of love towards a sinning covenant bond marriage mate who has deserted you? 8. CELIBACY FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN'S SAKE Sinful man may look upon a covenant-bond marriage as a contract easily entered into and just as easily broken. But God does not. And it is time that the Church affirmed God's position as well. But some may say that such teaching is cruel and harsh and does not take into account the fact that those who have entered into the covenant of marriage obviously do not have the gift of celibacy. Does not Paul say in 1 Corinthians 7, 2, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband? And in verse 9, But if they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. Yes, he does. But he is referring to those who have never been married, that is, to virgins and also to widows. 1 Corinthians 7 verse 8. I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. For in verse 11 of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly teaches, what those who have been divorced or deserted are to do. But, and if she depart, emphasis, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, unemphasis, and let not the husband put away his wife. The reason for this is because only physical death breaks the covenant bond marriage." 1 Corinthians 7 verse 39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. But if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. There is no denying that the sinful actions of others may put a person in very difficult circumstances. But the fact that the sinful actions of another may put a person into the difficult situation of celibacy does not justify committing the sin of adultery to solve this difficulty. This is the very point that Jesus makes in addressing the response of his shock disciples to his teaching in Matthew 19 10 to 12 as explained above. I may need to become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake because of the sin of my covenant bond husband or wife. But all of us in varying degrees have had to face trials and difficulties due to the sins of others and living in a fallen world. If a covenant bond husband or wife is paralyzed after marriage, does their inability to render to their covenant bond husband or wife that due affection permit the non-paralyzed partner to divorce them so that they can marry someone who can? The consequences of the fault or the sinful actions of others do not give us the right to break our vow. quote, for better, for worse, unquote. Does the fact that a married man whose wife has just given birth and is prevented from sexual relations for a number of weeks mean that he is to engage in immoral activity because he does not have the gift of celibacy? Does the Bible not teach the sanctification of self-discipline in the era of sexual activity? 1 Thessalonians 4 verses 3 to 5, For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication. And every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God. What about those couples who are separated due to persecution or war? Do these realities, due to the sin of men, justify the quote Dear John unquote letters that are sent out? In the area of marriage, the church no longer believes in the truth of sanctified suffering and loss due to the sin of others. Nor does it believe in the possibility of repentance and reconciliation. It pays its lip service, but does not really believe it with respect to the sin of adultery. Because if it did, those who were sinned against because of it would not be so quickly willing to consider the marriage covenant no longer there, so they could enter into adulterous remarriages. How long is the sinned against husband or wife to pray and hope for true repentance and reconciliation? It is till their sinning mate repents and forsakes his or her sin of adultery, including the sin of adulterous remarriage, not until the sinned against husband or wife finds someone new. For the sin of adultery, be it with or without adulterous remarriage by a covenant bond husband or wife, does not justify or allow these same sins to be committed by the one they are still in covenant bond with. Conclusion The above has been my attempt to explain my position on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and why I no longer believe the popular but biblically unsound teachings held by those in the majority of the Church today. I believe my position has the support of the Scriptures and is a right dividing of them, or I would not have written what I have written. May the Lord help you to be Berean. Acts 17 verse 11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so.