(We are grateful for this material by Olan Hicks, provided here with permission.)

   Why not let 1 Cor. 7:28 say what it says? What is the motive for changing it? Whatever the reason, textual facts are being denied, even by some brethren.

   THE ARGUMENT USED TO CHANGE IT: Because Paul spoke of “virgins” in verse 25, these men are saying he is still speaking of virgins in verse 28. But think. How do we know he spoke of virgins in verse 25? Because “parthenos,” the Greek word for virgins, is in the verse. In other words, that is what he said. But in verse 27 “parthenos” is not in the verse. Paul did not speak of virgins there. He said “dedetai gunaiki,” a Greek phrase meaning “bound to a wife.” One who is bound to a wife would not be a virgin. So we know that in verse 27 Paul spoke of a married man because he said so.

   The TNIV has it meaning betrothed and that simply is not what it says. The Greek word for betrothed is “mnestuo.” That word is not in this verse. “Virgins” is not there and “betrothed” is not there. The passage does not speak of virgins and it does not speak of engagement. It says what it means, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a divorce.” Like it or not, that is what the Greek text says.

   Then at verse 28 they continue the nonsense by reading it “Are you free from such a commitment?” meaning “Are you not engaged?” It isn’t there. How do we know Paul spoke of virgins in verse 25? Because he said so. We know he spoke of married men in verse 27 the same say, because he said so. In the same way we know that he spoke of a divorced man in verse 28 because he said so.

   The verb is “lelusai,” perfect, passive of “lusin,” derived from “luo.” This is the word in Mat. 19:9 which is translated “put away” or in most versions,  “divorced.” If it means that in Mat. 19:9, why does it not mean that here? In fact the NIV translates a form of the same word  ”divorce” in verse 27. A form of the same word starts verse 28 and there they translate it “Are you unmarried?” There is no way to justify that.

   It is a fact, this scripture says that a man who has been divorced by his wife does not sin if he marries. Of course he doesn’t. He is a single man. Jesus said that “adultery” is a wrong committed “against her,” the wife put away. This man has no wife to sin against. She divorced him in the past. This is a passive voice verb, meaning that she divorced him, not the other way around. If you can’t let the Bible say what it says here, maybe you should ask yourself why?

   The Catholic doctrine of marriage as a “sacrament” is what is behind the distortion of this passage. That came down to us from the Council of Trent, issued in the middle of the 16th century. They declared marriage to be the 7th sacrament and as such that it is unbreakable by anything but death. They had good intentions. They said it was their intention “to curb the abuse of marriage.” But the problem is they chose to try to do that in a human way, not in God’s appointed way. God placed marriage as a protector against immorality. (1 Cor. 7:2, vs. 5 and vs.9) Celibacy is never prescribed in scripture as a way to accomplish that.

   To better understand how serious it is to forbid marriage to divorced people read 1 Timothy 4:1-3 about the apostasy Paul predicted would happen in the latter times. The first feature of it is “forbidding to marry.”(vs.3) He said there that it is a departure from the faith and a giving of heed to the doctrine of demons. Therefore I would urge you to think about the fact that one who forbids marriage is obeying the devil and rejecting God’s orders “Let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Cor. 7:9) That is serious business. Think about it.

(We are grateful for this material by Olan Hicks, provided here with permission.)

   In Matthew 19, verses 3-12, Jesus stated several facts clearly. First He said that marriage is of God, that it is to be a “one flesh” relationship, and that man must not put it asunder. The Pharisees, evidently thinking this was an inconsistency, asked “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and put her away?” (vs. 7) Jesus replied, “For the hardness of your hearts Moses suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” Looking back at what Moses said in Deut. 24:1-3 we find that what was commanded there was the paper work, the “bill of divorce,” in a case where a wife was being put away. It was not a command to put her away but rather a command that in the event you were putting her away you must give her the written release or bill of divorcement. The “hardness of heart” or cruelty, consisted in putting her away without the formal release. As Josephus said, “without the bill of divorcement she was not permitted so to do.” (Marry another)

   In the Pharisees’ logic this seemed to imply an approval of marriage breaking. But at verse 8 Jesus said that from the beginning it was “not so,” i.e. not God’s will that marriages break up. Then He said that when a man does put away his wife and she is not guilty of fornication, and marries another, he “commits adultery.” This is not a present infinitive verb. It does not denote an ongoing, continuous action. It is present indicative. It points to an action that happens, as the text says, when he puts away one and marries another, two punctiliar actions, not later in the sexual cohabitation in another marriage.

   Thus the first thing we need to do is identify what the sin is according to what the text says, not according to human theory. The words of Jesus are clear on this. The sin occurs when two things are done, (1) the man puts away his innocent wife and (2) marries another. In Mark 10:11 Jesus clarified this matter further. He said that the man who does this “commits adultery against her,” i.e.the wife put away. The adultery then is against the first wife, not with the second wife.  It is a betrayal of his vows and obligations to the original wife. This fact is not altered one way or the other by what he does after that, whether he marries again or not. The fact is he has committed a sin against the wife and in so doing has violated the will of God.

   One significant thing is not in the Biblical text. As Foy Wallace Jr. pointed out, Jesus did not “legislate a disciplinary procedure.” (Sermon on the Mt. & the civil state, pg. 41) The Lord said it is a sin but He did not specify the penalty, what must be done about it. Wallace said, “We cannot make one without human legislation.”

   This is exactly what did happen in later years, human legislation prescribed the penalty. The Council of Trent (middle 16th century) had good intentions. They said their intention was “to curb the abuse of marriage.” That is a good thing. But the problem is they chose to do it according to their traditional human theories, not according to Bible prescriptions. Their theology was traditional Catholic teaching so the “sacrament” theory of marriage was their basic view point. Reasoning on the basis of that premise their interpretation of this text changes “do not” to “cannot.” They believed that marriage, as a sacrament, is not breakable until death. The resulting conclusion of their logic is that the divorced and remarried man is not living with the one who is still his wife in God’s sight and is living with a woman who is not his wife in God’s sight. They put the label “adultery” there.

   As you can see, this line of reasoning also causes them to move the sin from the two acts of putting away and marrying another to the sexual activity in the subsequent marriage. They set aside the specification Jesus gave, that unscriptural divorce and remarriage is adultery, and declare that “adultery is a sex act.” And so it is that from this source, the human theories of the council of Trent,  we have what is called “the traditional view” on divorce and remarriage, i.e. that sinfully divorced people lose their “eligibility” to participate in marriage.

   This theory not only damages lives by requiring people to live an abnormal life, (without a mate) it also brings them into conflict with another very serious premise in scripture, in which the perpetrators may be jeopardizing their own souls. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 the apostle says that the Spirit predicts a falling away in the last times when men will depart from the faith and give heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. The first feature of it (in verse 3) is “forbidding to marry.” Again here they have good intentions, they want people not to “live in adultery.” But like the Council of Trent, they lose sight of what God has said about the matter. God states very clearly that He does not want marriage forbidden, He wants it practiced. Marriage is God’s appointed way of preventing “immorality.” (1 Cor. 7:2) “Let them marry, for it is better to marry then to burn.” (Vs. 9) Thus it is not surprising that this passage would say of those who forbid marriage that they  “depart from the faith.”

   So if we strip away the human theories, even though well intentioned, what we have left is the fact of a sin and a need to apply the Bible way of dealing with sin. Repentance, of course, is the Biblical way. If we have been doing something that is contrary to God’s will, such as breaking marriage, we must stop doing that and start doing what is according to God’s will. In this matter the will of God is one man married to one woman, and both are committed to that for life. Whether it is now the first marriage or the third or fourth or what, the prescription is the same, one man for one woman for life. Change your practice. Stop being unfaithful in marriage and start being faithful in marriage. Forgiveness of the past is available in the blood of Jesus.

(We are grateful for this material by Olan Hicks, provided here with permission.)

   1 Timothy 4:1-3  One of the strongest condemnations found anywhere in scripture is here in what this passage says about the doctrine of forbidding marriage. Please note that it comes from God. This is not a personal opinion on my part. The inspired apostle Paul says here that the Spirit ( Spirit of God) expressly predicted that in latter times some brethren would do five things. 1. depart from the faith, 2. give heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 3. speak lies in hypocrisy, 4. have a seared conscience, and 5. forbid people to marry and command to abstain from foods. This is strong language. Yet most people have never realized how evil this particular doctrine is. Consider now the evil deeds this text says are done by people who forbid marriage.

   1. First it says they “depart from the faith.” This is to turn from what God’s word says. When they say that divorced people cannot be married again they do this. I don’t say it is intentional but the first mistake in today’s version of this departure is to revise the statement of Jesus in Mat. 19:6. They depart from it. Whereas Jesus said, “What God has joined together let not man put asunder,” these brethren say, “What God has joined together man cannot put asunder.” Thus they conclude that divorced persons are still married “in the eyes of God.” The command “Do not” is changed to “cannot,” and becomes a declaration of impossibility. Upon that step a pyramid of error is built which ends up literally departing from the faith, the Biblical concept, on this whole subject.  It ends up denying virtually every passage on the subject throughout the New Testament.

   2. The second thing it says they do is they “Give heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.” Are demons involved in this? How is Satan behind this? Why would he want marriage eliminated from anyone’s life? In 1 Corintians 7 Paul said three times in the first 9 verses that marriage is God’s appointed way for us to avoid sexual immorality. Satan does not want that avoided, he wants it practiced. Of course then, since marriage is a deterrent to immorality, Satan wants it deleted. Thus two opposite sides are in this picture. God is for marriage and against divorce and Satan is for divorce and against Marriage. Those who try to eliminate marriage from someone’s life are on Satan’s side on that part of this equation.

   3. “Speaking lies in hypocrisy.” For a long time I wondered why the Spirit said this. Where is the hypocrisy in the “marriage forbidden” doctrine? If you notice what they write or hear them preach, you will find that every article and every sermon is a tirade about how wrong it is to divorce, as though that were the issue of difference between us. It is not. There is no question it is wrong to break marriage. They pretend to be opposing divorce when the fact is they oppose marriage itself and not divorce at all. A person might be divorced, completely without cause, and upon repentance, he will be acceptable to them while he remains divorced. But if he marries, then he will be disfellowshiped. So it is not divorce that they oppose actually, but marriage itself. Thus it is a pretense. This may be where the hypocrisy is.

   4. “Having their conscience seared as with a hot iron.” I have also wondered about this. Where does a seared conscience fit in the picture of marriage forbidders? Most of them I have talked with seem to have little or no feeling for the cruelty that the marriage forbidden decree imposes. I have seen them sentence young boys 20 to 25 years of age, to life long celibacy and seem not to mind doing that at all. When the disciples suggested “It is better not to marry” Jesus said, “Not all can receive that saying,” Mat. 19:11. Paul said the same thing, that some have the gift of celibacy and some do not. For those who do not he said, “Let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Cor. 7:8-9) Surely anyone who can give some thought to the fact that eliminating marriage is setting aside our defense against immorality, and to the fact that doing so places a normal person in a condition of burning, and yet can exert force to demand this of a fellow human being, must have a non-working conscience.

   5. “Forbidding to marry.” At the creation God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helpmeet for him.” (Gen. 2:18) It is remarkable that men could come along thousands of years later and issue an opposite decree, “forbidding to marry.” That command is purely a human assumption. God not only did not give it, He decreed the opposite. Men have tried all sorts of maneuverings to try to make God say this but He didn’t. They site Ezra 10. But those people were only forbidden to marry heathen wives. They were not forbidden to marry anyone at all. They site Herod’s case with Herodious. But he was only forbidden to have his brother’s wife. He was not  told he could have no wife at all. No one in scripture was ever told that he was “ineligible to marry.” It is as Foy Wallace Jr. said, Jesus did not prescribe that sentence as the punishment for marriage breaking and preachers who do so are ascending the judge’s bench. (Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State, pg. 41-42)

   Opposing divorce is right. God said He hates that. But to make divorce a second unpardonable sin with life long celibacy as the punishment is from human tradition, not divine tradition. It is a more evil thing than most folks realize, even though those who do it usually mean well. When you think about the fact that it is first a departure from the faith, that is bad enough in itself.  And second, the Bible says it is a doctrine authored by Satan. It serves his purposes. How can that be acceptable? Thirdly it is imbedded in an attitude of hypocrisy, pretending to be what you aren’t. And beyond that it takes a person of unfeeling conscience to swallow it, and fifthly it is opposite to what God decreed from the very first.

   Let’s continue to follow the Biblical instructions to oppose all sin, including marriage breaking. But let’s not oppose an appointment of God in the process. let’s apply the teachings of the Bible to the handling of every sin, including this one. Remember Satan can make something that is very wrong appear to be very right.

(We are grateful for this material by Olan Hicks, provided here with permission.)

   Origin of the word: The English language did not have this word until the 16th century. Its Latin root was first put into the Bible text in the 4th century. When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, called the Vulgate version, he used the Latin word “adulterium” to translate the Greek word “moichatai” in the divorce passages. There is no etymology connecting these two words. They do not mean the same.

   Our English dictionary, in defiing the word “adultery,” says first that it is derived from the Latin word “adulterium,” which, it says, means “to adulterate.” It then defines “adulterate” as meaning “to corrupt, falsify, or add  extraneous ingredients.” Then, without explaining why, it gives as the number one definition, “To have unlawful sexual intercourse with the spouse of another.” If the word “adultery” comes from a word that means “to falsify or corrupt,” from whence comes the sexual definition? No explanation is given and no etymology is cited. The Greek lexicons do the same. They take the sexual definition and feed it back into a definition of the Greek word “moichatai,” while giving no etymology.

   The word enters the English language. No form of this word was in English translations of scripture until the Geneva Bible in 1570. Two English translations before the Geneva Bible were made by Wycliffe (1384) and Tyndale in 1535. Both ignored Jerome’s rendering and translated “moichatai” as “breaketh wedlock.” Although Wycliffe translated  from the Vulgate version he did not accept “adulterium” nor its cognates as a rendering of “moichatai.” Tyndale worked directly from the Greek text. He also saw “moichatai,” as it applies to marriage, as meaning to break wedlock.

   Apparent bias. Jerome was a Catholic theologian. Putting this word in the text accommodated Catholic theology. It placed into the Bible an element of support for their “sacrament” theory of marriage. Catholic theology and the Vulgate version strongly influenced developments that occurred in following centuries. The vulgate version became the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church. In the middle of the 16th century the Council of Trent pronounced it “authentic,” the official Bible to be used in all liturgical activities of the church. The English Church was an outgrowth of Catholicism and it retained many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Considering the word “adultery” as meaning a sex act gives support to the Catholic idea that the church is the determiner of who is eligible to marry and who is not.

   The Geneva Bible translators were from England. They made their translation in 1560 and presented it to the queen in 1570. They brought the word “adulterium” over from the Vulgate version and coined the word “adultery” for their translation. This created a new word and for the first time the sexual idea was put into an English Bible as a translation of “moichatai” in the divorce passages. 41 years later (1611) the King James version, also made in England, placed the word “adultery” in these passages. Virtually all translations since that time have continued to follow that course.

   To find out the real meaning of the Greek word in the text one has to check out its usage in the Bible. Doing that reveals a lot. We find that this word is applied to a number of different kinds of action. In the divorce passages (Mat. 19:9, luke 16:18 etc.) it refers to two acts of unfaithfulness, neither of which is a sex act, putting away a faithful wife and marrying another. In several passages it refers to idolatry. (Jeremiah 3:8, Vs. 9 “with stones and trees”). Thayer cites Revelation 2:22 as a case in which a form of this word refers to those who “at a woman’s solicitation are drawn away to idolatry.” He also recognizes one of its meanings as “to falsify, to corrupt,” which agrees with the dictionary definition of “adulterate.” He even says one of its meanings is “to usurp unlawful control over the sea.” (Lexicon, pg.417) In James 4:4 it is applied to “friendship with the world.” In Mat. 12:39 it is applied to seeking after a sign.

   One thing is consistently there. These are a variety of different acts but one ingredient is common to them all, unfaithfulness or betrayal. In Malachi 2:14 God said that He had been a “witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously.” At verse 16 He said that what the Lord hates is “putting away.” Jesus applied the same idea in Mark 10:11, “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery (moichatai) against her.” So betrayal or unfaithfulness is its basic meaning. It can be committed in different ways but the definition of the word is unfaithulness, whether against God or against a mate, or anyone to whom we owe commitment. To restrict its meaning to one kind of action, such as a sex act, or idolatry, is wrong and gives support to some of man’s worst errors.